In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

ix Preface Historiography and Truth As I read in the post script of this work “Isolated facts in history make no sense. They must be seen in the context of place, time and circumstance.” I understand from this that there is a certain unity in history or that all history constitutes a whole. This brings to mind an important statement of the Second Vatican Council on the subject. The Council stated: “The accelerated pace of history is such that one can scarcely keep abreast of it. The destiny of the human race is viewed as a complete whole, no longer, as it were, in the particular histories of various peoples: now it merges into a complete whole.” (Vatican II, GaudiumetSpes, no. 5) It becomes imperative for me to ask after the underlying element that makes for the unity in history or for the wholeness of history. It is obvious that beneath all that changes there is much that is unchanging. Apparently, I do not have to go far to find what makes for the wholeness or unifying factor in history as I read in the same post script: “It is for this reason that anything classified as history or as historical should of necessity be credible, a reference point for posterity, clarifying doubts and placing people and events in their correct and proper perspectives.” Our historiographer is therefore saying that what is classified as history or historical must be what is true. It is the truth that is that unifying factor in history or that makes for wholeness in history. Ultimately, there can be only one Truth. Whatever is true in any other context including the historical is a participation in that one Truth. In this sense, the historiographer does not make or create history when he/she writes. This is in the direct sense but his work could become history especially when it comes into consideration eventually by others. The historiographer presents, analyses, interprets the history that is already there. The historiographer must therefore consider his x task, even when he seeks to communicate knowledge as essentially the communication of truth. In this way the task of the historiographer is fundamentally transformed into a unique participation in communicating and witnessing to the truth. He must guide is readers beyond his mere words to the heart of total Truth. This is certainly delicate but it can and has been done. In my humble reckoning this is what Dr. Anthony NDI has attempted to do in this historiographical work. Far from being a historiographer (in the strict sense of the term) myself though with some familiarity in the theology of history, his effort is certainly one to be recommended. Let me conclude these few lines by referring to an appreciation of the dignity of the human intellect and truth by the Second Vatican Council. In many ways, this suggests how the historiographer could carry out his delicate task: “Man, as sharing in the light of the divine mind, rightly affirms that by his intellect he surpasses the world of mere things. By diligent use of his talents through the ages he has indeed made progress in the empirical sciences, in technology, and in the liberal arts. In our time his attempts to search out the secrets of the material universe and to bring it under his control have been extremely successful. Yet he has always looked for, and found, truths of a higher order. For his intellect is not confined to the range of what can be observed by the senses. It can, with genuine certainty, reach to realities known only to the mind, even though, as a result of sin, its vision has been clouded and its powers weakened.” (Vatican II, GaudiumetSpes, no. 15). As a scientific study, therefore, historiography leads to the immediately perceivable truth and ultimately to the Truth that is God himself. Father Anthony YILAKA (PhD) Associate Professor, Catholic University of Cameroon, (CATUC) Bamenda ...

Share