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

这个项目调查关于过去的知识是如何被早期的现代博学者产生、充实和使用的。它更感兴趣的是历史学家在出版之前的研究活动，而不是分析出版的作品本身。两位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让我们模范地一瞥史学知识的生产过程。霍特勒德和射手座的案例将特别说明档案是如何被早期现代历史学家使用(或没有使用)的。通过纳入史学的这些实际方面，这个项目为整个史学的历史提供了新的想法。它促进了这样一种观点，即我们对过去史学的研究应该强烈地关注知识生产的各个方面。不这样做，就不能充分理解历史知识的形式和功能。为了执行这一研究议程，该项目整合了迄今为止在很大程度上并存的三个研究领域：档案史、史学史、知识史和科学史。一般来说，这三个领域的日常修行都会受到很大的重视。为什么是霍特勒德和射手座？有几个原因表明了这一选择。两人都通过他们的出版物产生了极大的影响，都留下了大量的论文和笔记，都在几个社会和学识环境(法院、大学、文艺共和国)之间来回切换。依靠丰富的手稿和印刷材料，该项目将遵循上面概述的方法论指导方针，详细研究霍特勒德和射手座在创造历史知识时的日常生活和程序。除其他事项外，它将讨论档案研究的可能性和局限性、研究结果的传播以及寻求帮助和支持的请求。它还将研究基于档案的历史研究实际上是如何以及在多大程度上是一个集体企业。书信网络围绕档案问题组织起来，小组聚集起来调查某些存储库，教授们依靠他们的学生提供支持。这些和类似的早期现代史学的实践问题在这里被非常详细地研究，因为这个项目依赖于一个基本的假设：史学的历史将被扩大为一部历史知识的生产史。通过对霍特勒德和射手座的研究，这个项目试图展示如何以及为什么可以和应该这样做。

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.