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

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

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.