In attempting to establish a correspondence between the content of historical narrative and that of past facts, F. R. Ankersmit identifies a "mechanism" which enables one to arrive at a narrative representation of the past. He asserts that the mechanism cannot be called a "translation," since the correspondence is indirect. Narrative is, however, closer to the truth than he has stated. Historical narratives can be evaluated on their proximity to the truth by the degree of their coherence. Coherence can be (...) judged on two criteria: the kind of temporal content and the kind of conceptual organization of the worldview of the annalist. The chronicle emerged in the late Middle Ages. Temporally, the chronicler uses retrospection to introduce causal links in a chain of events. The worldview of the chronicler provides the conceptual organization. Strictly historical narratives took form in the nineteenth century and have a temporal organization which is both retrospective and prospective. The control of the theoretical organization of a narrative by an historian can be said to be one of the fundamental rules whereby historiography becomes a more and more coherent and integrated presentation of the past. (shrink)

No one denies that in his research the historian, whether consciously or not, guides himself by already acquired knowledge of reality past and present that has undergone certain interpretation. It is usually said that he possesses a certain "view of the world." a certain understanding of the historical process, a certain theory , i.e., conceptions from which he cannot detach himself in the course of his research. Some regard this situation as a kind of "inevitable evil" inherent primarily in the (...) social sciences and demand "pure," "objective" research, i.e., for historical research, that it not be guided by anything but the sources actually employed. There are others who are not disturbed by this situation, for they recognize that "pure" research does not exist even in the natural sciences. And if they make certain demands in this regard, it is not for elimination of the researcher's particular standpoint, guided by the knowledge already acquired, but rather enrichment and perhaps qualitative reconstruction of the knowledge he employs in his research. This knowledge is treated in the given case as a kind of governing mechanism in the process of research. The proponents of both points of view strive for a particular goal: attainment of research results as adequate to reality as possible in a given field, with the only difference that they suggest different paths for attainment of this goal. It may even be stated that these standpoints are not debatable, for adherents of the second point of view will undoubtedly agree that in order to enrich and perhaps reorganize the knowledge used in the research it is necessary to eliminate from it elements of low quality, i.e., speculative, unsupported knowledge that impedes the research. Adherents of the former point of view, however, would not maintain too extreme a position if the knowledge they want to eliminate proves to be scientific knowledge, i.e., confirmed knowledge or, to put it differently, true knowledge. Naturally, this does not mean that no differences exist between these viewpoints. (shrink)

A procedure of historical explanation is proposed which integrates two approaches used by contemporary historians. The motivational model, focusing on the various kinds of motives encountered in historical narratives, and the deductive- nomological model, which focuses on the importance of external events, can be linked together to yield a better integrated explanatory system. The two approaches can be bridged by establishing even more general laws underlying ones already applied, or by searching for substantiations of causes and laws in the origin (...) of the entire historical process. On the basis of analysis of actual historiographical problems it becomes clear that historians mingle explanations in terms of human motives and external occurrences, without making the relations between them sufficiently clear. One needs to recognize that both motives and external events can be found in the historical process. Sequences of causes and effects in narratives have as an essential feature the intertwining of causes interpreted as motives and causes interpreted as external events. The objective conditions explained by the deductive-nomological model should find their reflection in the motivational model in the way that agents take cognizance of these conditions. (shrink)

The construction of narrative wholes in historiography involves more than logic, but aesthetics as well. It is imagination as well as logic which generates the more or less concretized images constituting the background onto which the historian, "playing" with basic information, imposes some content and portrays some event by means of a narrative. These concretized images incorporate an aesthetic sense of order. Historical narratives also employ general terms which "bind together" the various elements of basic information which, when linked together, (...) form a historical narrative; these general concepts also invoke an aesthetic sense in virtue of which their identity is formed. In both these ways the aesthetic dimension is crucial in the formation of historical wholes. (shrink)