Why Study History? A View from the Past Amanda H. Podany Professor of History, Cal Poly Pomona ahpodany@csupomona.

edu A couple of years ago, each of the faculty members in my department was given a gift by a publishera coffee mug with an inspiring quotation on it. It reads: History teaches everything, including the future. --Alphonse de Lamartine The mug is very usefuljust the right size. But not many modern historians would agree with the sentiment inscribed on it. If it were true, historians would be a lot richer than we tend to be imagine being able to tell the future, simply by knowing about the past! Alphonse de Lamartine wrote that sentence during the 19th century, at a time when many scholars were optimistic that history would prove to be a science, and a predictive one, at that. But historians have proved to be notoriously bad at predicting the future, so we dont justify the importance of studying history that way any more. Today I want to take you through the words of a number of historians from the past 2,500 years. Each of them thought that history was an essential discipline, but they thought so for very different reasons. I dont make any claims for this selection being encyclopedic, but I do think that the quotes below cover most of the main reasons that have been proposed for the importance of historical knowledge. Ever since history was first developed as a discipline, by Herodotus in 5th century BCE Greece, reasons have been given for its importance, not just to historians but to society as a whole. We are making the same case today. Some of the reasons are still current, others have fallen into disfavor. Reason 1: The reason that Herodotus gave for writing his history, a reason that he laid out at the very beginning of his work, falls into our first category: In order to ensure that great deeds are not forgotten: Herodotus (5th century BCE): He wrote his history in the hope of thereby preserving from decay the remembrance of what men have done, and of preventing the great and wonderful actions of the Greeks and the Barbarians from losing their due meed of glory, and withal to put on record what were their grounds of feud. (source of quotation: Kelley, 24) This was a popular idea in the ancient world. Many historians made the same case. Some, notably Pliny the Younger, wanted to write history in order that they themselves might not be forgotten. Failing that, Pliny wrote to the great Roman historian, Tacitus, asking him to include Plinys own deeds in his historyassuming, rightly as it turned out, that Tacituss work would be read for centuries to come thereby ensuring Plinys own immortality. Tacitus himself made a similar case to that of Herodotus:
Amanda Podany The History Summit I, CSU Dominguez Hills May 29, 2008 1

Tacitus (1st-2nd century CE) My purpose is not to relate at length every motion, but only such as were conspicuous for excellence or notorious for infamy. This I regard as historys highest function, to let no worthy action be uncommemorated, and to hold out the reprobation of posterity as a terror to evil words and deeds. (Tacitus) Note that Tacitus added a corollary to Herodotuss ideahe proposed that, knowing that histories would be written and future generations would remember, people would be deterred from performing evil deeds. A thousand years after Tacitus, Byzantine historian Anna Comnena gave the same reason (though in perhaps more poetic language) for the study of history: that it kept events from slipping away and being lost forever: Anna Comnena (12th century): [T]he science of History is a great bulwark against this stream of time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion. (Kelley, 114) This reason is rarely given today as a rationale for the study of history, though it remains true that histories immortalize, to some extent, the events and people they record. Reason 2: One of the most enduring reasons for writing and studying history was given by Herodotuss successor, the great Greek historian, Thucydides. He proposed the second reason to be discussed today: In order to understand the present and prepare for the future: Thucydides (5th century BCE): He wrote of his history if it be judged useful by those inquirers who desire an exact knowledge of the past as an aid to the interpretation of the future, which in the course of human things must resemble if it does not reflect it, I shall be content. (Kelley, 34-35) Thucydides focused on historys use for understanding the future, and didnt mention its role in helping one understand the present, but the Greek philosopher Aristotle did. He wrote: Aristotle (4th century BCE): If you would understand anything, observe its beginning and its development. (Szasz) This ideathat everything has a past and that knowing the past is crucial to understanding, is one of the great pillars on which history stands. Three centuries later, Cicero wrote, along the same lines:
Amanda Podany The History Summit I, CSU Dominguez Hills May 29, 2008 2

Cicero (1st century BCE): To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child. For what is the worth of human life, unless it is woven into the life of our ancestors by the records of history? (Kelley, 77) But was the past just like the present? Can one go beyond what the classical thinkers proposed and assert that one can predict future events and behaviors based on how things turned out in the past? My students often think so. They will often use the clich that history repeats itself to justify why it is important to study history. Some Renaissance thinkers believed this. Machiavelli wrote, for example: Niccolo Machiavelli (15th-16th century): Whoever considers the past and the present will readily observe that all cities and all people are and ever have been animated by the same desires and the same passions; so that it is easy, by diligent study of the past to foresee what is likely to happen in the future in any republic, and to apply those remedies that were used by the ancients (Kelley, 294) Few historians were so optimistic, though. During the Enlightenment, thinkers focused on the study of history not as a way to foresee the future but as an aid in planning for the future and avoiding mistakes. Thomas Hobbes and Voltaire both made this case: Thomas Hobbes (17th century): For the principal and proper work of history being to instruct and enable men, by the knowledge of actions past, to bear themselves prudently in the present and providently towards the future (Kelley, 303) Voltaire (18th century): This benefit consists in the comparison which a statesman or citizen can make between foreign laws and manners and those of his own country. The great errors of the past can also be used in this way. One cannot too often recall the crimes and misfortunes caused by absurd quarrels. It is certain that by reviewing the memory of these quarrels we can prevent them from being revived. (Kelley, 445) In the 19th century, Aristotles point was made again by Jules Michelet: Jules Michelet (19th century): He who would confine his thoughts to present time will not understand present reality. (Stern) Meanwhile, Macaulay was making the case, again, for using history to understand the present and plan for the future: Thomas Babington Macaulay (19th century): No past event has any intrinsic importance. The knowledge of it is valuable only as it leads us to form just calculations with respect to the future.
Amanda Podany The History Summit I, CSU Dominguez Hills May 29, 2008 3

An intimate knowledge of the domestic history of nations is, therefore, absolutely necessary to the prognosis of political events. (Stern, 83, 89) By the early 20th century, this argument had become a little more sophisticated. James Harvey Robinson was well aware that no historian could ever know everything about the pastthe evidence for the reconstruction of most events has been lost. But even if one could know everything (in a Godlike way, as he put it), Robinson didnt believe that the actions of people in the past would be able to provide useful precedents of conduct. He wrote: James Harvey Robinson (1912): History may be regarded as an artificial extension and broadening of our memories and may be used to overcome the natural bewilderment of all unfamiliar situations.Could we suddenly be endowed with a Godlike and exhaustive knowledge of the whole history of mankindwe should gain forthwith a Godlike appreciation of the world in which we live, and a Godlike insight into the evils which mankind now suffers, as well as into the most promising methods for alleviating them, not because the past would furnish precedents of conduct, but because our conduct would be based upon a perfect comprehension of existing conditions founded upon a perfect knowledge of the past. (Stern, 263) By the 1930s, Huizinga was rejecting the idea that any laws could be ascertained for history or that the future could be predicted based on the past: J. Huizinga (1934): history is pre-eminently an inexact science, its concept of causality is extremely defectiveit resists the formulation of lawsthe concept of historical evolution can be considered valid only so far as one accepts the organic analogy Though the past supplies our material and compels our attention, though the mind realizes that not one minute of the future can be predicted, none the less it is the eternal future that moves our mind. The widespread and persistent opinion that history should deal with our understanding of the present rests on a misconception: a present is as little known to historical thought as it is to philosophical thought. (Stern, 290) Marc Bloch, one of the founders of the Annales school of history, emphasized this further. In his view, history never repeated itself, at least not exactly: Marc Bloch (20th century): History is, in its essentials, the science of change. It knows and it teaches that it is impossible to find two events that are ever exactly alike, because the conditions from which they spring are never identical. (Szasz) Nonetheless, even if history cant predict the future, even if it doesnt repeat itself, surely it is essential for understanding the present and for our sensible functioning in the world. The classic analogy of a people who have forgotten their history (though Im not sure who first came up with it) is to someone waking up with amnesia. This person cant make any rational decisions because he or she has no idea about his or her personal past. We all go through our days completely
Amanda Podany The History Summit I, CSU Dominguez Hills May 29, 2008 4

dependent on the wisdom accumulated from our past experiences. So it is with societies and nations. If they forget their pasts, they have no accumulated wisdom on which to act. Individuals cant predict their personal futures with any accuracyanything might happen due to circumstances that are out of their controlbut that doesnt prevent them from planning their activities and making decisions based on their past experiences. So it is with historys usefulness to the population. Historians, even today, still go back to Thucydides and Aristotles basic idea, formulated almost 2,500 years ago: Kenneth Stampp (20th century): With the historian it is an article of faith that knowledge of the past is a key to understanding the present. (Szasz) This idea has been expressed by many modern historians. A good example is found in the article by Peter Stearns that was distributed to the participants in this summit, where he writes as follows: Peter Stearns (2007): The past causes the present, and so the future. Any time we try to know why something happenedwe have to look for factors that took shape earlier. Only through studying history can we grasp how things change; only through history can we begin to comprehend the factors that cause change; and only through history can we understand what elements of an institution or a society persist despite change. (Stearns) Reason 3 (no longer used): Ancient historians, especially Jewish and Christian historians, had a third main reason for studying history, one that is never cited by historians today: In order to understand the will of God: The first two reasons discussed above are still seen as legitimate by some historians. This third one now falls only into the realm of theology, not history. It was expressed clearly in the 1st century by Josephus: Josephus (1st century CE): the main lesson to be learned from this history by any who care to peruse it is that men who conform to the will of Godprosper in all things beyond belief, and for their reward are offered by God felicity; whereas in proportion as they depart from the strict observance of these laws, things (else) practicable become impracticable, and whatever imaginary good thing they strive to do ends in irretrievable disasters. (Kelley, 133) This idea remained popular throughout the Medieval period in Europe, and elaborate frameworks of thought developed around it, based on the Bible. To these historians, God played a role in
Amanda Podany The History Summit I, CSU Dominguez Hills May 29, 2008 5

history, rewarding virtue and punishing sin. Medieval historians readily predicted the future based on what they saw as the correlation between human history and biblical prophecy. Martin Luther agreed with Josephus that Gods will could be seen in history: Martin Luther (16th century): histories are nothing else than a demonstration, recollection, and sign of divine action and judgment, how He upholds, rules, obstructs, prospers, punishes, and honors the world, and especially men, each according to his just desert, evil or good. (Kelley, 315) Starting with the Scientific Revolution, however, and continuing into the Enlightenment, historians began to separate their studies from those of the theologians. Historys focus returned to the study of human activities and their human and natural causes. The study of God was something entirely separate. [From here on the summit participants discussed the remaining quotes from historians in order to determine their usefulness for us today] Reason 4: Tacitus (quoted above) had mentioned the role of history in condemning evil behavior. This, and its corollarythe praise and emulation of virtue--became a common theme in works that promoted the study of history, even when God was not seen as rewarding virtue or punishing evil. In order to provide a moral lessona model of good behavior and a warning about evil: In the Middle Ages, the Venerable Bede made this case: Bede (7th-8th century): For if history records good things of good men, the thoughtful hearer is encouraged to imitate what is good: or if it records evil of wicked men, the good, religious listener or reader is encouraged to avoid all that is sinful and perverse, and to follow what he knows to be good and pleasing to God. (Kelley, 173-174) History was a moral lesson, one that would improve and inspire the student. Petrarch, the early Renaissance writer agreed that history was designed to: Petrarch (14th century): point up to the readers those things that are to be followed and those to be avoided, with plenty of distinguished examples provided on either side. (Kelley, 230) Petrarch, perhaps a little futilely, wrote letters to Cicero and other classical authors, as though they were his contemporaries (though they had been dead for well over a millennium), taking issue with, or applauding them, for their actions (and even wondering whether they might have
Amanda Podany The History Summit I, CSU Dominguez Hills May 29, 2008 6

taken offense at his word. He was a little eccentric, to our eyes, but he clearly felt that there was much to be learned from the past. Two centuries later, Jean Bodin said much thing: Jean Bodin (16th century): This, then, is the greatest benefit of historical books, that some men, at least, can be incited to virtue and others can be frightened away from vice. (Kelley, 383) Generally, modern historians make little mention of this idea that history provides such a clearcut morality taleeven some heroes often prove to have feet of clay when studied in depth but the idea was raised by the Bradley Commission in the late 1980s as a reason to promote the study of history in schools: Bradley Commission (1989): It [history] can convey a sense of civic responsibility by graphic portrayals of virtue, courage, and wisdomand their opposites. (History Teacher 23/1) Some virtues in historical figures are obvious, but some are less clear. What about someone like Alexander the Great? Does he provide an example of virtue or vice? Anyone emulating Alexander today would be roundly condemned by the international community. But to condemn him for his behavior in the past would be ahistorical; he lived at a time when modern ideas of human rights had not yet developed. We now believe that is not our job, as historians, to judge the past based on modern values. Peter Stearns provides a more nuanced view related to this reason for the study of history. Rather than adopting the idea that there are clear, unambiguous instances of virtue and evil in history, he proposes that students of history look at the very complexities of situations in the past in order to test and hone their moral sense: Peter Stearns (2007): Studying the stories of individuals and situations in the past allows a student of history to test his or her own moral sense, to hone it against some of the real complexities individuals have faced in difficult settings. (Stearns) Reason 5: In order to understand the history of ones nation and to increase patriotism or sense of identity: With the development of the idea of the nation came a new role for history. People reasoned that a sense of national identity could be generated through a knowledge of shared history. Already, this was being voiced by Leonardo Bruni in the Renaissance when he referred to our own history: Leonardo Bruni (14th-15th century):
Amanda Podany The History Summit I, CSU Dominguez Hills May 29, 2008 7

History: a subject which must not on any account be neglected by one who aspires to true cultivation. For it is our duty to understand the origins of our own history and its development; and the achievements of Peoples and of Kings. (Kelley, 245) In the 19th century, French historian Augustin Thierry was typical of his time in proposing that national history be widely taught in order to strengthen patriotism: Augustin Thierry (19th century): I believe that our patriotism would gain a great deal both in selflessness and in steadfastness if the knowledge of history, and particularly of French history, were more widely diffused among us and were to become in a certain sense more popular. (Stern, 67) By the late 20th century the Bradley Commission recognized the need for both a common political vision and a recognition of the multicultural nature of American society, both of which were aided through the study of history: Bradley Commission (1989): An historical grasp of our common political vision is essential to liberty, equality, and justice in our multicultural society. (History Teacher 23/1) Peter Stearns emphasized that awareness of a shared history could provide not only a nation, but a business, institution, or ethnic group with a common identity: Peter Stearns (2007): History also helps provide identity, and this is unquestionably one of the reasons all modern nations encourage its teaching in some form.Many institutions, businesses, communities and social units, such as ethnic groups in the United States, use history for similar identity purposes. (Stearns) Reason 6 History could do more than simply make citizens feel proud of their nation, or share a common identity. It could make them better citizens. In order to encourage civic participation and citizenship: In the 19th century, Frederick Jackson Turner wanted history to come alive and to be relevant to students, and to inspire them to be good citizens. Frederick Jackson Turner (19th century) But perhaps its most practical utility to us, as public school teachers, is its service in fostering good citizenship.We must make history living instead of allowing it to seem mere literature, a mere narration of events that might have occurred on the moon.Historical study has for its end to let the community see itself in the light of the past, to give it new thoughts and feelings, new aspirations and energies. (Stern, 207)
Amanda Podany The History Summit I, CSU Dominguez Hills May 29, 2008 8

A few years later, J. B. Bury also emphasized the need for citizens to be knowledgeable about history, a theme continued, after World War II, in a yearbook put together by the National Council for Social Studies: John Bagnell Bury (1902): it is of vital importance for citizens to have a true knowledge of the past and to see it in a dry light, in order that their influence on the present and future may be exerted in the right directions. (Stern, 216) NY Times on the NCSS Yearbook (1947): American history is called the necessary and vital core in any program of preparation for intelligent American citizenship in an interdependent world.The educators observe that citizens of the United States must, without losing their national identity, become citizens of the world. (NY Times, Feb 2, 1947) By the late 20th century and continuing today, this was seen as one of the most important reasons for placing history at the center of the school curriculuma familiarity with history, along with the habits of mind it encourages, are seen as absolutely necessary in order for citizens to function in our democratic society. The Bradley Commission (1989): It [history] is vital for all citizens in a democracy, because it provides the only avenue we have to reach an understanding of ourselves and our society, in relation to the human condition over time, and of how some things change and others continue.The knowledge and habits of mind to be gained from the study of history are indispensable to the education of citizens in a democracy. (History Teacher 23/1) Peter Stearns (2007): History that lays the foundation for genuine citizenship returns, in one sense, to the essential uses of the study of the past.studying history encourages the habits of mind that are vital for responsible public behavior, whether as a national or community leader, an informed voter, a petitioner, or a simple observer. (Stearns) A number of other reasons for the study of history have been put forward over the last century, most of which remain valid and are uncontroversial. Reason 7 In order to lessen prejudices: Knowing more about the histories of peoples different from oneself tends to generate more understanding. Trevelyan referred to this as sympathizing with others: George Macaulay Trevelyan (1913):
Amanda Podany The History Summit I, CSU Dominguez Hills May 29, 2008 9

It [history] can mould the mind itself into the capability of understanding great affairs and sympathizing with other men. (Stern, 235) Others have written more recently of historys ability to undermine stereotypes and diminish unfounded prejudices. Reason 8 In order to appreciate arts and literature: All works of art and literature were produced during specific time periods. In many instances the works cannot truly be appreciated without an understanding of the histories of those times. George Macaulay Trevelyan (1913): Another educative function of history is to enable the reader to comprehend the historical aspect of literature proper.For much of literature is allusion, either definite or implied.History and literature cannot be fully comprehended, still less fully enjoyed, except in connection with one another. (Stern, 237) Bradley Commission (1989): History provides both framework and illumination for the other humanities. The arts, literature, philosophy, and religion are best studied as they develop over time and in the context of societal evolution. In turn they greatly enliven and reinforce our historical grasp of place and moment. (History Teacher 23/1) Reason 9 In order to foster personal growth: In addition to making us better, more informed citizens, a knowledge of history simply makes us wiser, according to this line of thought. Bradley Commission (1989): It [history] can satisfy young peoples longing for a sense of identity and of their time and place in the human story. Well-taught, history and biography are naturally engaging to students by speaking to their individuality, to their possibilities for choice, and to their desire to control their lives. (History Teacher 23/1) Peter Stearns (2007): [History] offers the only extensive evidential base for the contemplation and analysis of how societies function, and people need to have some sense of how societies function simply to run their own lives. (Stearns) Reason 10
Amanda Podany The History Summit I, CSU Dominguez Hills May 29, 2008 10

In order to prepare for work by developing analytical skills: The skills one uses in learning to read, analyze, and interpret history extend to many other aspects of life. Whether at home (for example, trying to determine the credibility of information on a website) or at work (e.g. doing research for a business report), skills learned in well-taught history classes have a lasting value. Such skills even help students do well on standardized tests of reading, though this can hardly be viewed as an end in itself. More important is that a different (and arguably more useful) type of literacy is needed for reading primary or secondary sources in history than is required for reading fiction. NY Times on NCSS Yearbook (1947): A proper teaching of history, the Yearbook authors hold, can develop critical thinking among students, as well as built democratic attitudes. (NY Times, Feb 2 1947) Bradley Commission (1989): history is generally helpful to the third aim of education, preparation for work. It is needed for such professions as law, journalism, diplomacy, politics, and teaching. More broadly, historical study develops analytical skills, comparative perspectives, and modes of critical judgment that promote thoughtful work in any field or career. (History Teacher 23/1) Peter Stearns (2007): History is useful for work. Its study helps create good businesspeople, professionals, and political leaders. (Stearns) These are not the only reasons for studying history, of course. One can think of many more. What rings true throughout the centuries, however, is that history has always been an essential element of the educational curriculum. It is not a luxury or an add-on to be brought in if time allows. Its study is part of the life-blood of a society. And, finally, a few words of praise for the wise men and women who spend their lives teaching history (from a couple of eminent thinkers): Postscript: In Praise of History Teaching: Martin Luther (16th century): The historians, therefore, are the most useful people and the best teachers, so that one can never honor, praise, and thank them enough. (Kelley, 315) Frederick Jackson Turner (19th century): Given a good school or town libraryand given an energetic, devoted teacher to direct and foster the study of history and politics and economics, we would have an intellectual regeneration of the state. (Stern, 208) * * *

Amanda Podany The History Summit I, CSU Dominguez Hills May 29, 2008 11

References: The Bradley Commission on History in Schools. Building a History Curriculum: Guidelines for Teaching History in Schools. The History Teacher 23/1 (1989) 7-35. Fine, Benjamin. Council for Social Studies Emphasizes the Importance of American History Teaching. New York Times, Feb. 2 1947. Kelley, Donald R., ed. Versions of History from Antiquity to the Enlightenment. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1991. Stearns, Peter. Why Study History? Unpublished manuscript, 2007. Stern, Fritz, ed. The Varieties of History from Voltaire to the Present. New York: Vintage Books, 1972. Szasz, Ferenc M. The Many Meanings of History, Parts I-IV The History Teacher 7/4 (1974) 552-563; 8/1 (1974) 54-63; 8/2 (1975) 208-216; 9/2 (1976) 217-227.

Amanda Podany The History Summit I, CSU Dominguez Hills May 29, 2008 12