At the risk of sounding like a pedant, I here describe my habit for finding explanations and meanings. The first place I look for explanations (definitions) is the dictionary. The editors choose the definitions, by agreement, from contemporary writings of all kinds, and place them in dictionaries in order of frequency of appearance in those writings. There are exceptions, of course, and they are so marked. O.E. - Old English is one such common marking for non-contemporary meanings when words are still in use or adapted to contemporary usage.

So - out with my trusty Merriam Webster, “Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary” of 1980. (I do use other specialized dictionaries as needed.)

HIS-TO-RY\ Latin Historia. Greek, inquiry, history. French, knowing, learned; akin to Greek eidenai to know: 1: TALE, STORY 2 a: a chronological record of significant events (as affecting a nation or institution) usuqlly including an explanation of their causes. b: a treatise presenting sysematically related natural phenomena c: an account of a sick person’s medical background 3: a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events (medieval~) 4: a: events that form the subject matter of history b: past events c: previous treatment, handling, or experience (as of a metal)
syn: HISTORY, CHRONICLE, ANNALS - shared meaning element : a written record of events

A Historian is 1: a student or writer of history esp. one that produces a scholarly synthesis 2: a writer or complier of a chronicle

My comment is that it really doesn’t matter what one calls oneself or how one wishes to be called. What does matter is what one thinks of oneself and what one does. We are not engaged in a contest to choose the best, the brightest, the most truthful or most faithful to the facts as they occur rather than as the historian sees them. I compare the historian to a mechanic. Both use the tools of their trade to produce a useful product. Some are more accurate or produce a better product than others. Some want the product to be shiny while other prefer the raw metal to show its true self. I think each historian must be true to him/her self, and it shall follow, as the night the day, they cannot be false to any man. (Plagiarism will get you everywhere.)

Frankly, I am more concerned with the historian who HAS a prejudice that is obvious. Then we can deal with it. It is the subtle, careful, thoroughly researched product that leads to sure conclusions, that one must take care to inspect well. There is no absolute truth other than for those who believe in the unprovable.

So Historian - leave your mark on the face of the world for others to follow. That’s your role. It will be a combination of what you saw, heard, thought, and most assuredly, what you think you saw, heard, and thought as events unfolded before your eyes or as you researched them or saw them in your breathing moments on this earth. Do not fear inaccuracies. Yours will be as good as the next man’s. Stand firm for what you believe you saw. And stand firm for what you believe the meaning of events to be!

Nachum Meyers