Abstract

The emergence of independent Chile in the early nineteenth century fostered debate over the appropriate model and function for historical study within the new nation. One school of thought, represented by Andres Bello, shunned all foreign historiographical models as inapplicable, and held that since Chilean historical knowledge was incomplete, priority ought to be given to close study of the facts. José Lastarria argued that the historian must be a philosopher of history, searching out the meaning of historical facts in order to draw lessons for the present. In contrast to Bello, Lastarria believed the historical work should serve an active political function and offer judgments on both past and present