Historiography: Difference between revisions
imported>Anthony.Sebastian (Starting article on 'Historiography') |
imported>Anthony.Sebastian (Add sentence indicating extensive discussion of topics relevant to historiography in History) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
*'''<u>Opening paragraph:</u>''' Any attempt to understand an ancient historian’s programme, claim to authority, self-definition,[citation] originality and ideas about history and historiography must begin with analysis of his prefatory statements.[citation] Dionysius’ preface (whose literary and intellectual quality has generally been underestimated) reveals how his authority rests at once upon his predecessors and upon himself. At the very outset, in a single long and impressive sentence, he marks his knowledge of, and simultaneously his distance from, those predecessors; he expresses his attitude to his role and his materials; and he asserts the logismoi (‘reasonings’) and empeiria (‘knowledge’) which underpin his work: [Dionysius's sentence follows]</ref> | *'''<u>Opening paragraph:</u>''' Any attempt to understand an ancient historian’s programme, claim to authority, self-definition,[citation] originality and ideas about history and historiography must begin with analysis of his prefatory statements.[citation] Dionysius’ preface (whose literary and intellectual quality has generally been underestimated) reveals how his authority rests at once upon his predecessors and upon himself. At the very outset, in a single long and impressive sentence, he marks his knowledge of, and simultaneously his distance from, those predecessors; he expresses his attitude to his role and his materials; and he asserts the logismoi (‘reasonings’) and empeiria (‘knowledge’) which underpin his work: [Dionysius's sentence follows]</ref> | ||
Thus, a historiographer may write history or study how historiographers write history. | Thus, a historiographer may write history or study how historiographers write history. The article, [[History]], extensively discusses topics relevant to historiography. | ||
==References and Notes Cited in Text== | ==References and Notes Cited in Text== | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
Revision as of 23:06, 17 May 2008
- See History
When someone writes history, we call that person a historian. When a historian of fervent curiosity bases the writing of history in particular on critical analysis of historical source material and provides a narrative synthesis that receives the approprobation of critical analysis, we may refer to the person more technically, and with more distinction, as a historiographer (etymologically, a 'grapher' in words of what one has learned through inquiry). We refer to the historiographer's writing of history as historiography — i.e., the historiographer's art or occupation. Thus, Herodotus, the Greek historian whose life nearly spanned the 5th century BCE, and whom the Roman scholar, Cicero (106-43 BCE), dubbed 'the father of history', occupied himself with the 'art' of historiography, writing of the wars between the Greeks and Persians — in the process setting a precedent for historiographers to come.
The term historiography may apply, in another sense, to the study of historical writing, to the study of the history of historical writing, and to the study of the theoretical bases and methodologies of historical writing — in contrast to the study of the history per se. The journal Histos ("The Electronic journal of ancient historiography at the university of Durham.") states that its ....focus will be more on the historical texts and media than on the historical problems for which those texts and media are sources, though the emphasis may naturally vary. For example, see the article by Clemence Schultze, entitled "Authority, originality and competence in the Roman Archaeology of Dionysius of Halicarnassus".[1]
Thus, a historiographer may write history or study how historiographers write history. The article, History, extensively discusses topics relevant to historiography.
References and Notes Cited in Text
- ↑ Schultze C. (2000) Authority, originality and competence in the Roman Archaeology of Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Histos Vol. 4, December
- Opening paragraph: Any attempt to understand an ancient historian’s programme, claim to authority, self-definition,[citation] originality and ideas about history and historiography must begin with analysis of his prefatory statements.[citation] Dionysius’ preface (whose literary and intellectual quality has generally been underestimated) reveals how his authority rests at once upon his predecessors and upon himself. At the very outset, in a single long and impressive sentence, he marks his knowledge of, and simultaneously his distance from, those predecessors; he expresses his attitude to his role and his materials; and he asserts the logismoi (‘reasonings’) and empeiria (‘knowledge’) which underpin his work: [Dionysius's sentence follows]