Lion Feuchtwanger Quotes

The historian is, by definition, absolutely incapable of observing the facts which he examines.

History is only conjecture, and the best historians try to do it as accurately as they can. They try to accurately reassemble the facts and then put them down on paper.

Now, there are some who would like to rewrite history - revisionist historians is what I like to call them.

The impartiality of history is not that of the mirror, which merely reflects objects, but of the judge, who sees, listens, and decides.

The talent of historians lies in their creating a true ensemble out of facts which are but half true.

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.

In history, one gathers clues like a detective, tries to present an honest account of what most likely happened, and writes a narrative according to what we know and, where we aren't absolutely sure, what might be most likely to have happened, within the generally accepted rules of evidence and sources.

In any case, his judgment and set of values, acting alone or through his assistants, determine not only what is gold and what is dross but the design of the history which he creates out of the metal. The historian decides what is significant, and what is not.

Any child knows that history can only be a reduced representation of reality, but it must be a true one, not distorted by queer lenses.

Writing history takes a great deal of imagination. I don’t mean making things up, but you have to be able to transport yourself to another time.

The dignity of history consists in reciting events with truth and accuracy, and in presenting human agents and their actions in an interesting and instructive form. The first element in history, therefore, is truthfulness; and this truthfulness must be displayed in a concrete form.

Whoever writes on world history, but not as a forensic history, becomes thereby an accomplice.

Confronted by an unknowable, historians demand evidence, witnesses, corroboration.

A lot of what we think of as history is actually just a version of events which may or may not be true.

Most academic historians accept that historians' own circumstances demand that they tell the story in a particular way, of course. While people wring their hands about 'revisionist' historians; on some level, the correction and amplification of various parts of the past is not 'revisionism' as it is simply the process of any historical writing.

Even the most meticulous historians work subjectively. The historian's point of view, his or her selection of subject and sources, the emphasis, the tone - all of these lead to subjective history, inevitably so. I do not say this as a criticism, merely as an observation.

The voice of history is often little more than the organ of hatred or flattery.

Creative memory is the historian's most subtle opponent.

History must always be taken with a grain of salt. It is, after all, not a science but an art.

History justifies whatever we want it to. It teaches absolutely nothing, for it contains everything and gives examples of everything.

The case against the notion of historical objectivity is like the case against international law, or international morality; that it does not exist.

The contemporary historian never writes such a true history as the historian of a later generation.

I don't think the revisionist historians are accurate. I think their agendas are clouded by selfishness and anger and rage.

History must speak for itself. A historian is content if he has been able to shed more light.

I know it is the fashion to say that most of recorded history is lies anyway. I am willing to believe that history is for the most part inaccurate and biased, but what is peculiar to our own age is the abandonment of the idea that history could be truthfully written.