Sta. Ines, Maria Isabella R.

BSAc 1-2

1. Give at least 2 comprehensive meanings of history.

 History is a systematic, written account of events, particularly of those affecting a nation, institution, science, or art, and
usually connected with a philosophical explanation of their causes; a true story, as distinguished from a romance; --
distinguished also from annals, which relate simply the facts and events of each year, in strict chronological order; from
biography, which is the record of an individual's life; and from memoir, which is history composed from personal
experience, observation, and memory
 History is an umbrella term that relates to past events as well as the discovery, collection, organization, and presentation of
information about these events. The term includes cosmic, geologic, and organic history, but is often generically implied to
mean human history. Scholars who write about history are called historians.
 History can also refer to the academic discipline which uses a narrative to examine and analyse a sequence of past events,
and objectively determine the patterns of cause and effect that determine them. Historians sometimes debate the nature of
history and its usefulness by discussing the study of the discipline as an end in itself and as a way of providing
"perspective" on the problems of the present. Stories common to a particular culture, but not supported by external sources
are usually classified as cultural heritage or legends, because they do not support the "disinterested investigation" required
of the discipline of history. Events occurring prior to written record are considered prehistory. Herodotus, a 5th-century
B.C. Greek historian is considered within the Western tradition to be the "father of history", and, along with his
contemporary Thucydides, helped form the foundations for the modern study of human history. Their work continues to be
read today and the divide between the culture-focused Herodotus and the military-focused Thucydides remains a point of
contention or approach in modern historical writing. In the Eastern tradition, a state chronicle the Spring and Autumn
Annals was known to be compiled from as early as 722 BCE although only 2nd century BCE texts survived.
 History is mainly concerned with past events. It is systematic record of the story of mankind. History presents a
chronological account of past events of the human society. It is the social science, which deals with past events and studies
the past social, political and economic aspects of the country, According to Gettle “History is the record of the past events
and movements, their causes and inter-relations”. It includes a survey of conditions, or developments in economic,
religious and social affairs as well as the study of states, their growth and organization and their relation with one another.

2. What is philosophy of history?

Philosophy of History (or Historiosophy) is an area of philosophy concerning the eventual significance, if any, of human history, and asks
if there is any design, purpose, directive principle, or finality in the processes of human history.

Ancient Era

 In Ancient Greece, historiography (the processes by which historical knowledge is obtained and transmitted) was considered
more for good examples to follow than for factual accuracy (i.e. it was supposed to morally improve the reader), and any bad
examples may just have been conveniently ignored.

 History (as contemporarily understood by Western thought), tends to follow an assumption of linear progression, although many
ancient cultures believed that history was cyclical with alternating Dark and Golden Ages. In the 14th century, the Arab
Muslim Ibn Khaldun (1332 - 1406), considered one of the fathers of the Philosophy of History, discussed his philosophy of
history and society in detail in his "Muqaddimah", propounding a cyclical theory of history. During the Enlightenment, history
began to be seen as both linear and irreversible, although as empires came and went with great regularity in Europe, the idea of
history following cycles also recurred regularly.

 Those who created theodicies (attempts to reconcile the co-existence of evil and God), including St Augustine, St Thomas
Aquinas and Gottfried Leibniz, claimed that history had a progressive direction leading to an eschatological end (the end of the
world or of humankind) such as the Apocalypse.

Modern Era

 It was really not until the 19th Century that the idea of presenting objective historical facts became prevalent. Hegel, through his
theory of dialectics (thesisfollowed by opposing antithesis), conceived of the negative historical events, such as wars, etc, as
the motor of history. The positivist conception of history of Auguste Comte, (that knowledge can only come from positive
affirmation of theories through strict scientific method), was one of the most influential doctrines of progress in the 19th Century.

 Darwinism, and the Social Darwinism it gave rise to, claimed that societies start out in a primitive state and gradually become
more civilized over time, thus equating the culture and technology of Western civilization with progress. Ernst Haeckel (1884
Sta. Ines, Maria Isabella R.
BSAc 1-2

-1919), who formulated his Recapitulation Theory in 1867, stated that the evolution of each individual (from embryo to child to
adult) reproduces the species' evolution (from primitive to modern society).

 The 19th Century historian Thomas Carlyle (1795 - 1881), echoing Hegel before him, argued that history was the biography of a
few central individuals or heroes. Hegelalso championed the idea of Historicism (that there is an organic succession of
developments, and that local conditions and peculiarities influence the results in a decisive way).

3. What is philosophy of history according to Giambattista Vico

The inspiration for Giambattista Vico’s (1668–1744) philosophy of history was the work of Rene Descartes (1596–1650), who boldly
declared that he would believe nothing that could not be demonstrated through reason alone. Descartes, like most philosophers before
Newton, modeled his thought on geometry—which is to say, he assumed that every area of philosophy had its own set of axioms, and
that every genuine principle of that philosophy could be derived from them through deductive logic. (The Newtonian, or empirical,
model, by contrast, works through induction, deriving principles from consequences—which is to say, from observation—rather than the
other way around.) One consequence of this approach was that history had to be disqualified as a serious intellectual pursuit, for none of
the axioms that Descartes’s system required could be found in it. Therefore, Descartes argued, no certain knowledge of the past was
possible—the greatest historian of Rome knew no more about it than Cicero’s servant girl could have. Only mathematics, and activities
modeled on it, could establish genuine knowledge.

Vico agreed with Descartes that knowledge of geometry was more genuine, and more certain, than any other kind, but he disagreed
about the reason for this. In The New Science (1725), he argued, contra Plato, that mathematics was a human product, and that is what
gives it its certainty—for one can only have true knowledge of that which one has made. According to this principle, a sharp distinction
should be made between human and natural knowledge, the former consisting of whatever humankind had authored, and the latter
whatever he had not. Thus the first included language, culture, art, mathematics, politics, and history, all of which could be known in an
intuitive, inside-out fashion, because, being human products, humans could understand not just how they worked, but why, from what
origins, and to what ends. The natural sphere, on the other hand, contained physics, astronomy, medicine, and in general what we call
"the hard sciences," which sought to understand the world, not as humankind makes it, but as he finds it. Intuitive knowledge of this
world is impossible, for God is its author, and therefore only God can know it in this way.

If this were true, it would suggest that knowledge of the first kind is superior to that of the second, simply because that would be the
sphere in which the fullest understanding was possible. Vico believed not only that each culture was distinct, but also that it was self-
contained, in the sense that its concepts and languages were intelligible only through reference to each other, and not to the world “out
there” or to the concepts and languages of other cultures. He further believed that each culture had a life cycle of its own, passing from a
“heroic age” (like that of Achilles and Hector) to an “oligarchic age” (like that of Solon and Lycurgus), and then into a “democratic
age,” (like that of Socrates and Euripides.) In the first, a rigid social code backed by supernatural terrors kept order, for people were
violent and unruly, and could not be disciplined by any other means. In the second, conflict between groups wielding different
theological ideas became endemic as the class fissures in society broadened. In the third, the “barbarism of reflection” defeated all
attempts at common understanding and cooperation, for each person “live[d] like wild beasts in a deep solitude of spirit and will,
scarcely any two being able to agree since each follow[ed] his own pleasure or caprice.” Having become “aliens in their own nations,”
with their ability for coordination and common feeling seriously impaired, they became vulnerable, and some younger, stronger group
could eventually shove them aside.

Vico's impact on subsequent philosophy of history has been immense. He was unknown in his own time, either for good or for evil—an
obscure and menial academic in backward and isolated Naples, who had to provide for a large family on a very meager salary, and who
could find only fragments of time to work on his masterpiece. He was, indeed, so poor that he had to pawn his wedding ring to publish
his work, and even then only after he had excised many portions (now lost) in order to bring down the printing costs. In light of these
handicaps, his achievement and influence are all the more remarkable.

4. What is philosophy of history according to Fernand Braudel.

Fernand Braudel (1902–1985) was a French historian and a leader of the Annales School (c. 1929–1980), an anthropological approach
to history that eschewed the normal emphasis on narrative, politics, and the lives of the great and powerful. Instead it combined
geography, sociology, and economics with history in order to create a new and distinctively French school of historical writing.
Although it is no longer an active research program, it was probably been the most broadly influential approach to history created in the
twentieth century. Other prominent members included Lucien Febvre, Marc Bloch, Jacques Le Goff, and Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie.

Braudel was born in Luméville, a village about halfway between Paris and the Belgian border, the son of a math teacher. He became a
history teacher in Algeria (then a French colony) during the ’20s, and spent much of the ’30s founding Sao Paulo’s first university. When
Sta. Ines, Maria Isabella R.
BSAc 1-2

the war broke out, he was drafted into the army, and was later captured by the Wehrmacht during the Battle for France (1940.) He spent
the rest of the war in a detention camp, where he wrote most of the work that would make him famous: The Mediterranean and the
Mediterranean World in the Age of Phillip II (1949.)

“I was at the beginning and I remain now an historian of peasant stock,” he said. The France he knew as a child—of small towns,
seasonal rhythms, and ancestral traditions—influenced everything he wrote. In The Mediterranean World he wanted to tell the story of
people who had been written out of the history books—people like his friends and neighbors in Luméville. Where the histories
of Ranke and Marx were both elitist in their own ways, concentrating on people who “matter” in history, Braudel’s was explicitly the
story of people who “didn’t matter” in history: the peasants. As a prisoner of war in a Nazi detention camp, he was forced to watch
helplessly as the great and powerful ruined a once-proud civilization, and slaughtered the little people in their millions. There had to be
more to history than the awful spectacle of folly, ambition, and carnage, repeated generation after generation—otherwise, it would be
too grim to bear.

Concentrating on the lives of the “little people” was one way to get out of this perspective. Another was to think of space and time
differently. The title of his history reflects his emphasis on the role of geography in history, and not simply in the sense of aiding or
obstructing people’s immediate purposes. Rather, he understood the role of geography as determining certain behaviors, which, over
generations, became traditions, attitudes, and habits. Thus there is an underlying geographic unity to any region, based, not on proximity
or contiguity, but rather of climate and topography, which produces similar traditions, attitudes, and habits in places that may be very
distant in terms of their culture, political allegiance, or physical proximity. On this view, a Catholic peasant living in the Pyrenees may
have a great deal in common with an Ottoman peasant living in the Taurus Mountains on the other side of the Mediterranean, even
though he speaks a different language, follows a different religion, and lives under a different empire. He may, in fact, have more in
common with his Ottoman counterpart than he has with a peasant living just a few hundred miles away along the banks of the Rhone,
cultural similarities notwithstanding. But all of them will have more in common with each other than with a peasant living on the shores
of the Baltic, because the climate of the Mediterranean and the Baltic are so different from each other. In order to understand the role of
geography in history, Braudel argued, we need to think of it in terms of its effects for people’s habitual outlooks, not just its effects on
their immediate purposes. Further, we need to stand the traditional account of history on its head. Geography is not a footnote to events;
on the contrary, it is events that are the footnote to geography.

Similarly, for Braudel, it was not the prosaic sense of time that mattered, but the way people thought about time. If we think of our own
lives, for instance, we have a very peculiar sense of time. For most of us, it means the schedule and the clock: time to wake, time to
work, time to relax, time to sleep. We never really separate ourselves from the schedule, at best we forget about it for a few hours on a
Sunday afternoon, or for maybe even a few whole days if we go camping. But usually we don’t even do that. As soon as we pick up our
cell phone or talk to a friend, it’s only a matter of time before someone brings up the digits that, for us, signify the passage of time.
When that happens, the schedule comes crashing back in, and we recall that we have to do a certain thing at a certain time on a certain
day, or else a certain other thing that we want to avoid will happen. We live the vast majority of our lives “on the clock,” in a
metaphorical or a literal sense.

The world of the sixteenth-century peasant was a world in which this concept did not, and could not, exist. She had no clocks and no
appointments. For her, time meant the rhythms of life, the seasons, and tradition—sunrise and sunset; marriage, birth, and death; spring,
summer, fall, and winter; the rituals of the Church and the holy days of the sacred calendar. It was the same for her as it had been for her
mother and grandmother, and as it would be for her daughter and granddaughter, stretching off endlessly across an ocean of time forever.

The three time span of history.

Fernand Braudel believed that history is more than a story in fact he is more concerned on the culture, the institutions, and the practices
of the past. According to Braudel, there is something called a social time span of historical analysis in relation to social development.
This social time span is categorized into three types.

1. Microhistory - This type of time span is fairly obvious. It talks about the events that have occurred such as war,
revolution, riot and etc. This time span also includes famous figures who were involved in the events. For instance when
we talk about the propaganda movement, famous figure who is in this case Joes Rizal, is considered in the time span of the
history of event.

2. Conjuncture - This type of history not like the history of event for it covers 20 to 50 years. This type of history includes
inflation, business cycle and economical data of the time period.

3. Longue duree meaning long duration. This is the most important part of Braudel’s philosophy of history probably because
it is long therefore it should be valued more than other short events or the conjuncture that happens in every 20 to 50 years.
The time span of Longue duree expands more that 600 to 700 years. And a good example is the rising of a civilization. For
a civilization to rise, long period of time should flow. And this takes long duration. Therefore it should be valued more than
those histories that happens in short amount of time.
Sta. Ines, Maria Isabella R.
BSAc 1-2

5. What is philosophy of history according to Arnold Joseph Toynbee.

Arnold J. Toynbee (1889–1975) was a British historian and philosopher who is best remembered for his monumental Study of History,
released in twelve volumes between 1934 and 1961. In this work he traced the rise and fall of twenty-one civilizations, which he defined
as the self-contained political and cultural product of a creative minority.

Toynbee was an immensely popular and influential historian in his time. The full twelve volume set has sold over seven thousand copies,
and the abridgement over three hundred thousand. He was featured in Time Magazine and the BBC, and came as close to being a
celebrity as a modern historian is likely to get. His reception among other historians was much cooler. He was frequently criticized for
making sweeping generalizations, and his taxonomy of pre-civilizations, full civilizations, fossil civilizations, etc., appeared to many
both arbitrary and unilluminating. Civilization studies in general have been rejected for just this reason, and also because they seem to
imply that some societies are intrinsically better (i.e., “more civilized”) than others—an assumption with which modern historians,
living as they do in a post-imperial age, are no longer comfortable. Instead, they usually prefer to reject all such world-historical
schemes, and work on tightly focused monographs that treat a manageable amount of evidence.

However, world history has survived the abandonment of the “study of civilizations” approach epitomized by Toynbee’s Study of
History, and continues to make substantial contributions to our knowledge of the past. Toynbee remains, in that sense, an important
figure in the history of history.

6. What is philosophy of history according to Karl Marx

Karl Marx (1818–1883) was a German philosopher and sociologist whose scientific approach to history, combined with his
revolutionary socialism, has made him one of the most influential, famous, and indeed infamous, intellectuals who ever lived.

His major works were The Communist Manifesto (1848) and Capital (1867). The first was written during the Revolutions of 1848, and
aimed to explain the political program of the Communist Party to a popular audience. The second was much more serious. Socialists had
long believed they had both morality and science on their side, but Marx seemed to prove it, for his critique of capitalism was situated
within a theory that explained the entire human past, and also predicted the future. In other words, it was a genuine science of history,
just as Newton had established for physics and Darwin for biology.

Marx’s method was empiricist and positivist, and his assumptions determinist, materialist, and historicist. His principle debts were
to Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Auguste Comte, and GWF Hegel. He argued that history, like any science, was a law-governed process,
and therefore susceptible to prediction based on observation. This was not to say that individual human decisions were necessarily
determined, but only that there was one and only one rational way for a person to pursue their interests under a given set of
circumstances. People who did not adopt it, for whatever reason, would find themselves at a disadvantage in competitive struggle, and
must sooner or later either reform or be eliminated by more rational competitors.

Further, like any science, the study of history must be based on a consideration of objective, material factors. While this is partially a
matter of geography, climate, resources, and so on, the material factors that mattered most to Marx were economic and technological—
in other words, “the means of production.” If society were a building, these material factors and the compulsion they create would be the
foundation, the structure, and the other essential elements without which the building would collapse. Marx called this “the base,” which
he contrasted with the windows, dry wall, carpeting, and in short, everything not essential to the structural integrity of the building,
which he called “the superstructure.” Changes in the base produce changes in the superstructure, but changes in the superstructure only
affect the superstructure. The arts, religion, the careers of individual politicians, the growth and decay of states, and so on, might make
some small difference in the short term, but over the long run they are all trivial. A serious analysis of history is a study of the base, the
objective factors that determine everything else.

7. What is philosophy of history according to Karl Popper.

Karl Popper (1902 – 1994) was one of the most famous, and probably the most influential, philosopher of science of the twentieth
century. He grew up in the Vienna of Freud, Wittgenstein, the Logical Positivists, and the young Adolf Hitler, and in many ways his
philosophy can be understood as a response to its culture of high intellectual life and political fragility. His best-known work, The Logic
of Scientific Discovery, was published in 1934, and aimed to clarify just what it was about science that made it special. He returned to
this theme with The Open Society and Its Enemies (1943), and then The Poverty of Historicism (1957)—his contributions to the Second
World War and the Cold War, respectively—in which he set out to show that the Hegelian and Marxist views of history were both
tyrannical and logically incoherent. Since The Poverty of Historicism refines and systematizes arguments first presented in The Open
Society and Its Enemies, it is on that text that we will concentrate.

Popper defined the object of his criticism as historicism: “an approach to the social sciences which assumes that historical prediction is
their principal aim, and which assumes that this aim is attainable by discovering the ‘rhythm’ or the ‘patterns,’ the ‘laws’ or the ‘trends’
that underlie the evolution of history.” He divided it into pro- and anti-naturalist doctrines, according to whether their partisans affirm or
Sta. Ines, Maria Isabella R.
BSAc 1-2

deny that physics provides an appropriate model for the social sciences, and set out to show that both were logically incoherent and
politically tyrannical.

Popper concluded with the following comments: that progress in the sciences depends on institutions in which freedom of criticism is
both possible and encouraged, that such institutions tend strongly toward the production of objective knowledge, and that they are
possible only in the context of an open (non-totalitarian) society. In so much as sociology of knowledge posits other sources of
knowledge, which is not and never can be objective in any meaningful sense of the word, it is a sham science. The fervent revolutionary
rhetoric of historicists betrays a frightened conservatism that seeks to negate change by appealing to imaginary laws of history, whose
principal virtue is that they do not change, and whose logical application is to halt change not just in theory, but in fact. Further, the
course of history is strongly affected by the progress of knowledge. However, no prediction can reveal the future course that knowledge
may take. This in turn precludes knowledge of the future course of history.

8. What is historiography?

The study of historical perspectives but not necessarily historical events. In a nutshell, historiography is the history of history. Rather
than subjecting actual events - say, Hitler's annexation of Austria - to historical analysis, the subject of historiography is the history of
the history of the event: the way it has been written, the sometimes conflicting objectives pursued by those writing on it over time, and
the way in which such factors shape our understanding of the actual event at stake, and of the nature of history itself. As you can tell, the
underlying sentiment of historiography is one of skepticism. This is due to the recognition that historians do have agendas and do select
sources with the intent of "proving" certain preconceived notions. History is therefore never truly "objective," but always a construct that
presents the historian's view of things. At its most objective - and even this is debatable - history presents basic "facts" (dates, events,
etc.); the task of the historian, then, is to interpret those facts, the outcome of which (a book, a journal article, a lecture -- even a student
paper) can never be truly objective, as interpretation is by definition a subjective mental process.

9. What is historicity of text?

Historicity of text refers cultural specificity and social embedment of all modes of writing, the rootedness of a text in the social-
historical, political and cultural ambiance of its production.

In the book Metahistory, Hayden White suggest that all historical “facts” come to us only in the form of narrative or language, where the
historian links the facts in a cause-effect sequence. The hierarchy of the narrative is not dependent on the facts but on the historian’s
interpretation and evaluation of the facts. New Historicism, following White’s formulations, proposes that history is always written in
the historian’s present context and with its need in mind. All history writing is about interpreting the past for the sake of the present.
New Historicism seeks to bring our attention to the “location” of the historian in construction of history. New Historicism also argues
that history is made up of conflicting visions and attitudes. Rejecting all overarching narratives of history, New Historicism believes that
every age has its schisms and tensions, and the task of the historian is to locate these conflicting/struggling versions of society/age by
paying attention to subversive, anchic and counter movements and moments in every age, which the narratives of history generally wipe
out.

10. What is the relationship of history into the other branches of social sciences?

History and Anthropology

Anthropology focuses on a people specifically situated in time and space, who their ancestors were, how they interact with the
environment and with each other, use tools, live, worship, and so on. (Anthrop = human being and -ology = the study of). History
provides the time and place--the setting--for the study of a particular group of humans. Anthropology explains who those people were
and how they effected or affected historical events--and how those events affected them.

History and Sociology

Both Sociology and History depend upon each other and can influence one another. Sociology depends upon History in order to study
past events and situations. History of cultures and institutions is helpful in the understanding of sociology and on the collections of
materials. In order to understand the past society and activities, we have to take the help of History. Sociology concerned with the study
of the historical development of human society. It studies ancient customs, modes of living, various stages of life and past social
institutions through the historical analysis. This information about the past is of great importance to sociologists. For instance, if a
sociologist has to study family and marriage as social institutions he has to study their historical developments also. Owing to this
reason, Arnold Toynbee’s book “A Study of History” and Spengler’s book “Decline of the West” are very valuable of the study of
sociology.
In the same way, Sociology provides social background of the study of History. History is now being studied from the sociological
viewpoint. History supplies facts, which are interpreted and coordinated by the sociologists. The historians need social background for
writing and analyzing history and this is provided by the sociologists. The study of History would be meaningless without the
appreciation of sociological significance. History becomes meaningful in the social content.
Sta. Ines, Maria Isabella R.
BSAc 1-2

History and Political Science

But he has to learn the nature of fundamental political principles and basic forms of political institution. In the view of this closeness
between two subjects, the development of political institutions, rules, regulations, right and duties, law and mode of justice, executive,
legislative and administrative functions, economic and financial implications, nature of bureaucracy, fundamental principles of state
policy are all defined under the constitution history.

The issue like—balance of power, cold war, international peace, disarmament have assumed great importance in recent times. The
military history is an important chapter in political history where in wars, battles, campaigns and conquests figures very prominently. It
deals with the causes of a war, strategy and war tactics, war weapons etc.

History is very helpful to politics because the political aspects is a part of the whole range of activity recorded by historian and
knowledge of history would enable the politicians to know the politics better and play their role effectively. Prof. Acton has correctly
pointed out, “the science of politics is the one science that is deposited by the stream of history like grains of gold in the sand of a river.”

Contribution of Political Science to History:

1. Politics creates History:

The actions of the states, governments, political parties, political leaders, rulers, statesmen, politicians and diplomats all create history.
The political events and movements like the Jallianwala Bagh tragedy (1919), Non-violent, Non-cooperation Movement 1920, the Civil
Disobedience Movement 1930, and the Quit India Movement 1942 have all been the handiworks of political leaders. History of India
stands determined by these. The actions of rulers and power- holders always create history.

2. Political Science makes History fruitful and interesting:

Without Political Science, History gets reduced to a mere description and narration of events and facts. It is Political Science which
provides meaning to History and makes it interesting and rewarding. History of kings, wars that they fought, and struggles of the people
against dictators are all political acts which make history interesting.

3. Political Leaders are the makers of History:

In contemporary times Political leaders (power-holders) determine the course of history by their policies, decisions and action. The
leadership of Mahatma Gandhi gave a turn to history and enabled Indians to secure freedom from the clutches of British Imperialism.

4. Political Science depends upon some and not all Historical Facts:
Whereas History is a chronological record of all events and developments, Political Science is interested only in those facts which had
an impact on the nature and functioning of the state system and governments of various states. Political Science makes use of some
selected historical facts.

5. History depends upon Political Science for ascertaining Causal Connections:

History is only a narration of facts. It is Political Science which analyses the connections among various facts. Political Science gives
meaning to historical facts and uses these for answering the questions what should be done and what should not be done? History
without Politics is fruitless.

History cannot determine the ultimate end standard of good, bad, right and wrong in political institutions. It is done by Political Science.
Thus Political Science contributes a lot to History. In fact, Political Science and History are closely, intimately and inseparably related to
each other. Each needs the other. Both are complementary and supplementary to each other.

History and Economics:

History is also closely related to Economics. As the activities of a man in society are very closely related with the economic matters, the
historian of any period must possess at least a rudimentary knowledge of the economics. In fact, the economic history of any period is an
important branch of history and its understanding is absolutely essential for the proper understanding of history of any period.

There has been a new orientation in our historical outlook from the days of the materialistic interpretation of history by Marx and such
class struggle, man’s skill in earning, arts and crafts, trade, business and commerce, land revenue, taxes and a host of all other economic
activities of the past figure very prominently in history.
Sta. Ines, Maria Isabella R.
BSAc 1-2

No doubt, it is true that during the last few years economics has become very complex and difficult subject, mostly dependent on
mathematics, and a modern historian cannot acquire basic working knowledge of economic theory without devoting a lot of time and
leaving little time for the study and writing of history.

Therefore, a new set of economic history by the use of economic historians have emerged who try to study the economic history by the
use of the economic tools. At present, history is so closely interlinked with the study of economic problems that it would not be possible
to reconstruct history without knowledge of the relevant economic problems.

History and Statistics

In the present century the writing of history has been greatly influenced by the statistical data. With the invention of computers, the
collection of statistical data has become possible. The historians have given up the former practice of using the in exact term like
majority of historians or people, “wide support” etc., and have started quoting the exact percentage of the people or the help of the
computer and processing of enormous data can be completed within a short span and a systematic information can be collected.

Though the conclusion drawn on the basis of the data may be known to the historians on the basis of the impressionistic evidence, which
does reduce the value because it provides a concrete evidence for a previously held thesis.

On the same line the use of the historical demography ‘viz-information regarding the movement of people, births and deaths, fertility
rates, immigrations, etc., cannot be possible without the means to process and correlate the vast and complex data made available by
various official records.

This type of detailed investigation enables the historians to understand the different facts of the past life. A new branch called
“Cliometrics” has come into vague, according to which the use of mathematics has come into greater play in the writing of history and
interpretation of the numerous sources.

History and Ethics

History and ethics have a close relationship. Although a true historian is not expected to pass distinct and sensitive judgments on the
historical incidents and characters, yet he must know about the ethical principle of the time which influenced the conduct of the people
in the past. Probably in the past, there was not reliable ethical science and much of followed were merely a reflection of the bigotry,
partial and complexes of the different writers.

History and Psychology

History and Psychology are also closely linked. A historian must have to show some psychological insights while making an analysis of
the motive and actions of men and societies. Historian work would be mere fiction unless he uses the discoveries of modern psychology.
The personal life and the environment of a historian has a direct bearing in his decision and often import a bias to his account and
renders the much desired objectivity impossible.

The impact of psychology on history is evident from the fact that in the past historian inquired primarily into the origins of war and
ignored the result of war. As a result of the influence of psychology historians have under taken the study of the results and impacts of
war. An understanding of the group psychology can enable a historian to determine the role of masses in the various revolutions such as
Jingoistic patriotism has been described as the cause of certain wars but historian can discuss this cause with the help of the social
psychology.

History and Geography:

Universally it is accepted that History and Geography have very close ties. In fact it would be practically impossible to study; certain
branches of history without rudimentary knowledge of geography e.g., the diplomatic or military history cannot be fallowed without
necessary geographical knowledge of the region. Geography is one of the eyes of history the other eye being chronology. Time and
space factors give history its correct perspective.

It is a fact that many geographical factors such as climate, social, rivers, mountains, sea, coastline and mineral resources aided the
development of river in valley. Cultures in early Egypt, Mesopotamia, India and China. Herodotus, the early Greek historian describes
that “Egypt is the gift of the Nile”.
Sta. Ines, Maria Isabella R.
BSAc 1-2

Even Aristotle and Montesquieu have emphasized the influence of climate on man. The physical formation of the country such as
Britain, Japan and Greece with broken coastlines had a very powerful impact on its history. This facilitated their naval strength and
empire building activities.

Geography also plays an important role in the national character formation and influence the human behaviour. As we know that climate
of a country greatly affected the civilisation of a country. Hence the knowledge of geographical is very essential for historians. It would
be wise to accept the limited interpretation of geographical influence on man’s conduct or on his history.