The historian is, by definition, absolutely incapable of observing the facts which he examines.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
We cannot leave history entirely to nonclinical observers and to professional historians.
The historian must have some conception of how men who are not historians behave. Otherwise he will move in a world of the dead. He can only gain that conception through personal experience, and he can only use his personal experiences when he is a genius.
The first qualification for a historian is to have no ability to invent.
You're not a historian, but most historians will tell you that they make very discrete judgment as to what facts to omit in order to make their book into some shape, some length that can be managed.
Man seems to insist on ignoring the lessons available from history.
Writers of historical fiction are not under the same obligation as historians to find evidence for the statements they make. For us it is sufficient if what we say can't be disproved or shown to be false.
The duty of a historian is simply to understand and then convey that understanding, no more than that.
Historical facts are the vital framework around which non-fiction writers construct their narratives; they are, quite simply, indispensable.
The writer may very well serve a movement of history as its mouthpiece, but he cannot of course create it.
What is a historian, anyway? It is someone who uses facts to record the development of humanity.