Chapter 2- Review aurhtu marwick

Chapter Review
Chapter 2 of the book ‘The new nature of history-Knowledge, Evidence, Language’ by
Arthur Marwik deals with the distinction of the usage Of term Past and History, and the
work of historians on Writing history and importantly how to write history. Arthur
Marwik's in this book alleged historians of not telling the exact way of writing history, and
those who did try to explain only did it in a vague manner which does not fulfill its motive
as Marwick mentions it. So, Marwik tries to answer the meaning of History and its
nature. The various elements like providing knowledge about the past, understanding
the Evidence as in primary and secondary and its use in shaping of an argument and
most importantly the language of the primary source which is the work of a professional
known as philologist and palaeologist. They try to extract every word with its true
meaning that leaves no space for mistakes. With these variations in terminology he sets
out to explain in the chapter 2 of the book named as - ‘History: Essential knowledge
about the Past’ about the literary meaning of Past & History by arguing about its
interchangeability, the role of historians in assessing past and commenting on their
theories. The chapters give a detailed account of the sources: primary and secondary
and the role of historians in analyzing these sources to rationalize the understanding of
the past by eradicating myths and focusing on the actual events. The chapter is divided
into 3 parts- first part set to take us to the journey of Past with history with the
assessment of sources and the importance of historiography. The second part provides
insight into history as a discourse and its relevance in the present world. The author
compares the importance and relevance of the discipline of history and its study with the
discipline of Science. Marwick emphasizes that, unlike scientists who can conduct
controlled experiments in laboratories, historians cannot recreate past events to
observe outcomes. This inherent limitation means that history does not operate under
general laws or overarching theories in the same way that sciences often do.
Consequently, history lacks the predictive power characteristic of scientific disciplines.
The last part explains the theories of history like the auteur theory and the question of
Subjectivity, Collingwoods Relativism. Let's analyze these parts in detail.

1st part- The Past, Primary and Secondary Sources, Defining History and
Historiography
The past, as marwick puts it, is a culmination of the past of human societies, events,
war, socio-cultural-political and economic reforms and changes. What we are today is
shaped by past events. He cites many examples of past memories in terms of photos,
diary, letters, etc which helps us to reconstruct the memory to a fuller extent, but when a
person tries to explain a wider range of events with the provided sources gives birth to
history. ‘History’ as a term has a rather wider base which includes every aspect of a
given event. Though historians often use both the terms interchangeably but on a closer
look, Marwick distinguishes them.
The past is often mixed with myths due to a misinterpretation of a source or the passing
of a memory of an event from generation to generation affects the credibility. For that
reason the sources are needed to rectify the theories. The sources divided into Primary-
original documents or artifacts from the period under study—serve as the foundational
"raw material" for historians. Marwick mentions that while secondary sources provide
valuable context and interpretations, they are built upon the evidence gleaned from
primary materials. The credibility of a historian is to explain his statement, unlike a
novelist (he cites the example of L.P Hartley) who just writes a particular thing without
much thinking. Writing history is not an easy job because historians have to go through
many primary sources which are either scarce or fragmented, due to which it poses a
difficulty in reading them, also they contain many nuances material which historians
have to refine by corroborating, qualification, and correction. Primary sources can
contain books written in the contemporary period regarding law, trade, rituals, events
etc., that help the historian to delve deeper into the realm of primary sources, so do the
secondary sources which are either articles Published in journals or the textbook that
provides the comprehensive history of a particular time. So, secondary sources can be
said as a link to join the primary sources and public by providing a particular idea for its
interpretation but, if people start reading primary sources it will give them a more vivid
understanding of the past societies as Marwik argues. At times, Primary sources act as
secondary sources. Going further, Marwik explain the meaning of an Archive, he says “
archive is a broader term, though its is used to refer to a place where people can find
primary sources, but every organization has its personal Archives for example a
company will have its business Archives, where the important Documents are kept
carefully. So, it is important to understand the terminology. He says primary sources are
an invincible sources and if they can be translated and and edited they can also be
used in teaching and learning history.
Marwick, defines historians as a “History is a human activity carried out by an organised
corps of fallible human beings, acting, however, in accordance with strict methods and
principles, empowered to make choices in the language they use (as between the
precise and the imprecise, for example), that 'corps of fallible human beings' being
known as historians.” to Which few historians like Alun Munslow criticized by saying
Marwik overlooks the interpretative nature of history. Historians shape the primary
source by giving it a perspective by selecting the sources which suits its interpretation.
Similar to what Hayden White mentions, Marwiks comparison of Science with history
has left the narrative nature of history far behind and Marwik has failed to acknowledge
the philosophical question surrounding the historical knowledge.
Marwik focuses on the importance of the precise figures in the graphical or tabular
format that provides the accurate detail about the past events, he gives examples- like
the statement- the land under cultivation increased etc. For which statistical data gives a
better understanding but, he also mentions that it is not always easy to find the data
unlike sciences which can be proved by mathematical equations that forms laws,
theories, though theory is an inevitable part of history but it is not same with Science
when compared in this particular sense. Historians should not work limit themselves to
the preconceived notions it will limit their understanding of the past and when working
on the past the historian has to be very careful as he bears the responsibility to uncover
the sheth of dust from the past cultures and if being historian mean just knowing the
past it will account for nothing because the knowing of past cane be from a movie also
which people pay no attention to. Marwik mentions that “history is knowledge of past
which historians produce; they do not reconstruct or construct it. History as words, as
Marwik presents, Can be used in various sense which dosen not provide the meaning
which refer to past as, a patient does have history of their medical records or colleges
have History Society, so one needs to be very careful in using the term history and past.
No distinction can be made to refrain from using history as the work of a historian is
known as history writing. So it must be used carefully.

2nd part- The Importance of History.

Why should one learn history? This Question is answered by Marwick, as he explains a
world without history as an individual without his/her memory. He says history is not like
a memory because memory is personal and calling history as a collective memory will
be too dubious. He mentions history as “It is only through a sense of history that
communities establish their identity, orientate themselves, understand their relationship
to the past and to other communities and societies.” The history is needed for building
the country, its culture, tradition and giving the citizens a feeling to bind them to their
nation and be proud of their identity. Every developed nation has archives, libraries, and
professional historians, all funded by taxpayers. History is found at every place and is
connected with every event, Marwick highlights how historical knowledge helps nations
understand their own evolution, traditions, and political systems. Without such
understanding, societies would be like ships lost at sea, navigating without a compass.
History plays an important role in contemporary decision making. He argues that while
historical knowledge does not provide simple solutions to modern problems, it is
essential for engaging with complex issues but it does help in rectifying the myths and
present a more pure version of what happened.
This emphasis on empirical analysis leads him to criticize what he calls “a priori
theories” in historical writing. He warns against historians who begin with a theoretical
framework and then selectively interpret evidence to fit their argument. Instead, he
advocates for an open-minded approach where conclusions are drawn from the
evidence rather than imposed on it.
The history as explained by Marc Ferro, as highly influenced by the political needs of
the empire, or of a state as we often see the type of works produced at atimes are
selected or rejected for wider reading on the basis of the ideology of the Government in
power which often propagated myths. Due to which many many conflicts arise in a
country and continue to arise until these histories are written properly. As without true
History one denies true identity.
The monuments play a important part that something did existed which are now been
visited by tourist who are Facinated by the glory of their past tend to look forward to
read and know more about their past. Many historian gave their statement In support of
necessities of history. Gustav Renier believed that feelings for the past were akin to
instincts aroused on those autumnal days when there is wood smoke on the air and a
strange disordered nostalgia pervades the mind. Furthermore, Marwick challenges the
notion that history is purely subjective or merely a matter of perspective. While different
historians may interpret events in various ways, he argues that some interpretations are
more valid than others based on the strength of the evidence. This reinforces his belief
that history is a disciplined form of inquiry rather than a collection of opinions. History
trains the scholars to identify, interpreting and evaluating the primary and secondary
sources, history is result of a historians researchers, knowledge, evaluation of sources.
Marwik potrays his theory in a chart form where The Past Which gives rise to Myths and
also generate sources, to which historians evaluate and rectify Myths By providing the
knowledge about the past.

3rd part
The auteur theory
The idea of the historian as an auteur—a term borrowed from film criticism that denotes
an individual creator who leaves a distinct imprint on their work. By applying this
concept to historians, Marwick argues that while history is based on evidence and
research, the historian’s personal approach, perspective, and choices play a significant
role in shaping historical writinghistorians, like auteurs, do not merely compile facts but
actively shape narratives through their interpretations. Marwjk explain this theory by
citing Peter Geyl and his work The Debates with Historians(1955) and The
Napoleon-For and Against(1949). Each historian brings their unique perspective to the
study of history, influenced by their cultural background, ideological leanings, and
methodological preferences. Even when working with the same sources, different
historians may emphasize different aspects of a historical event, leading to variations in
interpretation.historians inevitably shape their narratives, they are bound by evidence
and must adhere to rigorous scholarly standards. Unlike novelists, who have creative
freedom, historians must construct their narratives based on verifiable sources.
Marwick’s concept of the historian as an auteur thus highlights the tension between
individual interpretation and objective scholarship.Marwick critiques historians who
impose ideological frameworks onto history, shaping evidence to fit pre-existing
theories. He warns against what he calls a priori theorizing—starting with a conclusion
and selectively using evidence to support it. Instead, he advocates for a method where
conclusions emerge from a careful and unbiased examination of sources. He stresses
that while the historian’s role as an auteur is inevitable, it must not lead to distortion or
manipulation of the past. He notes that historians must organize their material, craft
compelling narratives, and construct coherent explanations of past events. This process
involves selection, emphasis, and interpretation—much like a filmmaker deciding how to
tell a story. However, he insists that this creativity should not compromise historical
integrity. Unlike artists, who are free to invent, historians must remain committed to
factual accuracy. Marwick thus presents historical writing as both an analytical and an
imaginative discipline—requiring rigorous research alongside narrative skill.

Relativism theory that, R G Collingwood, challenges the possibility of objective historical

knowledge.suggests that historical interpretations are inherently shaped by the
historian’s background, biases, and the cultural context in which they work. Marwick
critically examines this perspective, acknowledging the influence of subjectivity while
defending the idea that history remains a rigorous, evidence-based discipline.Relativists
argue that historical narratives are constructed based on the historian’s social, cultural,
and political background, making objectivity impossible. This perspective often stems
from postmodernist thought, which questions whether any historical truth can be
established outside of human interpretation.Marwick warns against taking relativism to
its extreme. While acknowledging that historians inevitably bring their perspectives into
their work, he argues that this does not mean history is purely subjective or without
factual basis. He insists that history, when practiced correctly, relies on evidence, logic,
and disciplined analysis to arrive at truthful conclusions about the past.Marwick
proposes a balanced approach that recognizes the influence of perspective in history
while defending the possibility of objective knowledge. Collingwood mention the quote -”
all history is contemporary history” to which Marwik says that distincyion between
history and past is not established and the history is the re-enactment of past in
historians own mind. He outlines several key points to support this view thaf Historical
Facts Exist – While interpretations may vary, the basic facts of history are not
subjective. Events happened, and evidence from primary sources can confirm their
occurrence. For example, the outbreak of World War II in 1939 is a historical fact,
though different historians may interpret the causes differently. Critical Analysis
Minimizes Bias – Good historians acknowledge their biases and work to minimize their
influence through careful analysis and peer review. By cross-referencing sources,
historians can assess the reliability of their interpretations and strive for accuracy.Not All
Interpretations Are Equal – Marwick rejects the idea that all historical narratives are
equally valid. He argues that some interpretations are based on stronger evidence and
better reasoning, making them more credible than others. For instance, the claim that
the Holocaust never happened is not a legitimate historical interpretation but a distortion
of reality. By maintaining this balance, Marwick ensures that history remains a discipline
grounded in empirical research while acknowledging the complexities of interpretation.

The Subjectivity question-

The subjectivity question in history refers to the extent to which personal viewpoints,
assumptions, and biases influence the historian’s work. Since historians are individuals
shaped by their own historical and cultural backgrounds, some scholars argue that
complete objectivity in historical writing is impossible. Instead, every historical account
reflects, to some degree, the perspective of the historian who produces it.
Marwick acknowledges that subjectivity is an inherent part of historical study. No
historian can entirely detach themselves from their background, values, and intellectual
influences. However, he strongly argues against the idea that history is purely subjective
or that historical knowledge is entirely shaped by personal bias.He insists that history
remains an empirical discipline grounded in evidence, and that while complete neutrality
may be unattainable, rigorous methodology can ensure that historical research remains
objective and reliable.Marwick argues that while interpretations may vary, historical facts
themselves are objective realities. Events such as wars, revolutions, and political
changes happened, and they leave behind evidence in the form of documents, artifacts,
and testimonies. While historians may debate the causes, significance, or
consequences of an event, the event itself remains a fact. For example, World War II
undeniably began in 1939, regardless of how different historians may analyze its
origins.historians use critical analysis, source evaluation, and peer review to minimize
personal bias. By comparing multiple sources, questioning the reliability of evidence,
and engaging in scholarly debate, historians can ensure that their interpretations are
based on facts rather than personal opinions.One of Marwick’s strongest arguments is
that while subjectivity exists, this does not mean that all interpretations are equally valid.
Some historical accounts are based on solid evidence and careful reasoning, while
others are influenced by ideological distortion, misinformation, or political agendas.
He warns against historical revisionism that distorts facts for ideological purposes, such
as Holocaust denial or propaganda-driven histories.While complete neutrality may be
impossible, Marwick insists that objective history is not a myth.
He argues that historians, through honest scholarship and methodological rigor, can
produce balanced and accurate accounts of the past. The goal of historical writing
should not be absolute objectivity but fairness, accuracy, and critical engagement with
evidence.

Conclusion
According to Marwik history as a discipline is very wide so, the terminology should be
used very wisely, past and history are meant differently. And they can only be
interpreted by precise evaluation of sources both primary and secondary. The historian
should have skills to analyze, interpret and explain the topic on which he is working in
order to present a more sophisticated knowledge of past. As Science, history also
portray theories, events, unfold details but is unable to prove a point aptly as Science
does by using Mathematical equations. History is mixed with myths pertaining from the
general understanding of the past to general public, this is where a historians work
become more pronounced to eradicate myths. Marwik also mentions the importance of
history in the society which shapes it. The political border, Social aspect, economic
perspective and cultural outlook of a country is shaped by its past which is a
continuation of events that led us to what we are today and gives a glimpse of what we
can be tomorrow, by our actions. The history should be free from biases any political or
even from the historians interpretation biases which are according to their ideology, and
asks people to read directly from the primary sources which gives a vivid description of
the event but the language of the source should be taken care, as Archives provide a
translated version. Marwik mentions that history should not be written with auteur
perspective as their is always scope for having a more refined history coming from
different scholars. Marwik criticizes the extreme Relativism as it destroys the very
concept of ‘knowledge of the past’ and will become study if narratives. So, In order to
provide basic understanding a balance between subjectivity and objectivity has to be
maintained without which history cannot survive.