midterm post

“We should ask only that the historian show some tact in the use of his governing metaphors: that he neither overburden them with data nor fail to use them to their limit; that he respect the logic implicit in the mode of discourse he has decided upon; and that, when his metaphor begins to show itself unable to accommodate certain kinds of data, he abandon that metaphor and seek another, richer, more inclusive metaphor that that which he began—in the same way that a scientist abandons a hypothesis when its use is exhausted.”

 

         The historian must use tact in the use of his governing metaphors because he will only confuse his readers on a literary level.  The historian tends to use metaphors that produce an effect to great or too small which hinders the ability for us readers of history and English to comprehend correctly.  The historian must learn that metaphors can be expressed in situations that do not have to be viewed as too disastrous or too successful.  There must be a middle ground for these men of history for they are hindering the English world. 

         Paul Valery spoke an antihistoricist attribute best when he stated, “History is the most dangerous product evolved from the chemistry of the intellect… History will justify anything.  It teacher precisely nothing for it contains everything and furnishes examples of everything…  Nothing was more completely ruined by the last war than the pretension to foresight.  But it was not from any lack of knowledge of history, surely?”  Basically, history is such a huge mixture of all things of the past that is combined into one so it is impossible to get anything from it.  So when a historian claims that his metaphors are justifiable, take into account what he is trying to justify…  EVERYTHING.  Is it possible to justify everything at once?  I think not.