A brief look at the nature of belief and the nature of historical study. This work is very valuable as a way of examining the different methods of doing history in antiquity as compared to the present, and the difference between believing in something and reporting something as true. It's an easy read, without all the obfuscation that often plagues books of this nature, although it is perhaps too redundant (in spite of being very short). It loses a half a star for the constant insistence that all truth is relative, and everything is true; scientific truths have no more claim to describe reality than any other truths. Not only is this demonstrably untrue, but he himself hits the usual brick wall that characterizes this point of view: when confronted with a view he can't stomach, he is willing to dismiss that view and deny it the status of truth that he grants to 'everything' (i.e., the claim by some of an ahistorical Christ; also, a handful of the balmier pseudosciences). Still, an interesting read, even though the author sort of waffles the title question. Favorite quote: "Historians are merely prophets in reverse". ( )

Pas tout lu, mais beaucoup appris en peu de pages... ( )