InrulingagainstthecontroversialhistorianDavidIrvinginhislibelsuitagainsttheAmericanhistorianDeborahLipstadt,lastApril2000,theHighCourtinLondonlabeledhimafalsifierofhistory.Noobjectivehistorian,declaredthejudge,wouldmanipulatethedocumentaryrecordinthewaythatIrvingdid.RichardJ.Evans,aCambridgehistorianandthechiefadvisorforthedefense,usesthispivotaltrialasalensforexploringarangeofdifficultquestionsaboutthenatureofthehistorian’senterprise.Forinstance,don’tallhistoriansintheendbringasubjectiveagendatobearontheirreadingoftheevidence?IsitpossiblethatIrvinglosthiscasenotbecauseofhisbiasedhistorybutbecausehisagendawasunacceptable?Thecentralissueinthetrial--asforEvansinthisbook--wasnotthepastitself,butthewayinwhichhistoriansstudythepast.Inaseriesofshort,sharpchapters,RichardEvanssetsDavidIrving’smethodsalongsidethehistoricalrecordinordertoilluminatethedifferencebetweenresponsibleandirresponsiblehistory.Theresultisacogentanddeeplyinformedstudyinthenatureofhistoricalinterpretation.
