Two theses are being defended. The first thesis is that the concept of truth is necessary for interpretation and interpretation is sharing the world. The second thesis is that historians show the past by means of examples in order to express a universal thesis about man and his world. We need the concept of truth if we want to understand others. A sentence is true if we, being in the position as described by that sentence, used the same words the sentence uses to express what is being observed. If we used other words in that situation, the sentence would be false. The theory that the concept of truth is necessary for interpretation and that interpretation is sharing the world then comes down to this: understanding an utterance is knowing how to use those words and that those words used can be true or false (i.e. this is how we would use those words or not). When the historian tries to understand the past, he must share the world with the agents he is trying to understand. The thesis that historians show the past by means of examples is another way of saying that historical writing is metaphoric. Metaphor and material representations such as paintings exemplify too. The examples the historian uses are the result of understanding past beliefs (and truth is necessary for that) and of true statements about the past. True statements can be made about a particular person, event, or aspect of the past which is used as an example of a universal thesis. The particular event is what a person (actually) does or lives through. It is universal because it tells us what we probably or necessarily would do or say if we were in the situation the historian tells us about. (Chiel Martien van den Akker)