INFORMATION BULLETIN

History is a science and historical research is a profession, and not a simple one.

In order to research, one has to know what he is talking about, has to know intimately the period, the historical time he is talking about, has to know the sources, written and unwritten ofthat historical period; and, above all, he has to write in the words of the great Roman historian Tacitus: “SINE IRA ET STUDIO” (“without anger and bias”).

In other words, an historian has to say what is according to his knowl­edge and his conscience, the truth. All the above said, it is necessary to keep in mind another fact.

The scientific research and ensuing historical research is a continuous pro­cess, a process in continuous progress. Consequently, the conclusions reached at a certain point in time are not final; they are by necessity temporary. Es­pecially when dealing with contempo­rary events, under circumstances when a public person is alive and acting and can dramatically change, his or her ways. Future research or facts discov­ered as a result of future research, unavoidably change past conclusions, totally or in part. This is a fact hap­pening in all fields of research, and history makes no exception.

The conclusions reached by a cer­tain historian can be positive or nega­tive. The historians who make a virtue out of continuous flattering are noth­ing but dishonest souls. Equally, those who try just to criticize or find faults are only troublemakers. They are any­thing but historians.

The historians and for that matter, all those who are interested in history, should keep in mind that history is but the development of human society and of human interaction in time. Conse­quently, history progresses amidst human events and is promoted by hu­man beings, good and bad. Those fea­tures have to be mentioned by an hon­est, objective historian. Remaining stuck in generalizations and tepid wa­ters means to abdicate the condition of being a real, objective historian. Such a tepid attitude will prove nothing but a lack öf moral honesty, elementary professional courage and downright cowardice. Above all, an objective his­torian has to say the truth and be ready to support the consequences. It remains a fact that there are few things more painful than being told the truth; and seldom, if ever, is one who says the truth forgiven. But, for all research­ers, it remains a sacred duty to keep alive, to fight if necessary, for the academic freedom of expression — for the elementary right and duty of tell­ing what is true according to knowl­edge, understanding and conscience, all of which are personal and subject to a certain amount of “subjectivity.”

Like in all fields the following fact is valid:

“For the people who travel for their pleasure when the sea is smooth, and smiles at them and who declare that they love her, they do not know what love means. It is the sailors, who have been beaten and battered by the sea, and who have cursed and damned her, who are her true lovers. The same law appears to husbands and wives and, for that matter, to everything in life.”

In the meantime, when a historical conclusion is to be corrected, it has to be corrected with scientific arguments, with historical data, with coherent ar­guments, with style, with elegance, not with insults, personal attacks or ad­ministrative threats. Those who use the latest mentioned “arguments” are but low forms of life.

History, objectively written, that mentioned equality and in good faith, what was positive and what was nega­tive, is of enormous value. Only the truth can set us free, and only mis­takes acknowledged can be corrected.

A history objectively written is a treasure and should be considered as such by all.

ALEXANDRU NEMOIANU