Imagination in History: A Discourse

Imagination is important to history indeed. As much as interpretation gives life to history, imagination also gives color to it. Otherwise, history could have been the most favorite among all other subjects since children love stories, even adults do. Variety of entertainment is in history; the story of the world is in it. They say there are only three interesting subjects to be talked about: my story, yours, and of the other people. And that is history. Hence, if art is applied to it, no wonder, people would love it at best.
   Imagination is an art. It is actually being used in literature. Mostly, it is used in descriptive writing whether it is objective or subjective, or spatial in its flow. It allows the reader to paint a picture of people, place, organization or an event. Well, history too needs imagination since it is not only a science, but also an art.
   History and Literature, even though these fields of study are different in nature; they’re closely related in structure. In history, a historian uses facts of evidences and that is objectivity. Further, he uses his mind to interpret and imagine the past as lively and as beautiful as he could by the use of the gathered evidences, and that is subjectivity.
   In literature, the writer, or, let us be more particular, a poet or a fictionist writes more subjectively and even usually embellished. That is simply because literature is dramatic. Besides, it aims more to entertain than to contribute factual knowledge about the humanity. It may be used as a call for nationalism by the use of, of course, representations of the characters to the real people in the society (like the novels of Rizal) but still, it is indirect and may confuse the speculators of history if literary records will be used as basis in history.
   Therefore, Teodoro Agoncillo was right in his point that the historian’s task is to narrate events without any exaggerations, or even, we must also consider this, omission. Like in our first understandings in the Philosophy of History, history must be seen in its wholeness and not on one side only. How else do historians expect their readers to do such standard in the Philosophy of History if they omit important things in their writings for some irrational reasons such as impression, satisfaction, and desire to avoid exile, or the least, prejudices?
   On the other hand, it is not only omission that a historian must be watchful of (watchful because, of course, a historian must be selective), but also exaggerations. One cannot and must not embellish a bad to worst or a good to best. Otherwise, his writings will be highly questionable.
   As much as it is true that a writer of history must not distort any factual event, date or place, it is also true that he must not be a good one if he writes things which are not acceptable in terms of using his imaginations. Like in the example in the Mass at Limasawa, saying that there was a total silence while the Mass was being conducted would be an obvious exaggeration. How could that be? Where in fact, Leyte faces the Pacific Ocean and that time of the year, summer was approaching... well, winds might have probably been blowing toward their direction (given that it was at daytime and it winds indeed; the sea breeze-blows toward the land). If the wind was blowing toward them, the trees must have made some rustling noise. Now, that is exaggeration through imagination.
   Unlike interpretation that cannot be wrong or right but only be valid or invalid, sensible or nonsense, etc., I say that imagination in here can be wrong if not given much thought at all. Thus, a historian, or an aspiring one must be careful with his imaginations. Let the evidences be the guide and we provide the picture of it in our minds as it was before. Besides, we have the grounds to just limit ourselves in imagining because there is no such thing as a “complete history”.
   Another thing, as Professor E.H. Carr said, “History cannot be written unless the historian can achieve some kind of contact with the mind of those about whom he is writing.”

Professor Edward Hallet Carr

I concede because imagination is re-living the past and one cannot possibly think the way his subject did or at least understand his subject.

   See through the past according to what you know is right and true. Be rational in giving reasons to why you write certain descriptions of the people, place and events you are writing. Lastly, don’t fabricate the facts if you want to honor yourself with a name of a true historian. Be subjective, interpret and imagine as much as you want, just make sure you don’t go beyond the borders of history.

Published last February 17, 2015