Abstract
There are two competing loci for our interchange with the past, and two positions that we adopt vis-à-vis that past. These loci are history and memory, the one being the sum of what has happened up to now and the other comprising the sum of what we remember about all that has happened. Seen in this way, the set of historical events is much greater than the set of memorial events. Yet the set of all events often appears to be smaller than that of all remembered events because this latter always seems to be full, or certainly much fuller than the set of all events. So little of the sum total of what has happened is accessible that there seem to be far fewer members of the set of all past events than there are members of the set of all remembered events. Nonetheless, both positions are formally possible. The question is whether we begin our discussion of the relation between history and memory from the position of history or from the position of memory. If we commence from the first position, we seek to know all that happened and then ask what do we remember about what happened, whereas if we start from the latter position, we seek to know what we remember about what happened and ask about what happened only as we have gained access to it from what we remember about it.