TCDE-Team at 14:33, 11 November 2025

2025-11-11T14:33:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:33, 11 November 2025
Line 6:		Line 6:
	[[File:the-sketch-1907-07-31-p66-history-made-or-making.jpg\|thumb\|300px\|right\|[[The Sketch]] (31 july 1907, p. 66)]]		[[File:the-sketch-1907-07-31-p66-history-made-or-making.jpg\|thumb\|300px\|right\|[[The Sketch]] (31 july 1907, p. 66)]]

	[[Sir Arthur Conan Doyle]] thinks that <~~span class="~~q">"history ought to be the most interesting subject on earth."</~~span~~> I cannot quite follow this statement. A subject is either interesting or uninteresting, according to individual taste. "Ought" has nothing, so far as I can see, to do with it. This is a form of intellectual snobbishness that cannot be too strongly condemned. Thousands and thousands of people waste their hours of "recreation" in trying to take an interest in things that they are told they "ought" to appreciate. If you have not the historical sense, you may wander round Westminster Abbey every day in the year and you will never be any the wiser, or the nobler, or the happier for it. Historical sense is the faculty of being seriously amused by the strengths and weaknesses and achievements of the dead and buried. Personally, I can find all the serious amusement I need in the strengths and weaknesses and achievements and possibilities of the living. By the way, that is where the living have the advantage of the dead as a subject for intelligent study. They are endowed with possibilities. Would [[Sir Arthur Conan Doyle]] pretend that the story of King Henry the Eighth's matrimonial adventures is one-tenth as interesting as a really human twentieth-century divorce-suit?		[[Sir Arthur Conan Doyle]] thinks that <q>"history ought to be the most interesting subject on earth."</q> I cannot quite follow this statement. A subject is either interesting or uninteresting, according to individual taste. "Ought" has nothing, so far as I can see, to do with it. This is a form of intellectual snobbishness that cannot be too strongly condemned. Thousands and thousands of people waste their hours of "recreation" in trying to take an interest in things that they are told they "ought" to appreciate. If you have not the historical sense, you may wander round Westminster Abbey every day in the year and you will never be any the wiser, or the nobler, or the happier for it. Historical sense is the faculty of being seriously amused by the strengths and weaknesses and achievements of the dead and buried. Personally, I can find all the serious amusement I need in the strengths and weaknesses and achievements and possibilities of the living. By the way, that is where the living have the advantage of the dead as a subject for intelligent study. They are endowed with possibilities. Would [[Sir Arthur Conan Doyle]] pretend that the story of King Henry the Eighth's matrimonial adventures is one-tenth as interesting as a really human twentieth-century divorce-suit?

TCDE-Team: Created page with " ''History Made or Making'' is an article published in The Sketch on 31 july 1907. == History Made or Making == File:the-sketch-1907-07-31-p66-history-made-or-making...."

2021-12-19T18:31:02Z

Created page with " ''History Made or Making'' is an article published in The Sketch on 31 july 1907. == History Made or Making == File:the-sketch-1907-07-31-p66-history-made-or-making...."

New page

''History Made or Making'' is an article published in [[The Sketch]] on 31 july 1907.

== History Made or Making ==
[[File:the-sketch-1907-07-31-p66-history-made-or-making.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[The Sketch]] (31 july 1907, p. 66)]]

[[Sir Arthur Conan Doyle]] thinks that <span class="q">"history ought to be the most interesting subject on earth."</span> I cannot quite follow this statement. A subject is either interesting or uninteresting, according to individual taste. "Ought" has nothing, so far as I can see, to do with it. This is a form of intellectual snobbishness that cannot be too strongly condemned. Thousands and thousands of people waste their hours of "recreation" in trying to take an interest in things that they are told they "ought" to appreciate. If you have not the historical sense, you may wander round Westminster Abbey every day in the year and you will never be any the wiser, or the nobler, or the happier for it. Historical sense is the faculty of being seriously amused by the strengths and weaknesses and achievements of the dead and buried. Personally, I can find all the serious amusement I need in the strengths and weaknesses and achievements and possibilities of the living. By the way, that is where the living have the advantage of the dead as a subject for intelligent study. They are endowed with possibilities. Would [[Sir Arthur Conan Doyle]] pretend that the story of King Henry the Eighth's matrimonial adventures is one-tenth as interesting as a really human twentieth-century divorce-suit?

----
* [[Sir Arthur Conan Doyle:Complete Works|Back to Complete Works]]
* [[Sir Arthur Conan Doyle|Back to Conan Doyle]]

History Made or Making - Revision history

TCDE-Team at 14:33, 11 November 2025

TCDE-Team: Created page with " ''History Made or Making'' is an article published in The Sketch on 31 july 1907. == History Made or Making == File:the-sketch-1907-07-31-p66-history-made-or-making...."