Iti les & 10130 - 2nn Imagination In History* Sir Dave Teodoro A. Agoncillo Professor of History, University of the Philippines and Commissioner, National Historical Commission To any historian worthy of the name, imagination is as important and necessary in the writing of history asit is in the writing of fiction, drama, or poetry. Yet in the Philippines at least, there is a widespread view, held by those who, in the memorable words of George Bernard Shaw, cannot write and, therefore, teach, that imagination in history is something to be deplored since history deals primarily and supremely with facts. There is in this view an implied contempt for‘an element of historical writing without which history will degenerate into mere cataloguing. When laid bare with a mental scalpel the view is exposed to be nothing more than a gross misunderstanding of the nature of history as a written testament of past ages. This is because history, properly looked upon, is not a matter of compiling and reciting facts, of marshalling them in a time-sequence, and of allowing them to speak for themselves — as if facts speak for themselves — but infinitely much more. It is a re- creation of the past in such a manner as to provide not only the bones, but also the flesh and blood of those moments which once were here but are now only memories. As such, it provides the reader, within the range allowed by competent and verified sources, with an accurate approximation of the past, which is the concern of history. To write this kind of history requires a disciplined imagination and the ability to write with lucidity and with literary freshness. History thus conceived is a creative endeavor. The ordeal of the historian begins not with its scientific aspects — the spade work and the cataloguing of what may be termed facts — but with its artistic aspect Having gathered his materials, the historian views and reviews his facts with feeling, nay, with passion, and tries to visualize them in such a way as to fit each of them into its proper place or setting in the narrative. It is in the review of his facts that the historian employs the historical imagination to the fullest extent allowed by his sources. One might say that the facts are conditioned by the historian’s imagina- 4 March 1972. * Paper read on 23 March 1972 at the History Seminar held in Davao City on 23tion, and the imagination is conditioned by the facts. The two are inseparable and ‘one cannot be wrenched from the other without seriously affecting history as a finished product. Interpretation, which is an aspect of historical imagination, bears upon the facts in such way that the latter becomes the tool, not the matter, of the historian. This is obviously shown when two or more historians, given the same set of facts, arrive at different conclusions or offer different interpretations. On the other hand, imagination not based on facts, or on fringes of facts, is wild and does not legitimately form any aspect of the historical imagination. It is in this area of the imagination where the historian is less fortunate than his literary colleague, whether the latter isa poet, a dramatist, or a fictionist. The creative writer’s imagination is free to roam snd to explore the conscious and the subconscious, or even the unconscious, without being questioned as to its basis in actuality. Thus, a fictionist may not use actual incidents or happenings to weave a plot for a novel or a short story. Or he may use actual incidents as the cove of his plot but modify them — adding here, suppressing there — in order to suit his literary purpose. Nobody questions him regarding the veracity or actuality of the incidents he narrates in his story. This kind of freedom is not vouchsafed the historian, for his imagination, unlike the literary imagination, is fettered by the facts of the actual events. Any deviation from’ actuality would inevitably transmute history into imaginative literature. have been taught in college that imagination should not be employed in the service of the historian and that the historian’s task was — and is — the narration of events without any embellishment. “Let the facts speak for themselves.” I was wamed by one of my professors who in his day was famous for being the author of a little book on Philippine history which we used in the Seventh Grade. Looking back at those days, I cannot help feeling that with all his learning my former professor had a narrow view of history. History as actuality is partially recaptured by the historian through a careful and judicious use of data. Since history as a species of writing is a re-creation of the past, as much as the available and verified facts allow, it is certain that written history can approxir he past only if the historian is endowed with a lively imagination which recaptur en in capsule form, the color, the atmosphere, the action of past actuality. I said that past actuality can be recaptured only partially, for the function of the historian is not to narrate every event that happened to every man every day of his life. To do so is not only to fall into absurdity but also to perform Sisyphus’s task. It is for this reason that there is no such thing as complete history. To say, as some book reviewers do, that a certain history book is the most complete is to be stupid. There is not even a compiete history to speak of, for not only does the histcrian choose his facts out of the innumerable facts that consti history, but also because no man or superman can ever hope to read even one half of all available documents or: any particular subject.Historical imagination has several aspects each of which is relevant to and necessary in the partial re-creation of the past. Let me begin with what may be termed imaginative understanding. When a historian has finished gathering his data of facts, he does not immediately piece them together in chronological or topical order but studies them thoroughly and intensely in order to go into or to participate in thie events or in the lives of men he intends to write about. This is the kind of immersion that the historian undergoes before sitting down to write. In the explanation of men and events it is not enough to rely on documents, for documents, while important, leave out many things that men did, said and thought. They are the bones of history, but the flesh and blood must be supplied by the historian through the judicious use of his imagination. Thus, while the documents are silent on why General Emilio Aguinaldo, afier coming to terms through Pedro A. Paterno, with Governor General Fernando Primo de Rivera in the now historic Truce of Biyak-na-Bato, continued to harbor revolutionary ideas and, in fact, kept the truce money for purposes other than those contemplated in the agreement, one is nevertheless led to the conclusion, on the basis of Aguinaldo’s actions, that he bad no faith in Spanish promises ‘The conclusion is arrived at through the historian’s imaginative understanding of Aguinaldo’s psychology and the antecedent and surrounding circumstances Without this imaginative understanding, it would be impossible for any historian to communicete with Lis subjects and, ultimately, to re-live the past. The historian, therefore, must exert serious efforts to understand the mind and character of the person he is to write about if he is to make the portrait of the man as close as possible to the original. In the words of Cambridge Professor E.H. Carr, “History cannot be written unless the sieve some kind of contact with the mind of those about whom he is historian can act writing, The historical understanding that establishes contact between the historian and his subject has its basis in logical imperative, which is to say, that the imagination is anchored not upon some personal fantasy or whim, but upon a . reasoning that issues from the nature of the subject under study. Thus, Aguinaldo, who had experienced Spanish duplicity before, could not help suspecting inwardly that the Spanish authorities, by offering money to get rid of him, had no intention of keeping his promise. He might have been wrong in his suspicions, but this is beside the point. What matters is that by his actions Aguinaldo showed he had no is Histor:? (London, Penguin Books, 1964). p: 24° z