For my summer reading I’m attempting to complete “In Defense of History” by Richard J. Evans. More closely related to a summary than original content, Evans attempts to communicate to the reader the current state of historical epistemology or, basically, how do we know things about history. This is an important concept that many, including myself until quite recently, took for granted. “It is simply a matter of reading primary sources”, I used to say. The reality of the situation is that we must deal with world views, intentions and training of the ancient or even modern historian. To be sure, these are only a few of the considerations. The challenge or even difficulty that I’ve stumbled upon is determining what criteria we use to determine if we are “on the right track” with regards to our analysis of events in the past. Restated, how do we know that our analysis is in-sync or a reflection of “what actually happened”? Evans’ book will, hopefully, summarize the various approaches taken by historians of all stripes. In reading the introduction I ran across this rather intriguing quote by Raymond Martin, “When it comes to understand the past, historians are the acknowledged experts. But when it comes to understanding how we understand the past, there are no experts.”

Â