kers he admires, from Simon Schama to Orlando Figes. In this sense, Evans most takes a middle-of-the-road position with respect to the debate over mainstream historiography and postmodern critics of it. In fact, he believes traditional historiography and contemporary historians can benefit from some postmodern views. As Evans (p. 133) asks, "Why should we not too raid the various genres of historical writing which have been developed over the past couple of centuries to enrich our own historical practice today? Why do we have to stick rigidly to one model?" This analysis will provide a review of Evans' In Defense of History that argues he is correct in arguing that meaning from history can be derived by determining which views of history are more grounded in record or fact than others. A conclusion will address why it is important for historians in search of truth and meaning to use time honored methods of proving the validity of facts in deriving meaning from historiography.
From a historical context, Richard J. Evans is writing in favor of mainstream history writing and in opposition to postmodern critiques of it. His purpose in writing In Defense of History is to defend a mainstream theory of history writing against what he calls the "intellectual barbarians," by which he refers to the "invading hordes of semioticians, post-structuralist, New Historicists, Foucauldians, Lacanians and the rest" (Evans, p. 8; p. 9). In this Evans shapes the tone of In Defense of History, a work by which he means to pit the humble scholar who digs into archives, relies on primary sources and is capable of discovering verifiable truth and meaning in the past against twentieth century postmodern thinkers and their criticism of mainstream notions of history writing.
Evans maintains that the contemporary historian can come closer to the reality of a past which is no longer real by devoting himself or herself to labors that in...