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