Whoever is occupied with history?whatever that is?and defines it as social history obviously limits his or her theme. And the indi? vidual who narrows history to conceptual history obviously does the same thing. Nevertheless, with both determinations it is not the usual limitation of special histories which general history embraces within it. England's economic history, perhaps, or the history of diplomacy of early modernity or Western ecclesiastical history are special themes of this type which were materially, temporally and regionally present and worthy of investigation. Then it is a question of particular aspects of general history. It is otherwise for social and conceptual histories. From their theoretical self-foundation, there arises a general claim which can be extended and applied to all special histories. Because what his? tory has not in any case something to do with interpersonal relation? ships with social configurations of some type or with social strata, so that the characterization of history as social history involves an irrefutable?anthropological, so to speak?lasting claim that it is implicated in any form of history. And what history could there be which would not be conceived as such before it gels as history? The investigation of concepts and their linguistic transformation is so very much a minimal condition for cognizing a history as its defini? tion of having to do with human society.