Modern German Historiography

Nous avons pu constater que l'humour, comme point de départ, peut s'emparer d'un éventail de sujets différents les uns des autres. Le sens ordinaire des mots, les situations, la physionomie des personnages n’est qu'une invitation à deviner leur autre visage, le sens figuré des images comiques. La presse germaniques a été vivement inspirée par les événements qui ont précédé la chute du mur de Berlin en octobre / novembre 1989 et par ceux qui lui ont succédé. Elle a suivi avec beaucoup d'attention le développement politique jusqu'à la Réunification du 3 octobre 1990 et aux premières élections dans l'Allemagne unifiée en décembre de la même année. Les caricatures se réfèrent à cette série d'événements sous un double point de vue: celui d'une affaire interallemande, et d'un événement de la politique internationale.

O Círculo de Stefan George constituiu uma referência para os debates acerca das funções do conhecimento histórico e da historiografia, durante as três primeiras décadas do século XX na Alemanha. Os membros do Círculo buscaram compor uma proposta para a história a qual enfatizava a função pragmática da historiografia a partir de sua função formativa. Este artigo tem por objetivo discutir as relações entre as ideias do Círculo para a história e o conceito neo-humanista alemão de Bildung. Este artigo encontra-se estruturado em três partes : a primeira diz respeito à elucidação do conceito de Bildung; a segunda traça a relação entre a crise do historicismo e o conceito de Bildung; a última parte analisa as relações entre o conceito de Bildung e a historiografia do Círculo a partir da relação entre o conhecimento histórico e seu papel na fundamentação identitária individual e coletiva

A teoria da história desenvolvida por Johann Gustav Droysen (1808-1884) distingue-se, entre outros aspectos, pela sua consistente preocupação com temas didáticos. Além de investigar os princípios que regem o método de trabalho dos historiadores e de perscrutar os motivos que nos levam a considerar como "históricas" certas porções do passado, ela também fornece respostas à pergunta "por que escrever, estudar e aprender história?". Em linhas gerais, Droysen propõe que a finalidade do estudo da história não deve ser nem a assimilação de exemplos práticos, nem a memorização de fatos particulares, mas o aprendizado do que designou "pensamento histórico". Com esse argumento, Droysen contribuiu, penso eu, para uma redefinição importante da função didática da historiografia. O presente texto caracteriza e contextualiza tal redefinição, discutindo também seus potenciais e limites.

The historical theory developed by Johann Gustav Droysen (1808-1884) stands out partly due to its consistent orientation towards didactical issues. Besides investigating the principles governing the historical method and the reasons that lead us to attribute the quality of being "historical" to certain portions of the past, it also devised answers to the question: "why should one write, study, and learn history?". In short, Droysen argues that the main goal of studying history should be neither the assimilation of practical examples nor the memorization of particular facts, but rather the learning of what he called "historical thinking". I believe that Droysen's argument set in motion a very significant redefinition of historiography's didactical function. This article characterizes and contextualizes such redefinition, underlining some of its current potentials and limits.

Historiography and Politics. Intellectual Biography of Friedrich Meinecke (1862-1954).

The German historian Friedrich Meinecke (1862–1954) was the most influential and important intellectual figure in the German historiography since Leopold Ranke. Due to his special place in the German historical community he reshaped the 'politics of historiographical discourse' and exerted a decisive influence on the mainstream  of  German historiography from  the end of the 19th until the middle of the 20th century. Starting from the 'disciplinary matrix of classical historism', Meinecke established a history of ideas as a particular theoretical and methodological approach to the study of history which, at the same time, represented the apogee of historism as a theoretical paradigm. In his works devoted to the history of ideas, Meinecke interpreted the historical development of the German nation and the unification of Germany in the 19th century as well as the relation between raison d'état and ethical values in modern European history. In the last part of his trilogy about history of ideas, he presented an authoritative interpretation of the emergence of historism. In his later works, Meinecke adopted a critical stance towards German history which, finally, enabled the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship. Friedrich Meinecke’s intellectual development, i.e. his ‘life as a man of letters from Bismarck to Adenauer’, is illustrative of the intellectual transformation of the German politics and culture in the period from the national unification until the middle of the 20th century. At the same time, his historical thought clearly points to all ‘the paths and side roads’ of modern German historiography.

This article (in Greek) examines the development of “historical anthropology” as a field and a multifaceted methodology by academic historians in german speaking Europe, since the 1980s, and much more intensively the 1990s (yet with roots in earlier decades). It deals with the “historical anthropology” Olga Katsiardi-Hering introduced to the Greek academic community about twenty years ago, and offers a critical overview of its evolution. In german speaking Europe “historical anthropology” developed under the distant influence of german philosophical anthropology as well as that of german ethnology and (british as well as american) social anthropology. It developed furthermore  in interaction with the French history of mentalities, and much stronger in interaction with family history, women’s and gender history, cultural history,  the history of everydaylife, or the (originally italian) microhistory. “Historical anthropology” developed and transformed itself under external as well as internal criticisms on its producing fragmentary, non epistemological knowledge. For contemporary historians in german speaking Europe “historical anthropology” constitutes above all a methodological approach, whereby human beings are placed in the centre of historians’ interest, yet always in relation with others as well as with slowly changing structures – this means that every historical subject matter (including diplomatic history) is potentially of interest to “historical anthropology”. Beyond the borders of german speaking academic communities, their historians’ “historical anthropology” has had a direct and particularly strong impact on Southeastern Europe, whereby the crucial contribution of Austrian historians should be noted.

English summary of my Dutch PhD dissertation 'Het nerveuze tijdperk en zijn historici. De opkomst van de mentaliteitsgeschiedenis in Duitsland 1889-1915' (Universiteit Maastricht, 2007), pp. 335-339. The dissertation deals with the work and ideas of the German cultural historians Eberhard Gothein (1853-1923), Karl Lamprecht (1856-1915), Georg Steinhausen (1866-1933), Kurt Breysig (1866-1940) and Walter Goetz (1867-1958), who understood 'Kulturgeschichte' as a form of historical psychology, 'Menschengeschichte' or 'Seelengeschichte' - thus prefiguring the later development of a 'history of mentalities'. The analysis of the intellectual development and careers of these new cultural historians, their historical work and their political ideals forms the substance of this study in intellectual history.

This article examines the development of “historical anthropology” as a field and a multifaceted methodology by academic historians in german speaking Europe, since the 1980s, and much more intensively the 1990s (yet with roots in earlier decades). It deals with the “historical anthropology” Olga Katsiardi-Hering introduced to the Greek academic community about twenty years ago, and offers a critical overview of its evolution. In german speaking Europe “historical anthropology” developed under the distant influence of german philosophical anthropology as well as that of german ethnology and (british as well as american) social anthropology. It developed furthermore  in interaction with the French history of mentalities, and much stronger in interaction with family history, women’s and gender history, cultural history,  the history of everydaylife, or the (originally italian) microhistory. “Historical anthropology” developed and transformed itself under external as well as internal criticisms on its producing fragmentary, non epistemological knowledge. For contemporary historians in german speaking Europe “historical anthropology” constitutes above all a methodological approach, whereby human beings are placed in the centre of historians’ interest, yet always in relation with others as well as with slowly changing structures – this means that every historical subject matter (including diplomatic history) is potentially of interest to “historical anthropology”. Beyond the borders of german speaking academic communities, their historians’ “historical anthropology” has had a direct and particularly strong impact on Southeastern Europe, whereby the crucial contribution of Austrian historians should be noted.

Certain circumstances and stylistic considerations lead us to believe that the manuscript MS. 114 in the Mendelssohn Archive at the Staatsbibliothek in Berlin is (in part) evidence of a course in “Contemporary History” held by Leopold Ranke at the city’s university in the summer term of 1827. The course was on the chronological history of the French Revolution. He had already dealt with the same subject the year before, though in a less detailed manner. And it was not until 1875 that he published a work on the period of the Revolution, but focussing solely on the war between the European powers in 1791-1792. Hence the importance of the new manuscript – in Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy’s own hand – which, previously, had been mistakenly connected with the teachings of the Hegelian jurist Eduard Gans. Mendelssohn attended his course on the French Revolution in the summer of 1828