History, Truth and Peter Munz

Fresh from "the feet of the great at Cambridge" (as Mr. Tallboys so fragrantly put it in his introductory remarks), Mr. Peter Munz certainly put forward an idea of history when he addressed the Historical Society last term—even if at times his audience could grasp not one idea, but several. Owing to the recent date of his return. Mr. Munz pleaded lack of time for exhaustive preparation; this resulted in some unresolved contradictions, which were brought out towards the end of the meeting, and some improvised analogies in which Napoleon's digestive system featured heavily. Nevertheless, the "idea" had so obviously been thought through in the speaker's experience that it received an attentive hearing and lively discussion—from a good audience.

Briefly, Mr. Munz's idea of history hangs on the value of the relationship it establishes between persons. "History is an effort to understand other people in their own terms, and not in our terms." In this respect the novel and history 'both modern developments of the last century or so) are very similar; good historical writing should help us to see the world through other people's eyes with the proviso (as distinct from the novel that it should be verified as far as possible. Thus the main concern of history is with the individual historical figures and the understanding of them through their own feelings; this is the opposite of such a study as sociology, which is interested not in the individual but in the formulation of general laws of sociology covering general experience.

When he started to distinguish science and history. Mr. Munz bamboozled the audience for a while with his new terminology, specially prepared for his theory of knowledge. Natural science deals with the inanimate objects, which therefore can be known only in a "subjective" or at best, "inter-subjective" (what scientists "objective") manner. But history deals with historical persons, for whom thought was possible; the historian can enter into a mental relationship with them and thus get an inside understanding of the person in his own terms. This is true "objective" knowledge, and it is the historian's job, working through documents and background facts, to progress from merely subjective knowledge to a truly objective understanding.

All this alters the historian's attitude to Truth. It is not important to know whether Luther, for instance, had "true" ideas on Transubstantiation. What matters for the historian is to understand the ideas as he did. This produces in the historian an attitude of moral scepticism and also of positive toleration. By enabling us to see reality through the eyes of various persons, history brings us from a subjective to an objective view of the world. This is the real value of history—in making us tolerant, in giving us a moral education and thus producing better men.

For Mr. Munz. history could not be twisted to serve any directly "useful" ends, such as producing general philosophical laws or political techniques for organising society; Historical understanding sought for its own sake would produce better men. When asked whether this did not amount to an "ivory tower" attitude, he partly admitted the allegation, but did not regard it as particularly relevant: "What would you like me to say? I don't really think there is much hope for the future."