What does E H Carr mean when he defined history as a dialogue between the present and the past?

Answer 1

This is only my understanding but I would argue the reason he describes it as a dialogue is because 'history' is not a constant, despite the fact it is often represented to be static. Instead we constantly reanalyze history and events with the understanding of the present and draw different meanings.

they are constantly re-negotated.

We understand both the past and the present in conjunctur, you cannot isolate either one, they both have implications for each other. (in dialouge)

Carr mentions something along the lines that judgments and actions are conditioned by the past. Because it is always there to provide a backdrop and context.

Some theorists argue that the past/history is an illusion and its only function is to comment on the present. (Have a look at Tosh, J. and Lang, S.'s The Pursuit of History. and/or The History of ideas - By Preston King)

and if you want to get really into the whole history is made up thing look at Jean Baudrillard who bascially says history is totally meaningless because we no longer know what the situation was like when the events took place so it is impossible to interpret them without that knowledge.

hope this helps