ABSTRACT
From antiquity until the modern age, the national background of the historian, and the extent and ways in which this might have determined his work, was an important and controversial issue in historiographic theory. 1 The rise of official historiography in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Europe led theorists to give serious thought to the key prerequisites of the state historian. Not only was he required to have political and military experience, literary skills and extensive knowledge of the ruling dynasties, the lands and peoples that he had to write about, but he also had to demonstrate his loyalty and commitment to them. And, like all good historians, the official chronicler was expected to be truthful, objective and fair. The fact that the writer was native-born was normally regarded as a guarantee of knowledge and ideological and emotional adherence to the object of his study; however, one also needed to consider that there was a greater risk that the historian’s affinities and feelings for his community might compromise his professional integrity if he were native-born rather than foreign.
