Just as events of the past affect the days of the present, so too do debates about past affairs affect the way history is written. Accordingly, “the profession of history involves, by definition, ongoing reflection on the past, based on the honest and systematic investigation of the widest possible range of sources.” Using Ireland as a case study, this essay will explore the different trends in the historiography of this island. These range from nationalist history writing in the early 1900s, to the creation of Irish historical studies in the 1930s, to the continuation of social and economic historiography in the 1950s and 1960s, to historical revisionism in the 1970s, to post-revisionism in the 1980s and 1990s and how Irish history is written today. However, historiography and its changes over time are not limited to Ireland, which is why it is important to understand the context of the historiography. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay If historiography is fundamentally “the history of history,” then one could say that historiography began after the very first historical documents were written. History writing originally relied on the construction of myths or legends and how the successes of a group's ancestors were used to bolster a people's self-esteem, the events of past being the “direct consequences of God’s design”. This historiographic framework would persist in Europe from the early medieval period until the Age of Enlightenment, when individuals began to see themselves as having more destiny over their own lives. The idea that individuals are the primary arbiters of change in this world would help strengthen nation building across the globe throughout the 19th century. It was also in the 19th century that the writing of history was considered an academic activity and the examination of manuscripts and original documents became increasingly common. However, just because historiography became more scholarly does not mean there was no dominant narrative behind it; The best example of a dominant philosophy influencing historical studies would be the effect of Marxism on historiography. Political motivations in historiography were not a new thing before Marxism, as some historians in the late 18th and early 19th, for example, held a Whig worldview that greatly shaped their writings. What Marxism did, however, was to travel through periods of the past, such as feudalism, to the beginning of capitalism, and recount them in such a way that world history followed a predetermined course that would ultimately lead to the advent of socialism - the ideal civilization for humanity. This is why, from the end of the 19th century, and especially from the 1950s, the social and economic history of the world aroused great interest; because many scholars considered that the main drivers of revolution in the future would come from the proletariat for public and financial interests, rather than elites dictating change. However, with the fall of communist regimes in the late 20th century, the influence of Marxism in historiography began and continued to decline over the years. Therefore, the question “What motivates historiography here and now?” » » should be asked. Studying and writing history has never been easier thanks to the digitization ofarchival sources and original documents. However, the availability of these resources now means that analyzing history is just as important as knowing the rudimentary facts of the past. In addition to the use of first-hand evidence, the writing of history now incorporates how the past is remembered, primarily using oral history. This has had profound effects on the type of history produced, particularly that of local communities, in the form of first-hand accounts which were not previously written down are now taken into account in the history of study, which had a profound effect on historiography. Examining the historiography and how history was written and today has wider implications for Ireland, as it goes without saying that the historiography of the island has changed dramatically since the beginning of the 20th century. In 1900, Ireland was still part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, but this did not stop Irish history from being written from a nationalist perspective. Even in the 19th century, books such as Alexander Martin Sullivan's The Story of Ireland (1885) made a patriotic commitment to the Irish country, but what distinguished them from the works of George O'Brien and Alice Effie Murray of the 20th century are the scopes and topics of Irish history are covered. In Murray's History of Commercial and Financial Relations between England and Ireland since the Restoration (1903), The Economic History of Ireland in the 18th Century (1918) and The Economic History of Ireland in the during the 18th century. 17th Century (1919) both by O'Brien, the authors chose to focus on the Irish economy in particular periods, rather than describing overviews of the history of the entire island. Irish history in the 17th and 18th centuries is therefore the subject of more descriptive accounts in the works of Murray and O'Brien than in those of Sullivan. However, when looking at the situation from a financial perspective, the Irish – particularly the Catholic Irish – are spoken of in a very sympathetic light, as their unfortunate situation was the result of English policies which limited the prosperity of Ireland. This is particularly interesting because traditionally one would have thought that sectarianism was the dominant problem in Ireland. Nevertheless, historical accounts of Ireland presented in the 20th century recognized that Britain had poor relations with Ireland and, if viewed from the perspective of Irish republicanism, would therefore justify the end of the union politics between Great Britain and Ireland. With the birth of the Irish Free State, nationalism would come to dominate the presentation of history in Ireland. Tom Barry, author of Gurilla Days in Ireland (1949), and Dan Breen, author of My Fight for Irish Freedom (1924), were both veterans of the Irish War of Independence and wrote accounts of their experiences in their respective works. Breen's work was first published in 1924 and Barry's in 1949. They both recall their involvement in Ireland in the 1920s. These accounts do not provide insight into the periods in question – Barry even admitting as much in the author's note section (2013). Rather, what they are are personal memoirs of their wartime, and it is through these first-person recollections that the writing can seem more vivid and personal than in other historical pieces. It can therefore be argued that much of Irish historiography between 1920 and 1950 had the priority of winning the hearts and minds of the Irish population, while the Irish state was still emerging. However, aside from the overt populism and nationalism,were there other trends in Irish historiography at this time? Before the publication of Irish Historical Studies in 1938, historians such as Eoin MacNeill and Edmund Curtis worked "largely in isolation, not only becoming important specialists". contributions themselves, but they also boldly attempted to construct general principles on inadequate foundations. The IHS's most prominent scholars, Theodore William Moody and Robert Dudley Edwards, "emphasized that their desire was to create a 'scientific' historiography." As a result, the writing of Irish history was able to become more standardized and historians were able to transmit and absorb new information from their peers in a single periodical. Contemporary critics of Irish Historical Studies have accused the organization of wanting to rewrite Irish history in its entirety, but the institution insisted that it was only modernizing it (Jackson, 2014). However, to combat unfounded common perceptions, some Irish historians of the previous generation had their work ignored. Some of the hostility towards the IHS was partly because they were seen as non-nationalist, when in reality the society simply wanted to establish links with universities in Britain and from continental Europe. Considering that Irish historical studies attempted to speak to schools and their teachers, they were perceived as elitist and unwilling to deviate from their entrenched consensus (Jackson, 2014). Nevertheless, Irish historical studies would continue to dominate Irish historiography from the 1930s to the 1980s. However, just as the different themes of historiography are not written independently of each other, Irish historical studies was not the only mode of writing history in Ireland, as it can be said that there was a certain interest in the social and economic past as well. The 1950s saw progress in continuing the social and economic history of Ireland, with emphasis on the Great Irish Famine. One of the most important publications relating to the residential history of Ireland at the time was Population of Ireland: 1750-1845 (1950) by Ken Connell, and would be one of the first works cited in connection with the historical population of Ireland for two decades. The 1960s and 1970s saw many breakthroughs in the world of social and economic history in Ireland with the establishment of the Irish Economic History Group in 1968 (which changed its name to the Economic and Social History Society of Ireland in 1970 ) and the periodical Irish Economic History. and Social History in 1974. In the process of writing the social history of Ireland, the role of women in the making of history became more attractive, as a role in politics, journalism and literature. In addition, the history of urban Ireland has also become more recognised. With this in mind, have there been any prominent writers in the field of social and economic history who have stood out? Louis Michael Cullen would dominate the socio-economic historical scene in the second half of the 20th century with various works. These works included Anglo-Irish Trade, 1660-1800 (1968) and the Economic History of Ireland since 1660 (1972); and the latter was so good that it "had the distinction of being the first general textbook dealing with Irish economic history for over fifty years". Clarkson states that because "Cullen's major themes are that Irish economic history should be explained in terms of factor endowments and market opportunities rather than English policy towards Ireland...his work therefore constitutes a refreshing contrast to the interpretations found in Lecky's old but enduring books. , Murray and O'Brien. Although it is also worth noting that even with almost half a century difference in period, the 17th and 18th centuries remain a preoccupation for earlier writers such as O'Brien and Murray in the early 20th century and Cullen at the end of the 20th century. Given all this, social and economic history would not be the predominant theme of Irish historiography, as the Troubles occurring in Northern Ireland greatly influenced the way in which the history of the island was written and considered. was a reaction by "some liberal academics to distance themselves from the Northern Ireland insurgents", but in general, revisionism in historiography in Ireland has attempted to re-address nationalist motifs present in the literature of Irish history. Revisionist theory asserted that the antagonisms between Britain and Ireland up to Irish independence were not as simple as previously thought, and one of the prominent revisionist historians was Father Francis Shaw. Shaw, who was formerly a professor at University College Dublin, was highly critical of the way the 1916 Rising was commemorated at the start of the Golden Jubilee in an article titled "The Canon of Irish History: A challenge ". Although it was deemed by many to be inappropriate – even by Shaw himself – because it was unwarranted in a time meant to be cause for celebration, the article was not published in Irish Historical Studies until in 1972, even though Shaw himself had died. in 1970. However, one revisionist author who had his work published and would be alive to see it in 1972 was Connor Cruise O'Brien. O'Brien's States of Ireland (1972) suggested that "England itself was not the root cause of Ireland's problems" and that certain footnotes of Irish history, such that the insurrection of 1916, had acquired such a revered status that it was not popular to criticize them). It should be borne in mind that during the 1970s Northern Ireland was going through a turbulent period due to the Troubles; therefore O'Brien wrote in such a way as not to cause further upheaval, particularly from the unionist community. However, not all scholars appreciate the direction in which the revisionists were heading, and the post-revisionist movement emerged in response in the 1980s and 1990s. Historians such as Desmond Fennell, Brendan Bradshaw, and Brian Murphy have taken up the torch of post-revisionism. -revisionists and challenged the status quo of the then dominant Irish historiography. While some academics were discouraged from discussing controversial topics during the Troubles, the post-revision movement felt that "the violence in Northern Ireland…stimulated a renewed popular appetite for a more reverential historiography" (Jackson, 2014 ). Perhaps the most concise argument for post-revisionism can be found in Kevin Whelan's article "Come All You Staunch Revisionists" (1991). He claims that revisionism was inherently too skeptical and that its "minimalist interpretation of the past...resulted in the alienation of the Irish people". Post-revisionism disliked the revisionist interpretation of colonialism in Ireland or the British Empire, as events such as the Irish Famine were often downplayed. Post revisionism questioned revisionism's acceptance of an established Northern Ireland and a Republic of Ireland. Historian Roy Foster was criticized for calling the 1798 rebellion nothing.