3.8 Article

MADE BY HISTORY: HEINRICH VON TREITSCHKE'S HERO AND THE ANXIETIES OF NINETEENTH-CENTURY GERMAN HISTORIOGRAPHY

期刊

GERMAN LIFE AND LETTERS
卷 76, 期 2, 页码 245-268

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/glal.12376

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article presents an alternative interpretation of Heinrich von Treitschke's historical writings, challenging the idea that 'great men make history' adequately captures his views on historical subjecthood. It argues that Treitschke's historiography emphasizes ideal, structural, and material factors, which provide the context for the actions of heroic individuals. The article also explores the historiographic landscape in nineteenth-century Germany, explaining the appeal of the heroic individual construct despite its decreasing plausibility, in relation to historiographic narrativization, historical constructivism, and anxieties around socioeconomic change.
The German historian Heinrich von Treitschke has traditionally been associated with the notion of 'great men' in history and seen as a naive personalist who concentrated agency in the hands of a select few heroic individuals. This article advances an alternative interpretation of Treitschke's historical writings, suggesting that the oft-repeated axiom 'great men make history' is overwhelmingly unsatisfactory in capturing his stance on historical subjecthood. Rather, Treitschke's historiography is shown to evince a profound concern with ideal, structural and material factors, upon which the will of the heroic individual supervenes and without which their actions cannot be understood. This article then contextualises Treitschke's work within the historiographic landscape of nineteenth-century Germany, investigating why the construct of the heroic individual appeared uniquely appealing even as it became ever less plausible. This development is explained above all with reference to increasing historiographic narrativisation, historical constructivism and anxieties around socioeconomic change.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据