DIVISION B HISTORICAL SCIENCE 



(Hall 3, September 20, 10 a. m.) 



THE VARIETY AND UNITY OF HISTORY 



BY WOODROW WILSON 



[Woodrow Wilson, President of Princeton University, b. Staunton, Virginia, 

 December 28, 1856. A.B. Princeton University, 1879; A.M. 1882. Ph.D. 

 Johns Hopkins, 1886. Litt.D. Yale, 1901. LL.D. Wake Forest College, 1887; 

 Tulane University, 1897; Johns Hopkins, 1901; Rutgers College, 1902; Uni- 

 versity of Pennsylvania, 1903; Brown University, 1903. Post-graduate, Uni- 

 versity of Virginia and Johns Hopkins University. Associate Professor History 

 and Political Economy, Bryn Mawr College, 1885-88. Professor History and 

 Political Economy, Wesleyan University, 1888-90. Professor Jurisprudence 

 and Politics, Princeton University, since 1890. Member American Institute of 

 Arts and Letters, American Historical Association, American Economic Asso- 

 ciation, American Academy Political and Social Science, American Philosophi- 

 cal Society, Southern History Association. Corresponding Member Massachu- 

 setts Historical Society. Author of Congressional Government; An Old Master 

 and Other Essays; George Washington; A History of the American People.] 



WE have seen the dawn and the early morning hours of a new age 

 in the writing of history, and the morning is now broadening about 

 us into day. When the day is full we shall see that minute research 

 and broad synthesis are not hostile but friendly methods, cooperating 

 toward a common end which neither can reach alone. No piece of 

 history is true when set apart to itself, divorced and isolated. It is 

 part of an intricately various whole, and must needs be put in its 

 place in the netted scheme of events to receive its true color and 

 estimation; and yet it must be itself individually studied and con- 

 trived if the whole is not to be weakened by its imperfection. Whole 

 and part are of one warp and woof. I think that we are in a temper 

 to realize this now, and to come to happy terms of harmony with 

 regard to the principles and the objects which we shall hold most 

 dear in the pursuit of our several tasks. 



I know that in some quarters there is still a fundamental difference 

 of opinion as to the aim and object of historical writing. Some regard 

 history as a mere record of experience, a huge memorandum of events, 

 of the things done, attempted, or neglected in bringing the world to 

 the present stage and posture of its affairs, a book of precedents 

 to which to turn for instruction, correction, and reproof. Others 

 regard it as a book of interpretation, rather, in which to study motive 

 and the methods of the human spirit, the ideals that elevate and the 

 ideals that debase; from which we are to derive assistance, not so 

 much in action as in thought; a record of evolution, in which we 

 are not likely to find repetitions, and in reading which our inquiry 

 should be of processes, not of precedents. The two views are not, 



