Inga Clendinnen On The Purpose Of Extension History
Extension History practise essay
Compare and contrast Inga Clendinnen’s interpretation of the purpose of history with the views of at least two other historians you have studied. Make a judgement about the value of these viewpoints
Clendinnen’s viewpoint on the purpose of history is that history without the reconstruction of mistaken convictions is not true history. Her viewpoints agree with Von Ranke and Bede and disagree with Post Modernism and more closely E.H Carr.
Clendinnen believes that “humans learn from experience” which also agree’s with the history of Bede. Bede’s histories were didactic therefore also selective with the information that was published. Clendinnen also believes that “it’s the historians job to unscramble what happened from what the myth-makers were up to, not play at myth making too” this is also consistent with Bede’s histories as his work is very detailed with no “entertaining add ons” …show more content…
Clendinnen states that ‘only by constructing the fog of mistaken convictions, through which people in other times battled in the direction they hoped was forward. Can we hope to dispel the mists which obscure our own vision’ this ties Von Ranke’s idea of history in to Clendinnen’s viewpoint of history by which both agree that the facts of history no matter how unattractive they may be must be noted and recognised otherwise only half of the history is being recorded and the reader of the history will never fully understand how the final outcome turned out the way it
Compare and contrast Inga Clendinnen’s interpretation of the purpose of history with the views of at least two other historians you have studied. Make a judgement about the value of these viewpoints
Clendinnen’s viewpoint on the purpose of history is that history without the reconstruction of mistaken convictions is not true history. Her viewpoints agree with Von Ranke and Bede and disagree with Post Modernism and more closely E.H Carr.
Clendinnen believes that “humans learn from experience” which also agree’s with the history of Bede. Bede’s histories were didactic therefore also selective with the information that was published. Clendinnen also believes that “it’s the historians job to unscramble what happened from what the myth-makers were up to, not play at myth making too” this is also consistent with Bede’s histories as his work is very detailed with no “entertaining add ons” …show more content…
Clendinnen states that ‘only by constructing the fog of mistaken convictions, through which people in other times battled in the direction they hoped was forward. Can we hope to dispel the mists which obscure our own vision’ this ties Von Ranke’s idea of history in to Clendinnen’s viewpoint of history by which both agree that the facts of history no matter how unattractive they may be must be noted and recognised otherwise only half of the history is being recorded and the reader of the history will never fully understand how the final outcome turned out the way it