Writing history in the archives. Early modern courts, universities, the republic of letters and histori-ography.

这个项目调查了关于过去的知识是如何产生的，证实，并由早期现代博学者使用。它更感兴趣的是历史学家在出版之前的研究活动，而不是分析已出版的作品。两个17世纪的历史学家，弗里德里希·霍特勒德和卡斯帕·射手座，将作为案例研究。他们丰富的论文和大量的出版物将使我们能够模范地瞥见史学知识生产的过程。霍特莱德和射手座的案例将特别阐明早期现代历史学家是如何使用（或不使用）档案的。通过将史学的这些实践方面结合起来，这个项目为整个史学史提供了新的思路。它提出了这样一种观点，即我们对过去史学的研究应该强烈关注知识生产的方面。不这样做，历史知识的形式和功能就不能得到充分的理解。为了实施这一研究议程，该项目整合了迄今为止在很大程度上平行的世界中共存的三个研究领域：档案史，史学史，知识和科学史。一般来说，在这三个方面，日常的博学实践将受到很大的重视。为什么是霍特雷德和人马座？有几个原因表明了这一选择。两人都通过他们的出版物极具影响力，都留下了大量的论文和笔记，都在几个社会和博学的环境（法院，大学，共和国的信件）之间来回移动。依靠丰富的手稿和印刷材料，该项目将遵循上述方法指南，详细研究霍特莱德和射手座在创造历史知识时的日常生活和程序。除其他外，它将讨论档案研究的可能性和局限性，交流研究结果以及寻求帮助和支持的请求。它还将研究如何以及在何种程度上基于档案的历史研究实际上是一个集体的企业。围绕档案问题组织的书信网络，调查某些知识库的团队，教授们依靠学生的支持。本文之所以对早期现代史学的这些以及类似的实际问题进行详细研究，是因为这一课题依赖于一个基本假设：史学史将被扩展为历史知识生产的历史。通过研究Hortleder和射手座，这个项目试图展示如何以及为什么这可以和应该这样做。

This project investigates how knowledge about the past was produced, substantiated, and used by early modern erudites. It is interested more in the research activities of historians previous to publication than in analyzing published works as such. Two 17th century historians, Friedrich Hortleder and Caspar Sagittarius, will serve as case studies. Their rich papers and voluminous publications will allow us exemplary glimpses into the processes of historiographical knowledge production. The cases of Hortleder and Sagittarius will illuminate especially how archives were (or were not) used by early modern historians. By incorporating such practical aspects of historiography, this project provides new ideas for the history of historiography in general. It promotes the view that our study of past historiographies should focus strongly on aspects of knowledge production. Without doing so, the form and function of historical knowledge cannot be fully understood. In order to implement this research agenda, the project integrates three areas of research that have so far coexisted in largely parallel worlds: the history of archives, the history of historiography, the history of knowledge and science. Generally, much stress will be laid on daily erudite practices in all three areas. Why Hortleder and Sagittarius? Several reasons suggested this choice. Both were extremely influential through their publications, both left huge amounts of papers and notes, both shifted back and forth between several social and erudite milieus (courts, universities, republic of letters). Relying on the rich manuscript and printed materials available, the project, in following the methodological guidelines sketched above, will study in detail the daily routines and procedures of Hortleder and Sagittarius when working to create historical knowledge. It will address, among other things, the possibilities and limits of archival research, the communication of findings and the pleas for help and support. It will also study how and to which degree archive-based historical research actually was a collective enterprise. Epistolary networks organized around archival issues, teams assembled to investigate certain repositories, professors relied on their students for support. These and similar practical issues of early modern historiography are studied here in much detail because the project relies on one basic assumption: the history of historiography is to be broadened into a history of the production of historical knowledge. By studying Hortleder and Sagittarius, this project attempts to show how and why this can and should be done.