Abstract

The author places Grmek's editorial within the flux of the historiographical debate which, since the middle of the 1970s, has concentrated on two major crises due to the end of social science-oriented 'scientific history' and to the 'linguistic turn'. He also argues that Grmek's historiographical work of the 1980s and 1990s was to some extent an alternative to certain observed changes in historical fashion and has achieved greater intelligibility because of its commitment to a rational vision of science and historiography