Plain History and Metahistory

Since Professor Renier has brought me into the meta-history debate, I feel impelled to take up his challenging offer of an agreement between the “plain” and the “meta-historians,” although I would hardly count myself among the latter. I am afraid that the answer must be No. It rests in my view upon a confusion in Professor Renier’s own mind that still remains despite Mr. Christopher Dawson’s admirable attempt at clarification. Professor Renier is trying to lump together for purposes of abuse those whose interest in history is in its capacity to provide raw materials for sociological generalization, and those whose concern is to bring some light to bear upon the actual operations of the plain historian, by subjecting his objects and processes to reasoned analysis. This distinction has just been made very adequately by a professional philosopher, Mr. W.H. Walsh, in his useful little book, An Introduction to the Philosophy of History, and I need not elaborate it.