The bulk of Henry's book is devoted to such a critical study. It has led him to a "singular disappointment" and to the conclusion that "we are not yet ready to interpret ancient histories, like the Hellenica". There is a general and a particular cause of the failure of nineteenth and twentieth century study of Greek historical writing. The general cause is insufficient attention to the peculiarity of Greek historiography as distinguished from its modern counterpart: the ancients did not (...) study history "for its own sake," since their approach was "esthetic". A moment's reflection on the historical origin of this meaning of "esthetic" would show the inadequacy of Henry's characterization of classical historiography. For the classical Greek, "history was a form of literature.... History is literature when an artist perceives the genius of an age and reveals it through the facts of history". This seems to be Henry's interpretation of a saying of Quintilian which he renders "History has a certain affinity to poetry". Granting for a moment that the three classical historians perceived the spirit of the ages which they described, was their primary intention to reveal those spirits? A glance at the openings of Herodotus' and Thucydides' works would show the impropriety of this suggestion. This is to say nothing of the fact that the suggestion could not be expressed in their language. However justified Henry's criticism of nineteenth and twentieth century students of classical Greek historiography may be, he shares with them the prejudice that "we know today" the meaning of historiography in general and of classical historiography in particular. (shrink)

Introducing key themes including the role of sources, Marxism, radicalism, gender and race, this reader brings into focus recent historiographic trends to promote further debate across related disciplines including philosophy and literature.

No enterprise as laborious and long-drawn out as the writing of history can be pursued without deeply held convictions as to its purpose and significance. With this in mind, Historians on History addresses the nature of historical enquiry by bringing together in one volume the key writings of many of the best known 20th century historians including Braudel, Carr, Elton, Guha, Hobsbawm, Samuel, Scott, and Zeldin. This new edition begins with a substantial survey by John Tosh charting historiographical (...) developments over the past sixty years. Each section of readings that follow includes a brief scene-setting introduction and illuminates the political, social and personal assumptions which have governed and sustained historical practice and theory. The selection of readings has been carefully revised to reflect the latest trends. The anthology strikes a balance between the academic mainstream and recent, more radical voices within the discipline. Students thus have access to a wide range of themes and debates. (shrink)

Historians not only operate in the famous "ivory tower" of science, but present their research and take part in social debates. Their interventions relate to developments in the culture of remembrance or historical-political decisions, but also to current issues that go beyond this. They can take on an analytical, an enlightening, a warning, an accusatory or a defensive role and act as public historians. The volume brings together contributions from the Leibniz Center for Contemporary History Potsdam (ZZF). They (...) address individual actors, discussions and scientific self-understandings as well as the relationship between history and the public. (shrink)

Le développement conjoint, au cours du XVIIIe siècle, de la méthode historico-critique et du perspectivisme est à l'origine d'une tension nouvelle dans le traitement de l'histoire de la philosophie. L'article analyse brièvement quelques réactions, plus ou moins radicales, à cette configuration féconde. Zeller, Dilthey, Yorck, Nietzsche, Weber, Heidegger, Rorty, sont les principaux témoins. Il est aussi suggéré que la « doxographie », en dépit de la réputation détestable dont elle jouit, aussi bien chez les historiens que chez les philosophes, demeure (...) une composante importante de toute réflexion sur la relation de la philosophie à son passé. The joint development, in the course of the XVIIIth century, of the historico-critical method on the one hand and of a self-conscious perspectivism on the other hand, created a new tension in the handling of the history of philosophy. In the following, I sketch some characteristic ways, hard or more compromising, of dealing with this lasting and, I suggest, productive tension. Zeller, Dilthey, Yorck, Nietzsche, Weber, Heidegger, Rorty are my main witnesses. In the wake of an analysis made by M. Frede, I also suggest, in the light of this tension, that « doxography », despite the detestable reputation the genre has among philosophers and historians of philosophy alike, remains an important component of any reflexion about the relationship between philosophy and its past. (shrink)

The reception of Hadot’s work on the tradition of spiritual exercises among historians of medieval philosophy has rarely produced the results one might reasonably have expected. In this revisitation of the historiography on the notion of “intellectual felicity,” I thus hope to be able first to provide a corrective to the faulty understanding that some medievalists still seem to have of Hadot’s contribution to the study of philosophy as a way of life in the Middle Ages, (...) and second, to show how ongoing debates in medievalist circles might point us toward the possible limitations with Hadot’s own understanding of philosophy as a way of life and its history in and beyond the Middle Ages. (shrink)

The Logic of History: Putting Postmodernism in Perspective. By C. Behan McCullagh.

This article argues that we can improve the way we teach early modern political philosophy if we introduce students to alternative views about the development of the state. First, it summarizes the work of contemporary philosophers and historians who are critical of the modern state. Second, it points out ways in which early social contract theorists take the state for granted. Third, it argues that alternative views about the development of the state can help students take a more (...) critical perspective on standard works of early modern political philosophy. Fourth, it argues that these alternative views will help students better understand dissenting voices in early modern political philosophy. (shrink)

It is argued in this article that Foucault’s most distinctive contribution to philosophical practice is to be found in his distinctive mode of taking up historiography, exploring critically the conditions and limits of knowledge through archival work. The focus on knowledge would seem to place him in the critical lineage of Kant; however, his appeal to history and archival explorations reconfigure the relation between sensibility and the understanding in a way that suggests a different concern with the conditions of (...) “a possible knowledge.” After discussing how Foucault’s archival work engages a distinct sensibility, I suggest that his concern with knowledge can best be understood not within a transcendental project, however historicized, but within the logical space of Hegel’s Doctrine of the Concept, specifically the discussion of the Idea of cognition where it is a question of the twin processes of unifying subjectivity and objectivity as expressive of cognition’s “urge to truth.” Understood within this conceptual context, Foucault’s distinctive archival approach to what he calls “subjectivation” and “objectivation” allows us to appreciate the distinction between knowledge and truth in a way that leaves open the possibility of transformation. (shrink)

In historiography Calvinism has suffered from several interpreters who have sought to recruit it for this or that contemporary school of thought. In this article I will discuss some of these approaches developed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. On the basis of recent research it is argued that it historically and theologically incorrect to force Calvinism into an overall system which is controlled by theological or socio-political ‘unit ideas’ or even a ‘central dogma.’ Instead the historian of theology (...) should attempt to develop a historical approach to the Reformed tradition after Calvin that is not influenced by nineteenth or twentieth century agenda's that impose categories of modern theology onto early modern theologians. Such an approach takes account of the complexity and wide variety of post-Reformation Reformed tradition. (shrink)

Historians in the 19th-century were not the first to discover the importance of source materials kept in archival depositories. More than their predecessors, however, scholars working in the historical discipline that the 19th century saw emerge tended to equate professional historical knowledge with knowledge based on primary source research, that is, practically speaking, on knowledge gained from source material that was usually kept in archives. While previous scholarship had paid ample attention to the methods that 19th-century historians employed (...) for the study of such archival material, to the epistemologies they developed in tandem with these methods and to the institutions they created for the study of archival records, this special issue explores the influence that archives, in a classic, institutional sense, exerted on the practices of 19th-century historiography. How did the archival turn affect historians’ working manners? How contested was this archival research imperative, with its underlying autopsy principle? And how did it spread geographically, in and outside Europe? (shrink)

This chapter addresses major tendencies in the history of academic French historiographies of philosophy, from the establishment of history of philosophy as a university discipline in the early nineteenth century to feminist critiques of the philosophical canon in the twentieth century. Focusing on the ways in which the philosophical character of the history of philosophy has been conceptualised, it argues that the history of the historiography of philosophy in France is marked in two ways by (...) the intellectual legacy of Victor Cousin. At the level of canon-formation, this history has involved continuity and reproduction of those authors and texts which Cousin regarded as central to the history of philosophy. At the level of theoretical accounts of the relation between the practice and the past of philosophy, this history has involved discontinuity and the contestation of the spiritualist eclectic framework within which Cousin himself accounted for this relation. With feminist historiographies of philosophy, the theory-constitutive function of the canon itself comes into question, thus opening a new field of inquiry as to what should be counted as properly ‘philosophical’. (shrink)

Departing from Charles Taylors’s statement that philosophy is inescapably historical, the paper tries to examine several attempts to write the history of African philosophy. It notes that contrary to the experience of many other regional philosophies there is yet no comprehensive history of African philosophy which takes full account of its the different spectrums and periods. A good number of authors who have tried to recount the history of African philosophy have dwelt only on aspects or (...) periods of that philosophy thus precluding the advantage of presenting African philosophy as a coherent whole. An examination of the weakness and the strong points of some of these works leads to the assertion of the necessity of comprehensive history of African philosophy, as well as a weighing of the possible reasons why no serious attempt have been made in that direction. Writing such a work will be the last complement of the History of Africa. (shrink)

The book discusses recent developments in philosophy with regards to how historical events can be explained causally and introduces perspectives from the philosophy of science into the philosophy of history. The book covers the main approaches to causal explanation in history and makes clear the main issues and concepts that are associated with such explanations. For example, the book discusses historical contingency and narratives, among other issues. The book is directed to philosophers of science, philosophers of history, (...) historians, historically oriented social scientists, and everyone who is interested in how we make sense of the past. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Aux marges des dialogues de Platon: Essai d'histoire anthropologique de la philosophie ancienneAlessandra FussiMarie-Laurence Desclos. Aux marges des dialogues de Platon: Essai d'histoire anthropologique de la philosophie ancienne. Grenoble: Millon, 2003. Pp. 286. Paper, €27,00.The book takes its bearings from Plato's knowledge of Herodotus's and Thucydides' writings as it is witnessed in such dialogues as the Menexenus, the Timaeus, the Critias and the Laws. Plato not only indirectly (...) quotes from both authors, but also frequently plays with chronology and the relationship between historical events. What motivates Plato's interest in historical events? Is it possible to speak of a Platonic philosophy of history? Before addressing such questions, the author devotes several chapters to a very detailed and insightful study of the meaning(s) of "historiography" in Herodotus and Thucydides. The first chapter examines different contemporary views concerning Herodotus's and Thucydides' attitude towards their sources. Desclos sides with those who underlie the distance between modern theories of historical sources and ancient historical literature. The ancients had no theory of objective sources. Rather, they focused on the subjective means employed, such as the historian's own sense of sight, and his good judgment. As to the witnesses of the past, the accent was not as much on their reliability as it was on their plausibility vis-à-vis the opinions of the historian himself.Chapters II and III are devoted respectively to Thucydides' employment of the rhetorical instruments of the law courts, and to the stylistic and methodic proximity of Herodotus's Histories to the Corpus Hippocraticum. Both chapters oppose the view that the two ancient historians identify their task as "critical history," i.e., as an attempt to free the historical attitude towards facts and events from the subjective aspects of rhetoric, poetry, and religion, where persuasion and chance play a major role. Thucydides' language is rooted in the law courts. However, Desclos argues, the place he occupies in the Peloponnesian War is not that of the impartial judge—as N. Loraux and C. Darbo-Peshanski have suggested—but that of the defendant's attorney. He is much closer to Antiphon's antidikoi—whose ability he extols in VIII, 68, 1-2—than to the modern, impartial judge. The main stress of the methodological chapters in Book I of the Peloponnesian War, then, is not as much on the critical attitude that the historian must have towards his different kinds of sources, as it is on the attempt to persuade the readers that he is true to the facts, while his opponents and competitors are not. In this sense, Desclos agrees with Lloyd that we are in the presence of a "rhetoric of legitimation." According to this interpretation, then, Thucydides' text assigns his ideal reader a passive role. He is meant to be persuaded, conquered, and entirely a-critical (62).Chapter III argues that Herodotus's Histories give their ideal reader an entirely different role. Desclos focuses here on the analogy between medicine and writing, and on Herodotus's preference for Greek medicine, which uses "sweet" methods, over Persian medicine, characterized by harshness and violence. The Greek doctors' superiority ultimately resides in their ability to enroll the patients in the fight against illness. Analogously, the superiority of the Greek historian resides in his ability to accommodate his writings to the reader in such a way that the latter may become an active participant in the historical inquiry. Herodotus does not pretend to be above all opinions. He clearly states his opinions, but by treating them as such he allows the reader to take position, to be "interactive" with the written work (85). [End Page 203]This interesting analysis bears its fruits in the last chapters devoted to Plato. Desclos suggests that the anonymous and silent interlocutor in such dialogues as the Charmides, the Lysis and the Republic plays an important philosophical function, by circumscribing a dialogical empty space that the reader is invited to fill (220). This takes Herodotus's strategy a step forward, since the truly philosophical nature of the Platonic dialogue lies thereby in its openness to the reader. Unfortunately Desclos's chapters on Plato are not as... (shrink)

This reply aims both to respond to Gregory and to move forward the debate about God’s place in historiography. The first section is devoted to the nature of science and God. Whereas Gregory thinks science is based on metaphysical naturalism with a methodological corollary of critical-realist empiricism, I see critical, empiricist methodology as basic, and naturalism as a consequence. Gregory’s exposition of his apophatic theology, in which univocity is eschewed, illustrates the fissure between religious and scientific worldviews—no matter which (...) basic scientific theory one subscribes to. The second section is allotted to miracles. As I do, Gregory thinks no miracle occurred on Fox Lakes in 1652, but he restricts himself to understanding the actors and explaining change over time, and refuses to explain past or contemporary actions and events. Marc Bloch, in his book The Royal Touch: Sacred Monarchy and Scrofula in England and France, is willing to go much further than Gregory. Using his superior medical knowledge to substitute his own explanation of the phenomenon for that of the actors, Bloch dismisses the actors’ beliefs that they or others had been miraculously cured, and explains that they believed they saw miraculous healing because they were expecting to see it. In the third section, on historical explanation, I rephrase the question whether historians can accommodate both believers in God and naturalist scientists, asking whether God, acting miraculously or not, can be part of the ideal explanatory text. I reply in the negative, and explicate how the concept of a plural subject suggests how scientists can also be believers. This approach may be compatible with two options presented by Peter Lipton for resolving the tension between religion and science. The first is to see the truth claims of religious texts as untranslatable into scientific language ; the other is to immerse oneself in religious texts by accepting them as a guide but not believing in their truth claims when these contradict science. (shrink)

Organized thematically, this important five-volume set brings together key essays from the field of historical studies. Including an extensive general introduction by the editor in the first volume, as well as shorter individual introductions in each of the following volumes, this set is essential reading for scholars and students alike. Coverage includes: 1. Foundations - The Classic Tradition - The Old Cultural History - Economic History 2: Society - Social History - Marxism - Annales - History of Mentalities 3: Ideas (...) - History of Ideas/ Intellectual History - History of Science - History of the Arts - History of Religion - History of Sexuality. 4: Culture - History and Anthropology - Microhistory - New Cultural History - History and Memory - The Poetics of History - Narrativity. Postmodernist Historiography and its Critics 5: Politics - Political History - Imperialism and Postcolonial History - World History - World-Systems Analysis. (shrink)

This article applies to a study in the history of thought in Quebec certain principles that I have proposed elsewhere about the historiography of philosophy in general. The chosen example is a 1976 paper by Louise Marcil-Lacoste about the use of the idea of common sense in some French-Canadian texts of the nineteenth century. I examine this case in the light of two general theses : that the historian must be able to refer to some of the real (...) beings of which the authors of the past also spoke about ; and that the phenomena that are problematic for philosophy often are of a logico-linguistic nature. Clarifying the meaning of these principles makes it possible to see under what conditions the apparently obsolete doctrines which are often dealt with by the historians of philosophy in Quebec can still be of philosophical interest, and how this interest can be highlighted. (shrink)

Annotation Le but de ce livre est de promouvoir un echange de vues entre philosophes et historiens sensible aux chevauchement de la philosophie contemporaine de l'histoire et de la theorie de la pratique historienne d'aujourd'hui. The purpose of this book is to encourage an exchange of views between philosophers and historians interested in the overlap between contemporary philosophy and theory of historical practice.

Imre Lakatos' conception of the history of science is explicated with the purpose of replying to criticism leveled against it by Thomas Kuhn, Ian Hacking, and others. Kuhn's primary argument is that the historian's internal—external distinction is methodologically superior to Lakatos' because it is "independent" of an analysis of rationality. That distinction, however, appears to be a normative one, harboring an implicit and unarticulated appeal to rationality, despite Kuhn's claims to the contrary. Lakatos' history, by contrast, is clearly the history (...) of a normatively defined discipline; of science and not scientists and their activities. How such history can be written, the historiographic and critical tools available for its construction, and its importance as history, are considered in detail. In an afterword, the prevalence of Lakatos' treatment of history in philosophical discussion is indicated: A related approach is shown to arise in social contract theory. (shrink)

In this fascinating new collection of essays, contemporary historians examine the ways earlier historians have framed, written, and "made" the Jewish past. Probing the ideology and methodology of their professional predecessors, American and Israeli historians offer new perspectives on some of the central figures of twentieth-century Jewish historiography, including Gershom Scholem, S. D. Goitein, Yitzhak Baer, Elias Bickermann, and Cecil Roth, as well as the Israeli "New Historians." Although the lives and work of these scholars (...) differ in many ways, Jewish historians have recurrently confronted the challenges posed by assimilation, antisemitism, and various forms of nationalism. Through their critical examinations of the construction of the Jewish past, the contributors to this volume develop important insights into current attitudes toward the dominant canons and ideals of historical scholarship and the future of historiography. They shine new light on the formation of a historical worldview and the "making" of history. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: 1 2 3 Acknowledgment Bibliography.

The paper presents a description of the foundations of Ludvik Bartelj's philosophy. Bartelj, born in 1913, lives and writes philosophy and theology in Slovenia. He is a close follower of his teacher's, France Weber/Veber, "Gegenstandsphilosophie" ["object-philosophy" = OP]. He develops OP in some respects and also in some areas missing in Veber but even these innovations take as their point of departure Veberian "Gegenstandsphilosophie." For Bartelj OP theory is the fundamental philosophic discipline and, finally, will embrace all (...) real "objects." OP itself is grounded in the knowledge that objects receive their contents from Primeval Reality [Urwirklichkeit; Prastvarnost], i.e. from God. Bartelj also exploits the scholastic tradition and he intends to complement one of the two positions by means of the other. He divides the faculty of cognition into four species: Sense perception, "profound understanding" [Tiefenverstand; globinski razum], "peripheral understanding," and feelings. Profound and peripheral understanding are intertwined indissolubly: Whereas profound understanding approaches objects in a non-conceptual way, peripheral understanding has the task to determine conceptually profound understanding's cognition. By means of profound understanding the subject of cognition as well as its experiences are epistemically grasped. God, too, is the object of profound understanding, and knowledge of God directly emerges from the real empirical world. Profound understanding discovers that such "realities" are, according to their very nature, dependent on something else, i.e. their content come from a being independent by nature, which Bartelj calls "Primeval Reality" [Prastvarnost] or "God". (shrink)

Modern Historiography is the essential introduction to the history of historical writing. It explains the broad philosophical background to the different historians and historical schools of the modern era, from James Boswell and Thomas Carlyle through to Lucien Febure and Eric Hobsbawm and surveys: the Enlightenment and Counter Enlightenment Romanticism the voice of Science and the process of secularization within Western intellectual thought the influence of, and broadening contact with, the New World the Annales school in France Postmodernism. (...) Modern Historiography provides a clear and concise account of this modern period of historical writing. (shrink)

The decades of the 1920s to the 1960s were a period of transformation in chemical science. The era was marked by erosion of boundaries that had often been drawn between chemistry and other scientific disciplines. In particular, theories, instruments, and mathematical approaches associated with the new physics of X-rays, the electron particle, and the electron wave enabled chemists and other physical scientists to address unsolved chemical problems of structure and mechanism and to ask new questions that further expanded and transcended (...) disciplinary borders. In turn, the historiography of these developments reflects the pluralism of chemistry in historical narratives written by scientists, historians, philosophers, and sociologists. (shrink)

Historical consciousness of the modern period, which shows a clear distinction from that of the previous periods, is well displayed in intellectual history, which is investigation into the development of ideas and transmission of knowledge. To understand the academic issues that are grappled with in intellectual history, it is necessary to understand how it interacts with other relevant academic disciplines. Firstly, it is connected to classics and philology, in which historicity is regarded as part and parcel of their research. Critical (...) investigation into them leads intellectual historians to take the stance that perception on historicity lies not in a factual stratum but in an interpretive stratum. Further, they usually focus on coherently organizing inconsistent, inessential, contradictory elements of interpretation within the frame of temporality on which all texts have a footing. Next, intellectual history is closely tied to philosophy and the history of philosophy because it is a historiography of ideas and thinkers. On the basic assumption that the historicity of philosophy should be involved for a proper understanding of philosophical texts, intellectual history focuses on diachronic influences and changes of ideas which are intertextually detected. Clearly, intellectual historians assume that texts may be considered as ahistorical or even trans-historical when historicity was not a concern between traditions nor is it in modern interpretive traditions of philosophy. As a result, a tension between intellectual history and philosophy is inevitable, and the former has conditioned and simultaneously fostered understanding of the latter. Taken together, it may look as if intellectual history, being based on classics and philology, attempts a risky pas de deux with philosophical traditions which may be understood as ahistorical where their foci are given to doctrinal sides. The hitherto mentioned issues of intellectual history raised by Western critical approaches to historicity are also inherent in Buddhist studies and Buddhist intellectual history which have developed on Western soil. For example, the historicity of person(s) as seen in such examples as the historicity of Maitreya(-nātha), and the transition of philosophical thought in the works attributed to Vasubandhu/ Vasubandhu-s—which have become controversial since the 20th century, can be understood within the bigger frame of modern historical consciousness and how its coupled intellectual history unfolded. Specifically regarding these issues, efforts have been consistently made to construct a proper intellectual history in spite of limited sources of inner- and outer-textual evidence. The seemingly diversified opinions and cacophony in the development of interpretations of the issues epitomizes intellectual history, including the theoretical process which explores ways of thinking about various possibilities and the presuppositions of those possibilities. (shrink)

The article focuses on motivation, proposing the equation in its title and opposing the contrary view, that what moves people to action is the rational calculation of their material interests. The latter view is most familiar in economics, where it was for generations seen as the best (meaning, most ‘scientific’) mode of explanation. It had a great deal of influence on historiography and found a great deal of support among psychologists also. From these three areas of research it is (...) being challenged, however, even to some extent displaced, in recent decades. The importance of emotions or feelings in explaining behavior is increasingly acknowledged, and the validity of conclusions reached about feelings in historical contexts through the operation of empathy. Illustrations of how this works can be easily supplied. (shrink)

Secular academic historians of religious subject matter often characterize their approach as objective, contrasting it with the approaches of religiously-oriented historians. On the assumption that the denial of a theological claim is itself a theological claim, I question this characterization. After a brief discussion of Spinoza and Hume on miracles, I survey the work of several secular, academic historians of the New Testament in order to illustrate how on the issue of miracles they are committed to theological (...) conclusions in advance of their study of the evidence. I point this out not as a criticism, but merely as something that needs to be taken into account in assessing their claims to objectivity. In my view, secular historians, like all historians, bring to their study of the historical evidence a certain framework of real possibilities. It is only within this framework, if anywhere, that they are genuinely open-minded. What lies outside their frameworks has already been exclu. (shrink)

Les treize articles relatifs au premier thème analysent l'émergence ou la diffusion, encore difficile, de l'idée nationale dans l'Italie post unitaire, en particulier à travers la multiplication des statues de Dante, les campagnes militaires, souvent malheureuses, et les liens entre la représentation de la hiérarchie des pouvoirs et des classes sociales, et leur pouvoir politique effectif, à l'occasin de l'Exposition universelle de Milan en 1906. Trois questions sont privilégiées. La n...

This chapter contains sections titled: Unificationist Accounts of Causation Conditional Theories Counterfactuals Causation as a Process Probability Exceptionalism Eliminativism Primitivism References.

Qui a écrit la première histoire du christianisme ? La recherche historienne moderne a rarement hésité à pointer le doigt vers Eusèbe de Césarée, ainsi que le rappellent dans ce dossier les contributions de M. Fédou et de M. Heinzelmann. Une telle reconnaissance devait amener une dégradation de la qualité historienne de l’œuvre lucanienne, évangile et Actes des Apôtres, reconnue jusqu’au XVIIIe siècle. Ainsi, jusque dans les années 60 du XXe siècle, la recherche sur cette œuvre devait être dominée par (...) cette tonalité lourde. Une révision de ces attitudes, dont certaines se sont manifestées dès le début de ce même siècle, s’est depuis engagée, grâce notamment à une meilleure connaissance et acceptation des caractéristiques de l’historiographie ancienne. C’est donc un véritable historien qui se révèle désormais dans l’œuvre lucanienne, légitimant du même coup le concept d’histoire théologique, et rendant à Luc sa place, la première, bien avant Eusèbe de Césarée.Who wrote the first history of Christianity? Modern historical research has rarely hesitated to designate Eusebius of Caesarea, as the contributions of M. Fédou and M. Heizelmann recall here. Such recognition led to downgrading the historical quality of Luke’s writings, the Gospel and Acts of the Apostles, which had been accepted until the 18th century. Thus, up until the 1960’s, research on these writings was dominated by this overriding approach. A revision of these attitudes, some of which arose in the early 20th century, has since emerged, especially due to a better understanding and acceptance of the characteristics of ancient historiography. Hence, Luke now appears as a true historian, thereby legitimizing the concept of theological history and once again acknowledging Luke’s place as the first historian of Christianity, well before Eusebius of Caesarea. (shrink)

Khalīfa b. Khayyāt(d. 240/854-855) was an historian- muḥaddith in the ʿAbbāsid’s period. There are references in sources to his competence in history and lineage rather than Ḥadīth. Two works of him have survived. The first one is al-Ṭabaḳāt which is about study of men and the second one is al-Taʾrīkhwhich chronologically narratesthe events in the history of Islam until 232 AH. The latter is the most significant work to be applied for the historiography of ibnKhayyāt. In this article, Khalīfa (...) b. Khayyāt’s methodology in historiography is examined. In this study, the early period of Islamic histography is handled and the subject is discussed comparatively. The main characteristics of his historiography are his adoption of a chronological style that facilitates the follow-up of the book, his knowledge for the lineage of those who died in wars and the details about the wars. Also, among the charactersitics are his application of isnād to his history book as a muḥaddith, his knowledge for the previous resources via his teachers who belong to the schools of al-Madīna and ʿIrāḳ and when required, his usage of ayah, ḥadīth and poems. These issues are dealed in the artcile with examples. Besides, a study in the West about Khalīfa b. Khayyātasserts that he was a follower of Umayyad dynasty and so this affected his historiography. In this article, this assertion is tackled by analyzing the whole book and it concludes that it is not valid because of some narrations against this assertion.SummaryKhalīfa b. Khayyāt (d. 240 / 854-55), who grew up in Basra, one of the most important centers of scholarship of the time and the meeting point of scholars, and he continued his scholarly works in this city. Since his grandfather and father are engaged in the field of Ḥadīth, Khalīfa b. Khayyāt started his scholarly adventure at an early age and he took his first education in the field of Ḥadīth.Scholars, in the early periods, continued their studies in the fields of sciences related to each other. Khalīfa b. Khayyāt’s studies are also in this kind. Although there are references in sources to his accumulation of Ḥadīth, Khalīfa b. Khayyāt ’s main area of ​​expertise is history and nasab/genealogy. The fact that his works and references to him in later sources are largely related to historical events, knowledge of the nasab/genealogy, and wafayāt (death dates of Ḥadīth scholars and narrators) reveals his considerable knowledge on these issues. Khalīfa b. Khayyāt lived in the period of ʿAbbāsid caliphs al-Maʾmūn (813-833) and al-Muʿtaṣim (833-842). This period is important because of the fact that the al-Mihna incident took place and the pressure on the Ḥadīth scholars increased. Although Khalīfa b. Khayyāt is not one of the direct opponents of Muʿtazila, his participation in a debate against them provides clues about the place where he stands. The scholarly atmosphere of Basra, enabled Khalīfa b. Khayyāt to benefit from a wide range of teacher-student network. In addition to his professors from whom he benefitted in the field of Ḥadīth, he had the opportunity to obtain the knowledge and understanding of the history of that time through his teachers who are important historians of the period in his field. Two works related to Khalīfa b. Khayyāt whose reliability is confirmed by djarh wa l tadil scholars reached to our time. One of the oldest Ṭabaḳāt works in the history of Islam is al-Ṭabaḳāt; the other one is the book, al-Taʾrīkh, which provides a new method for Islamic historiography.This study deals with the principles of the method of historiography, which can be put forward through Khalīfa b. Khayyāt 's al-Taʾrīkh. al-Taʾrīkhis important in terms of being the first example of chronological writing type in Islamic historiography and has not been subject to any independent study to date. There are two ongoing M.A. thesis about Khalīfa b. Khayyāt, however, no study has been identified that directly deals with its methodology of history. On the other hand, based on some riwāyats/narrations in al-Taʾrīkh, there is a work that claims that Khalīfa b. Khayyāt had sympathy towards Umayyads. The study named “Khalīfa b. Khayyāt’s History on the Umayyad Dynasty (660-750), prepared by Carl Wurtzel as his PhD. Dissertation, examined the life of Khalīfa, partly the historiography and the religious-political narrations in the work. On the case of Muʿāwiya’s (d. 60/680) request of the allegiance to Yazīd (d. 64/683), Wurtzel compared an event that took place between the envoy of Ibn al-Zubayr (d. 73/692) and Muʿāwiya with al-Balādhurī’s (d. 279/892-93) narrative and concluded that Khalīfa was an Umayyad sympathizer. However, Khalīfa b. Khayyāt’s exclusion of an event such as al-Mihna which was against the ʿAbbāsid and changed the course of history in his book, shouldn’t be considered as a symptom of sympathy; It would be more appropriate to accept it as a feature of history writing.At the top of Khalīfa b. Khayyāt's principles of historiography, adopting chronological method comes first. Accordingly, Khalīfa b. Khayyāt, gives a brief history about the siyar of the Prophet Muhammad at the introduction of the book. Then, by beginning from the first hijri year, he gives the important events, wars and deaths by the years. Sometimes, he refers to the people assigned by the caliphs of the period by referring to the Amîrs (Administrators) of the Hajj. He gives lists of those who died on both sides of the wars. The importance of mentioning the tribes of the deceased shows his competence in the knowledge of nasab. One of the highlights of his historiography is that he sometimes does not touch upon some of the events and situations that are considered to be turning points in Islamic history; and sometimes he does not go down into detail but just gives relevant narratives. For example, he doesn’t mention any narrations about the selection of the Caliph which perhaps the most fundamental point of separation between Ahl al-Sunnah and Shīʿa in the history of Islam.Although he gave detailed information about The Battle of The Camel (36/656) and Ṣiffīn cases (37/657), it is not possible to determine his views on this subject. In addition, he never mentioned the al-Mihna incident, which deeply influenced society and the scholarly environment during the ʿAbbāsid period. Isnād is also holds an important place in the methodology of history of Khalīfa who was a muḥaddith at the same time. In many of the narrations he used the words haddathanā and ahbaranā.In our study, the siyar section of al-Taʾrīkhwas examined in order to determine the sources of the Khalīfa’s historiography and has been seen that the works of Ibn Isḥāḳ (d. 151/768) and Ibn Hishām (d. 218/833) were the main sources of this chapter. Considering Khalīfa b. Khayyāt’s emphasize to isnād and his reach to Ibn Isḥāḳ 's work through the mediation of Bekr b. Suleiman, it can be said that he was dominant in historiography on the sources before him. Khalīfa b. Khayyāt rarely refers to Qur’anic verses and hadiths when describing events. He referred to the verses in only two places and hadiths in only five places. One of them, and perhaps the most remarkable one in the book is the Ḥadīth of the Prophet Muḥammad: “I am the guardian of whom; ‘Alī is his guardian” This narration is used in the letter of Caliph Mahdī (d. 169/785) of the ʿAbbāsid to khārijī (outer) Abd al-Salām b. Hishām who rebelled. The study is based on the principles outlined above. At the end of the study it is also considered that Khalīfa b. Khayyāt ’s works should be the subject of graduate studies which should be prepared with deep readings. (shrink)

Chinese historiography of modern China in the 1980s and 1990s underwent a paradigmatic transition: in place of the traditional revolutionary historiography that bases its analyses on Marxist methodologies and highlights rebellions and revolutions as the overarching themes in modern Chinese history, the emerging modernization paradigm builds its conceptual framework on borrowed modernization theory and foregrounds top-down, incremental reforms as the main force propelling China's evolution to modernity. This article scrutinizes the origins of the new paradigm in the context (...) of a burgeoning modernization discourse in reform-era China. It further examines the fundamental divides between the two types of historiography in their respective constructions of master narratives and their different approaches to representing historical events in modern China. Behind the prevalence of the modernization paradigm in Chinese historiography is Chinese historians' unchanged commitment to serving present political needs by interpreting the past. (shrink)

Truthlikeness in historiography would allow us to be optimistic fallible realists about historiography – to hold that historical knowledge is about the past, true albeit fallible, and can increase over time. In this paper, three desiderata for a concept of truthlikeness in historiography will be outlined. One of the main challenges for truthlikeness is historiographic skepticism which holds that historiography is indistinguishable from fiction and cannot therefore furnish us with true knowledge about the past. Such skepticism (...) rests on the postmodern challenge, which will be criticized on the grounds that it rests on an implausible theory of meaning. It will be shown that Peirce’s semeiotic and pragmatist theory of truth, interpreted dialogically or game-theoretically, provides a suitable framework within which to pursue the project of defining a concept of truthlikeness for historiography. Finally, directions for possible future research into truthlikeness in historiography, including ways of defining a measure of truthlikeness, will be considered. (shrink)