The “new” history as applied social science: A review essay

increasing use of quantitative methods and materials in their research. Numerous quantitative studies have appeared in virtually all fields of history and quantification has become an accepted and increasingly valued weapon in the historian's research arsenal. In no field of history, however, has explicit use of quantification been more general or more effective than in economic history. Through the use of mathematical methods and reasoning, quantitative data, and economic theory, scholars in this area, often called cliometricians, have produced important new findings bearing upon the economic life and processes of the past.' In so doing, they have also produced a form of history quite unlike the history to which most readers are accustomed. Time on the Cross2 is, in part, an example of this form of history. The study also diverges from the carefully focused nature and the highly technical presentations that are more usual characteristics of cliometric studies. In these volumes, Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman have attempted a broad exploration and interpretation of the operation of the slave system and of the antebellum southern economy more generally based upon their own research and the work of other scholars. They have also attempted to present their findings in a manner useful to general readers and to technically skilled specialists alike. A first and primary volume presents the authors' basic findings and arguments in essentially non-technical form; a second volume provides references and the theoretical and methodological apparatus on which the study rests. Fogel and Engerman, moreover, make heavier use of impressionistic and fragmentary evidence to supplement more reliable systematic data than is usual among econometric historians, and they also venture further in judgmental and interpretive directions for which empirical support is not and, perhaps, cannot be provided. This is, in short, a work of interpretation and synthesis as well as original research, and it attempts to present the results of highly technical investigations in a manner that can be comprehended by non-specialists. The study has now been widely reviewed in publications ranging from the popular press to the most scholarly journals in the humanities and social sciences. Indeed, as a consequence of the excellence of the authors' work, the controversial nature of their findings, the promotional efforts of the publisher, or some combination of the three, the study has received remarkable attention in view of its scholarly character, the extensive evidence which it employs, and the technically complex methodology and theory on which it rests. The reviews have been mixed to say the least, for the study has raised the scholarly, moral and ideological hackles of some, provoked bemused uncertainty on the part of others, and moved still others to high praise. Commentary upon the conclusions reached by Fogel and Engerman would be misplaced here. A number of extended essays have already appeared that attempt to modify, challenge, and contest the research and conclusions presented in these volumes. There can be little doubt that these efforts will continue in the future, and a final and sound assessment of the study will depend on the commentary and continuing research of specialists. But however well or badly it stands the test of informed criticism, reanalysis, and continuing research, Time on the Cross must be seen as something of a historiographical landmark. Again, in recent years, historians have made extensive use of quantitative methods and materials. The quantitative methods employed in much of this work, however, have been relatively straightforward and, sometimes