If the author of the passage were to write a book on the Battle of Hastings along the lines of his/her own reasoning, the focus of the historical account would be on:
Started 1 month ago by Shashank in
Explanatory Answer
The main idea of the passage is that facts speak only when the historian calls on them. The author says that it is because historians regard the Battle of Hastings as a major historical event that we are interested in knowing about it. It is the historian's interpretation of facts that we are interested in. So, if the author were to write a book on the Battle of Hastings, the focus of the account would be on subjective interpretations, like exploring the socio-political and economic factors that led to the Battle.
Options A and D are easily ruled out as they focus on the importance of facts.
Option B is close, as 'nuanced interpretation' is what the author says historians have to focus on. But option B, unlike option C, emphasizes the role of auxillary sciences in helping a historian do his work. The author says relying on facts that can be gathered from auxiliary sciences of history is "a necessary condition" of a historians' work, "but not his essential function". So, option C is better than B.
-
No one is replied to this question yet. Be first to reply!
