Manuscripts and psychohistory.

Abstract

A review of some recent studies of the kinds of work historians do, written by Maynard Brichford and published in the July 1973 issue of the American Archivist, reminds us again how closely allied the archival and historical professions are and how much new developments in historical research can affect archival work.1 The much-discussed rapprochement between history and the social sciences is a case in point. In i960 H. Stuart Hughes predicted that historians in the decade ahead would try to make their work more substantial by using quantitative methods in the analysis of historical data and by applying the insights of modern psychology to historical problems.2 Fourteen years later, we know that Hughes was right. The American historical profession's fascination with quantification is, as Jacob Price described it, almost a commonplace,3 and psychohistory, having survived a less than enthusiastic initial reception, is now the respectable subject of instruction and discussion in college seminars, journals, and sessions of historical associations. Of special interest and importance to manuscript curators are attempts by historians to combine social science theories with information from documents found in manuscript repositories. Some researchers, like the British historian Alan Macfarlane, insist that the most significant future historical work will rest on such a combination.4 Manuscript curators familiar with the literature on quantitative history and data archives can appreciate the validity of Macfarlane's contention and realize the extent to which the emergence of a new tool of historical investigation can affect the work of people responsible for the sources without which any scholarly tool, old or