Just as the events of the past influence the days of the present, so too do the events of the past influence the way history is written. Consequently, "the historical profession 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 various trends in the historiography of this island. We will range from the nationalist writing of history in the early 1900s, to the foundation of Irish historical studies in the 1930s, to the research of social and economic historiography in the 1950s and 1960s, to historical revisionism in the 1970s, to post-revisionism in the 1980s. and The 1990s and how Irish history is being written today. However, historiography and its changes over time do not extend only 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 Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay If historiography is basically the “history of history,” then one might say that it began after the first historical documents were written. History writing originally had the ethos of constructing myths or legends and how the successes of a group's ancestors were used to bolster a people's self-esteem, as past events were the "direct consequences of God's purpose ". This historiographical framework would persist in Europe from the early medieval period until the era of the Enlightenment, when individuals began to see themselves as having more destiny over their lives. The idea that people are the primary arbiters of change in this world would help strengthen nation-building across the globe throughout the nineteenth century. It was also in the nineteenth century that the writing of history came to be seen as an academic activity and the examination of original manuscripts and documents was becoming more common. However, the fact that historiography has become more academic does not mean that there was no prevailing narrative behind it; for the best example of a dominant philosophy influencing historical studies would be the effect Marxism has had 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, had a Whig worldview that they strongly shaped their writings by. What Marxism did, however, was take periods of the past, such as feudalism, up to the beginning of capitalism and tell them in such a way that world history was on a predetermined course that would eventually lead to the advent of socialism – the ideal civilization for humanity. This is why from the end of the nineteenth century, and especially from the 1950s, there was great interest in the social and economic history of the world; because many scholars believed that the main drivers of future revolution would come from the proletariat for public and financial interests, rather than the elites dictating change. However, with the fall of the communist regimes at the end of the 20th century, the influence of Marxism in historiography began to decline and continued to decline over the years. Therefore, the question "What drives historiography here and now?" should be asked.Studying and writing history has never been easier thanks to the digitization of archival sources and original documents. However, the availability of such resources now means that analyzing history is just as important as knowing the rudimentary facts of thepast. In addition to the use of first-hand evidence, history writing now incorporates how the past is remembered, primarily using oral history. This has had profound effects on the type of history that has been produced, particularly by local communities, as evidenced by first-hand accounts which previously were not written down, are now taken into account in the study of history, which has had a profound effect on historiography . Examining historiography and how history has been and is written today has wider implications for Ireland, as it is evident that historiography on the island has changed dramatically since the beginning of the twentieth century. In 1900, Ireland was still a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, but this did not stop the writing of Irish history from a nationalistic perspective. Even in the nineteenth century, books like Alexander Martin Sullivan's The Story of Ireland (1885) make patriotic commitments to the Irish country, but what distinguishes it from George O'Brien and Alice Effie Murray's twentieth-century pieces are the scope and Irish history topics discussed. In Murray's History of the Commercial and Financial Relations between England and Ireland since the Restoration (1903), The Economic History of Ireland in the Eighteenth Century (1918) and The Economic History of Ireland in the Seventeenth Century (1919), both by O'Brien , the authors chose to focus on the Irish economy in particular time periods, rather than describing overviews of the history of the entire island. Irish history in the 17th and 18th centuries thus receives more descriptive accounts in the work of Murray and O'Brien than in the work of Sullivan. However, looking at the situation through the lens of finance, the Irish – particularly the Catholic Irish – are spoken of in a very sympathetic light, as their unfortunate situation was the result of English policies that limited Ireland's prosperity. This is particularly interesting, as sectarianism was traditionally thought to be the prevailing issue in Ireland. However, historical narratives of Ireland presented in the twentieth century recognized that Britain had a poor relationship with Ireland and, when viewed from the perspective of Irish republicanism, would therefore justify the end of the political union between Great Britain and Ireland . With the advent of the Irish Free State, nationalism would 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. Both recall their involvement in Ireland in the 1920s. These narratives do not cover the time frames in question – Barry even admits this in the Author's Note section (2013). What they are instead are personal memories of time spent at war, and it is because of these first-person memories that the writing can feel more vivid and personal than in other historical pieces. It can therefore be argued that much Irish historiography between 1920 and 1950 prioritized winning the hearts and minds of the Irish population when the Irish state was still emerging. Although, apart from overt populism and nationalism, were there other trends in Irish historiography during this era? Before Irish Historical Studies was published in 1938, historians such as Eoin MacNeill and Edmund Curtis worked "largely in isolation, not only made important scholarly contributions themselves, but also attempted valiantly tobuild a general framework on inadequate foundations". The leading academics of the IHS, 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 could become more standardized and historians were able to transmit and absorb new information from their colleagues in a single periodical. Contemporary critics of Irish historical studies accused the organization of wanting to completely rewrite Ireland's history, but the institution insisted that they were only modernizing it (Jackson, 2014). However, to combat unfounded common perceptions, some Irish history scholars of an earlier generation ignored their works. Some of the hostility towards the IHS was partly due to the fact that it was said to be anti-nationalist, when in reality the society only wanted to establish links with academia across Britain and continental Europe. Whereas Irish historical studies attempted to reach schools and their teachers, they were perceived as elitist and did not want to go against their entrenched consensus (Jackson, 2014). However, Irish historical studies continued to dominate as a mainstream in Irish historiography from the 1930s to the 1980s. However, just as the different themes of historiography are not written in isolation from each other, the research of Irish historical studies was not the only way of writing the history that was spreading in Ireland, as it can be said that there was a certain interest in historiography. also the social and economic past. The 1950s saw some progress in research into the social and economic history of Ireland, with some attention paid to the Great Irish Famine. One of the most significant publications relating to the residential history of Ireland at the time was Ken Connell's Population of Ireland: 1750-1845 (1950), and it would be one of the first works cited in relation to Ireland's historical population for two decades. The 1960s and 1970s saw much progress in social and economic history in Ireland with the founding 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 Group. and Social History in 1974. In the process of writing Ireland's social history, the role women played in the shaping of history gained greater traction, as they held roles in politics, journalism and literature. Furthermore, the stories of urban Ireland also became more recognised. With this in mind, have there been any prominent writers in the field of social and economic history who have distinguished themselves? Louis Michael Cullen would dominate the socio-economic historical scene in the second half of the 20th century with various works. These works included the 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 in over fifty years". Clarkson states that since Cullen's "main themes are that Irish economic history should be explained in terms of factor endowments and market opportunities rather than by English policy towards Ireland... his work is therefore a refreshing contrast with the interpretations found in the old but enduring books of Lecky, Murray and O'Brien'. Although it is also interesting to note that, even with almost half a century of difference in time frame, the 17th and 18th centuries are still characterized by earlier writers. as O'Brien and Murray in the early 20th century and Cullen in the late 20th century Consideredall that, social/economic history would not be the predominant theme in Irish historiography, as the unrest that was occurring in Northern Ireland did much to shape the way the island's history was written and viewed. Revisionism was partly a reaction by "some liberal academics to distance themselves from the Northern Ireland insurgents", but in general, revisionism in Irish historiography sought to reorient nationalistic motifs that were present in the literature of Irish history. Revisionist theory held that the antagonisms between Britain and Ireland up to Ireland's independence were not as simple as previously thought, and a prominent revisionist historian was Father Francis Shaw. Shaw, who was once a professor at University College Dublin, expressed strong criticism of how the 1916 rising was remembered when the Golden Jubilee was beginning in a piece titled "The Canon of Irish History: A Challenge". Although it had been reported by many as inappropriate – even by Shaw himself – as unwarranted for a period that should have been cause for celebration, the article was not published in Irish Historical Studies until 1972, even though Shaw himself had died. in 1970. However, one revisionist author who saw his work published and would be alive to see it alive in 1972 was Connor Cruise O'Brien. O'Brien's States of Ireland (1972) suggested that "England itself was not the main cause of Ireland's problems" and that particular footnotes of Irish history, such as the 1916 Rising, had acquired a status so revered, that it would not be popular to criticize him). It should be borne in mind that during the 1970s Northern Ireland was going through turbulent times due to the Troubles; that's why O'Brien wrote in such a way as to no longer spark uprisings, especially within the unionist community. However, not all scholars would appreciate the direction in which the revisionists were moving, and the post-revisionist movement arose in response in the 1980s and 1990s. Historians such as Desmond Fennell, Brendan Bradshaw and Brian Murphy -revisionists and questioned the status quo of the then main focus of Irish historiography. While some academics were discouraged from discussing controversial topics during the Troubles, the post-revision movement believed that “the violence in Northern Ireland… stimulated a renewed popular appetite for a more reverential historiography” (Jackson, 2014). Perhaps the best concise argument for post-revisionism can be found in Kevin Whelan's piece “Come All You Staunch Revisionists” (1991). It states that revisionism was inherently too skeptical and its “minimalist interpretation of the past… led to 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 a consolidated Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland. Historian Roy Foster was criticized for characterizing the 1798 rebellion as nothing more than a local massacre. Above all, revisionism lacked reference to the history of the Irish language, the role of women or local history. However, just as the Troubles influenced the writing of history in Ireland in many negative ways, historiography and its scope would change dramatically after the signing of the Good Friday Agreement. Irish historiography in its current form in the twenty-first century can largely be attributed to the end of the Troubles in 1998. The most noticeable change.