ABSTRACT
G.K. Chesterton’s approach to the study to history was informed to a large extent by his view that individuals rather than larger systems, ideologies, institutions or governments, are the primary forces of historical movement. One prominent modern historian, Eric Hobsbawm, has spoken about the various approaches to the writing of history, pointing out that one must make a selection:
All historical study therefore implies making a selection, a tiny selection of some things out of the infi nity of human activities in the past, and of what affected those activities. But there is no generally accepted criterion for making such a selection, and to the extent that there is one at any given time, it is likely to change. When historians thought history was largely determined by great men, their selection was obviously different from what it is when they don’t. 1
Though perhaps insuffi cient, the “great man” theory of history points to Chesterton’s understanding that while history may not be solely the product of great men, it is nevertheless the product of individuals who come from specifi c locations and have distinctive stories, languages, and surroundings, and who are motivated by the customs, history and culture of their respective localities.
