Issue 48

even207UID: 2998418

48"The study of history （历史研究）places too much emphasis on individuals. The most significant events and trends in history （历史）were made possible not by the famous few, but by groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten."

I agree with the two sentences separately in the reason that the two seem to be against each other while derive their own conclusion based on quite different premises. What if we paraphrase the statement into: history was primarily made by groups of unknown people instead of the minority of famous persons. The study of history seems to pay too much attention on the latter ones. It manifests clearly that the subjects of two sentences are respectively History and The Study of History. The difference between the essence of these two words leads this paradox.

In the first place, we should make a distinction of history and the study of history. History is facilitated by the formation of a 'true discourse of past' through the production of narrative and analysis of past events. It demands objectivity, that is to say the truth doesn’t modify with people’s opinion. In the large sense of history, it is a discipline associated with anything in the past, within or out of human society. In a narrow sense, history appears only after writing was invented, which means it is based on written document and oral account.

The study of history, however, possesses a lot differences from history itself. In the words of Benedetto Croce, "All history is contemporary history", which perfectly illustrates the characteristic feature history study is subjective. Considering from the two aspects of the object of the history study and the historians, there are at least two processes should be experienced. Inevitably, the objectivity would be reduced by such process. Firstly, according to the narrow definition, history is built on the foundation of writing. Thus, the study of history bases on the study of writings while writing is a kind of subjective expression created by individuals. Secondly, it is the historians who study the history. Different people with various social status, ethnic identity and religious background view the same historical event distinctively. For that matter, I agree that when we concern ourselves with the study of history, we become storytellers because we can never know the past directly but must construct it by interpreting evidence, exploring history is more of a creative enterprise than it is an objective pursuit. In that case, historians can devote themselves to rediscover the truth of the event but can never bring reappearance of the whole matter.

Now we can officially discuss the assertions made by the speaker under the analysis above. As for the second one, I agree that the most significant events of history are under the support, and of course the involvement, of the majority. No matter how heroic, courageous and laudable Cromwell was, Bastille wouldn’t be blown down without the solidarity of Paris people. Similarly, the victory of the independence war of America should be credited to numerous soldiers who abandoned their lives on the battlefield. However, according to the analysis above, the study of history has its own limitation which leads historians could only pay more attention on specific individuals. For one reason, this limitation is related to personal capability and private preferences. For another, historians study more on famous people due to more writing documents and accounts were contribute to them. In that way, they emerged from the beginning in the midst of countless people. For instance, the story between Alexander and Diogenes was well spreaded generations by generations. Alexander’s intelligence, chivalrous manner and generosity, together with Diogenes’ wisdom, doggishness and cynicism, glowed through time from time that all the page boys, soldiers, secretaries, officers, diplomats all become vague stage background. Two thousand years later, a student could still learn about the ancient Greek through Alexander and Diogenes, not the page boys and secretaries and a vivid image of the Mediterranean world unwraps before me.

In conclusion, history and the study of history is not quite the same thing. The former one demands objectivity which attracts people to find out the truth of it while the latter one contains the deepest intelligence and profoundest contemplation of human being. Everyone is the creator of history but only the outstanding ones could be recorded in the human history.