Riddle of History, by Bruce

¶ … Riddle of History, by Bruce Mazlish

"History, as he [Kant] tells us, has to be looked at in its full, universal time sweep, for only in history as a whole is nature's purpose realized"

-- Mazlish, 1966,

The Riddle of History (1966) by Bruce Mazlish is an innovative, interdisciplinary work of historic prowess. Mazlish's main thesis statement, carefully examined throughout his collected research and inter-connections, is to explore the how history and the nature of humankind are related: or, as Mazlish (1966) denotes: "problem of man's historical evolution- his progress; and to do so in terms of how the problem has been dealt with by the great speculators from Vico to Freud" (p. 10). Mazlish indeed executes his intended premise, as he takes readers on an informative and expansive journey of intellectual thought on historiography.

In summary, Mazlish (1966) begins by addressing the significance of "man's developing historical consciousness" in relation to the "logical and rational control of parts of our destiny" (p. 9). Each subsequent chapter introduces a new philosopher's take on history, from Vico's statement that "history is the story of [myth] origin," to Freud's examination of "the myths themselves in order to understand their role in history" (1966, p. 58; p. 425). Mazlish covers the writings of Vico, Voltaire, Condorcet, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Toynbee, and Freud. By far, Mazlish's (1966) favorite philosopher is Hegel, whom he devouts the longest chapter, and notes that Hegel '"probably more than any other philosopher, "historicized" the modern world" (p. 128).

The strengths of the book can be seen concentrated within the premise of the book, which is highly intriguing in its intellectual originality. Specifically, Mazlish's point-of-view of historiography as a kind of evolutionary state self and socially awareness is inextricably tied to one's place in history- past, present, and future. Indeed, in Mazlish's (1966) conclusion, he points out that "[h]istory was of the same nature as physics," in that it was "based on experience and was a matter of the highest probability, rather than certainty" (p. 430). Thus, readers have the pleasure of an acutely intelligent discussion on the relationship between academic fields and the content with which comprises those fields.