Watch the History Channel if you want it literal and historically perfect.

The general consensus among historians among the ones who can handle the fact that 'Lincoln' is in fact historical fiction is that we demonstrate enormous fidelity to history and that beyond that we've actually contributed a line of thinking about Lincoln's presidency that's somewhat original.

Accuracy is paramount in every detail of a work of history. Here's my rule: Ask yourself 'Did this thing happen?' If the answer is yes then it's historical. Then ask 'Did this thing happen precisely this way?' If the answer is yes then it's history if the answer is no not precisely this way then it's historical drama.

Asking the author of historical novels to teach you about history is like expecting the composer of a melody to provide answers about radio transmission.

We are not merely passive pawns of historical forces nor are we victims of the past. We can shape and direct history.

One of the consequences of the Iranian revolution has been an explosion of history. A country once known only from British consular reports and intrepid travelogues is now awash with historical documents letters diaries grainy video weblogs and secret police files of questionable authenticity.

Whatever can be noted historically can be found within history.

But every historical statement and legitimization itself moves within a certain relation to history.

We live in an era with no historical precedents. History is no longer useful as a tool in helping us understand current changes.

Generally speaking historically in this country the care of a child has been thought of as female business.