Huizinga never resolved his incompatible inclinations to view history as serious, scholarly, rational, intellectual and as playful, imaginative, aesthetic, and contemplative. The social aspects of the extra-scientific approach, which saw culture as an activity of the elite serving the noble and beautiful, account for Huizinga's aversion to the modern democratization of society in the larger role played by the masses, and in turn for his methodological errors: idealizing the past and treating the West, both non-totalitarian and totalitarian, as a single (...) culture. Huizinga, blind to the economic and political realities from which he divorced culture, demanded renewed spiritual values rather than socio-political reform. (shrink)

Historical knowledge, this noted Dutch historian declares, should be a result of free investigation and criticism. Since it deals with facts, not imagination, it cannot be cast into a predetermined mold to fit a unified pattern of arbitrary principles. "The most we can hope for," he states, "is a partial rendering, an approximation, of the real truth about the past." In this succinct analysis of the philosophy and method of history, Professor Geyl examines the prevailing concepts of history and the (...) new "awareness of distance" from the past that was lacking in earlier historians. History, he points out, provides an elucidation of the present and its problems by showing them in perspective. This important study of the historical point of view is based on the author's Terry Lecture at Yale. (shrink)