On history (Would Derrida agree?)

History is an art. It isn't a science or a craft, but more of a creative endeavor, like literature. Many historians would assent to this idea. It is even something members of the profession are proud of.

In his biography of Lenin, Dmitri Volkogonov writes, "History is a dispassionate judge." I think that's wrong. Whereas the past is dispassionate, history is not. History is written by human beings, and there has never been a dispassionate human being.

Truth, when represented as a singular event of the past, cannot teach much; only within the context of larger historical works, can that event provide an instructive role. And no matter how "dispassionate" a historian tries to be, his words on paper cannot escape their implicit connection to the mind--and passions--of their author. Although he may attempt to record nothing but truth, a writer's words are always to some degree a corruption of reality.