To discuss the possible contemporary utility of historical studies is, at best, a hazardous venture. And, at most, it can easily become a tedious tramp through a jungle of stale arguments. Economists are accustomed to proceed by generalization, conceptualization, and the explicit construction of theoretical systems embracing and relating a wide variety of experiences; whereas most historians (although there are outstanding exceptions) are traditionally averse to model building, receptive to the idea of the "uniqueness" of events, and hypersensitive to the apparent complexity of particular historical situations. This article focuses on the particular problem (or, perhaps, the pseudoproblem) of whether or not history exemplifies significant patterns or illustrates usable "laws." The article suggests that in general, the answer to the main question is that history is, or can be, very relevant to the contemporary economic scene. And it is argued that this relevance lies less in the provision of timeless examples of socioeconomic processes than in the use of economic history as a source of expectation about such processes. From time to time, no doubt, the direct parallels between past and present will be both clear and significant. Far more often, however, the nature of change will preclude history repeating itself in any useful way. And, as a result, the most that can be expected is that the systematic study of the past will yield an approach to rather than a set of conclusions about the world.