The historical text as literary Artifact

While comparing truth and history, Hayden White argues that the truth in history is not equivalent to the one compared in science. On account of history being written by different people, history cannot be scientific. By experiencing scientific knowledge, one cannot do the same with history unless they are living it at that moment. He explains that historical narration is artificial and is not possible to be experimented, and it is not possible to know if it is truth. Furthermore, Mr. White tells the reader that people who write history, they must use their imagination to tell it, but it does not mean that it can be truth. Thus, he explains that some writers say: that authentic history has to be located back of the same events that are narrated. Hence, sometimes those historians write what the people want to hear, this does not mean that what the writer has written is the truth. History is recreated with different intentions. In any case when inspecting history, or to draw an academic explanation of a story, one starts off looking at the primary source. Since to institute “the facts” a discrepancy between creating is inescapable when existing or inventing a history and to commit an error with the antecedents. When historians create a historical document they need to reconstruct those moments and historical fact that are fragmented in the primary sources, they must only limit themselves to the truth.