Historiography: Ancient and modern

Ancient and modern historiography have a complex relationship: Ancient historiography is not only an object of research, it is also an object of reflection for modern scholars concerning their dealing with the past. This was particularly true for the decades around the turn of the 19th century, when modern historiography began to evolve. This transformation required a heightened degree of methodological reflection and legitimation of new approaches. For these purposes ancient historiography was extensively consulted and acquired the status of a role model. The aim of the project is a consideration of this double role of ancient historiography. This vantage point makes the proposed project special: The reception of ancient historiography in the era in question is predominantly tackled with a focus on the methodological writings of eminent scholars. In contrast to this, the project examines the reception of ancient historiography more comprehensively by extending the focus on the scholarly practice. Departing from a broad sample of statements on ancient historiography from the era in question, the basic conditions of the production of knowledge about this topical field will be outlined (such as the available sources and the interpretative means of their integration into historical reconstructions or the conditions of the practical field of historical scholarship). In order to take into consideration also the transnational entanglement of historical scholarship the geographical focus will include German-speaking, French and Anglo-Saxon scholarship. Special attention will be paid to the interdependence of the two roles of ancient historiography, especially to what extent its reflective uses affected its reconstructions. Thus, it will for instance become clear, which assumptions and conditions were behind David Humes famous dictum The first page of Thucydides is, in my opinion, the commencement of real history. At the same time the juxtaposition of scholarly practice and historiographical reflection allows an appraisal of the actual impact of ancient historiography on the development of modern historical scholarship.

The project Historiography: Ancient and Modern examines evaluations of ancient historiographers by modern scholars from around 1750 to 1850, the period when the modern academic discipline of history emerged. Two foci define the project: an analysis of how historical scholars have assessed ancient historiographers, which brings to the fore the practice of historical scholarship, and a transnational perspective on English-, French-, and German-speaking scholarship that explores its interconnectedness. Overall, the project's research design views the history of historiography as a series of reconfigurations of interconnected axioms, as evidenced by the evolution of the criteria used to assess ancient historiographers. What remained a constant throughout the era was the perception of a gap between the past itself and the historiographer's reconstruction. Assessing ancient historiographers, therefore, meant determining whether and how they were able to mitigate this gap. As the past was increasingly seen as a progress of reason, a distancing from ancient forebears emerged. The evaluation of their ability to bridge the gap became dependent on the overall assessment of the era in which they wrote, according to the developmental scheme. This process was accelerated by the professionalisation of historical scholarship, especially in Germany, which isolated it as an academic discipline requiring specific training. Consequently, ancient historiographers were judged by the standards of the discipline. This marked a shift: The 18th-century conception of historiography was still greatly influenced by rhetorical categories, and the ethical qualities of a historiographer determined his fides (trustworthiness). With the professionalisation, this was no longer deemed sufficient. Another shift concerned the purpose of historical scholarship and, consequently, the evaluative criterion of whether ancient historiographers adhered to it. As the past's developmental conceptualisation evolved, immediate lessons from ancient exempla of individual conduct were no longer considered pertinent to current circumstances. Instead, the lessons to be drawn from the past were increasingly relegated to a meta-level. Understanding the regularities of the historical process became important both for adequate historical cognition and for the conduct of modern nation-states, respectively, for 'people', to steer their progress. Thus, instead of providing exempla for conduct, ancient historiographers had to demonstrate the ability to attain such a metahistorical perspective. In particular, 19th-century German historiography translated this idea into an effort to bridge the gap between the past and the historiographer. By incorporating Romanticist notions, an aesthetic understanding of the past was proposed, enabling historians to 'sense' its inherent essence. This reconfiguration was one of the reasons for German scholarship's pole position in the 19th century; however, it opened the door for essentialising principles. The transnational perspective of my project reveals, at the same time, the extent to which this reconfiguration was also built on axioms of French and British scholarship.