Motives for Diary –Keeping
The
question of why diaries are written is not just one of idle interest. For the
historian to assess the value and accuracy of a diary, or indeed of any source,
he must consider why the document came into existence. The main motives for
diary-keeping would appear to be: record-keeping and as an aide-mémoire; the
psychological need to justify one’s own actions and vent frustrations; an
almost disinterested desire to preserve contemporary observations for the
historical record; self-aggrandizement and desire to make money, probably
trough securing publication. These motives are not discrete: commonly at least
two or more are operative.
Value
This
thought brings us to the third aspect of diary-keeping: their value to the
historian. Every historical source, from newspaper cuttings to records of
Cabinet meetings, can yield important material for the historian, but diaries
can be more valuable than any. Why? Part of the reason lies in the length of
time over which diaries are written: one can have a consistent thread running
over perhaps 30 or 40 years of history, and the individual foibles of the
diarist can be known and taken into account by the historian.
Dangers
But diaries can also, like any
other source, mislead and distort. How much credence should one give them? It
is often difficult to evaluate. Diaries can exaggerate the importance of the
writer’s own standing and influence (conveying a misleading impression of their
author’s centrality to the events described.) Diaries written up daily and
which describe very recent developments can suffer from an excess of passion.
Alan Brooke (the senior military chief for most of Second Word War) frequently
exploded in his diary about the impossible Winston Churchill. This can give the
historian an overly jaundiced view of their relationship.
Diaries, it should be
remembered, are just one person’s record, often jotted down in haste, of
feelings at a particular point in time.
No comments:
Post a Comment