ABSTRACT
it is often pointed out, not without regrets and protests, in academic treatises and reviews that I have denied ‘universal history’. 2 But this contention is very incorrect; those who make it have either not read or have misunderstood my express attempt to show that all universal history, if it is really history, at least in those parts of it which are vitally historical, is always particular history; and that all particular history, when and so far as it is real history, is bound to be universal. The former in its particularity embraces the whole, the latter refers the particular to that whole of which it is part. In fact, I identified the two things, since the mental process involved is not two but one. 3
