What is History / by Edward Hallett Carr - Universal History Library

WHAT IS HISTORY
directly or indirectly from their actions are still alive, and because, precisely for these
reasons, it is difficult for us to approach them as historians and to divest ourselves of other
capacities which might justify us in passing judgement on their deeds: this is one of the
embarrassments - I should say, the principal embarrassment - of the contemporary
historian. But what profit does anyone find today in denouncing the sins of Charlemagne
or of Napoleon !
Let us therefore reject the notion of the historian as a hanging judge, and turn to the more
difficult but more profitable question of the passing of moral judgements not on
individuals, but on events, institutions, or policies of the past. These are the important
judgements of the historian; and those who insist so fervently on the moral condemnation
of the individual some- times unconsciously provide an alibi for whole groups and
societies. The French historian Lefebvre, seeking to exonerate the French revolution from
responsibility for the disasters and bloodshed of the Napoleonic wars, attributed them to
'the dictatorship of a general ... whose temperament ... could not easily acquiesce in peace
and moderation'. Germans today welcome the denunciation of Hitler's individual
wickedness as a satisfactory alternative to the moral judgement of the historian on the
society which produced him. Russians, Englishmen, and Americans readily join in
personal attacks on Stalin, Neville Chamberlain, or McCarthy as scapegoats for their
collective misdeeds. Moreover, laudatory moral judgements on individuals can be just as
misleading and mischievous as the moral denunciation of individuals. Recognition that
some individual slave- owners were high-minded was constantly used as an excuse for not
condemning slavery as immoral. ruler Weber refers to 'the masterless slavery in which
capitalism emmeshes the worker or the debtor', and rightly argues that the historian should
pass moral judgement on the institution, but not on the individuals who created it. The
historian does not sit in judgement on an individual oriental despot. But he is not required
to remain indifferent and impartial between, say, oriental despotism and the institutions of
Periclean Athens. He will not pass judgement on the individual slave-owner. But this does
not prevent him from condemning a slave-owning society. Historical facts, as we saw,
presuppose some measure of interpretation; and historical interpretations always involve
moral judgements - or, if you prefer a more neutral-sounding term, value judgements.
This is, however, only the beginning of our difficulties. History is a process of struggle, in
which results, whether we judge them good or bad, are achieved by some groups directly
or indirectly - and more often directly than indirectly - at the expense of others. The losers
pay. Suffering is indigenous in history. Every great period of history has its casualties as
well as its victories. This is an exceedingly complicated question, because we have no
file:///C|/Documents and Settings/Vidula/Local Settings/Temp/Rar$EX00.750/carr.htm (47 of 97)7/20/2006 11:28:45 AM