※ 질문하기 ---- 답변은덧글이 아니라 답글로 해 주세요.
[안 내]
질문 내용에 적절한 질문 제목을 정해 주세요.
질문에 대한 답변을 얻은 뒤 감사의 덧글을 남기고, 자신의 게시글을 삭제하지 마십시오.
질문할 때 예의를 지키시기 바랍니다.(빨리... 고수분만..... 이런 식의 요구는 자제해 주세요.)

질문 내용 :

Let me repeat the caveat which I put forward in my first lecture, that no historical judgements are

absolute and that any historical interpretation depends in part onthe values held by the historian,

which will in turn reflect the values held by the age and society in which he lives.

It is therefore incumbent on his historian, whether explicitly or by implication, to make clear the

values on which his interpretation rests, and this I shall attempt to do. But first let me contest an

obvious criticism.

Does not the admission that the values held by the historian necessarily enter into the history that he

writes deprive history of any objective character?

Now it seems to me foolish and misleading to deny the subjective element in history. 이게 전체 본문이구요, 해석이 안 되서 여러분 의견을 듣고 싶은 부분은
Does not the admission that the values held by the historian necessarily enter into the history that he

writes deprive history of any objective character?
요 부분인데요- 어떻게 해석을 해야하는지,
제가 해석한 거랑 답지에 해석한 거랑 너무 판이 하게 나와서-
도와주세요!