� �

� �

��������������������������

��������������������������

[ 17 ]

Autumn 1996 INTELLECTUAL NEWS

sen. Es hat sich gezeigt, daß in dieser Epochedie nationalen Klassifikationen des neunzehtenJahrhunderts unpassend sind, daß die wichtigehistorische Entwicklungen verstellen und ver-kennen. Das mag zunächst ein kontigentes Fak-tum sein, aber es macht deutlich, daß die natio-nalen Traditionen der Wissenskommunikationdamals—und wohl auch heute—unzureichendwaren und sind. Die Beschäftigung mit denThemen der Frühen Neuzeit spielt deshalb si-cher eine wichtige Rolle in der Intellectual His-tory. Es hat den Eindruck, als begreife sich Intel-lectual History selbst in der tradition derGelehrtengeschichte, die sie selbst als ihren Ge-genstand behandelt. Wenn dieser Eindruckstimmen sollte, wäre das vielleicht gar nicht soschlecht.

Intellectual History and Historiography○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Edoardo TortaroloDipartimento di Storia, Università di Torino

(Italy)○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Intellectual history seems to have enjoyed avery positive success in the last decade. Whilesocial history went through an evident crisisand a new cultural history undertook interest-ing breeding experiments with anthropologyand literary criticism, an increasing number ofmonographs have mentioned intellectual his-tory in their titles: historians apparently con-sider the term appropriate to their aims not-withstanding the fact that, as Peter Novick hasrecently reminded us, ‘Nailing jelly to the wallwas a crusty political historian’s characteriza-tion of the attempt to write intellectual his-tory.’1 Librarians seem to have a more definiteidea of what ‘intellectual history’ is up to: morethan a hundred books published in the last tenyears are listed under the heading ‘intellectualhistory’ at the British Library.

A common element is not easy to identify interms of a single area of investigation or ashared set of assumptions about historical real-ity, its structure and the relation between thepast and the historian. Political economy, urbanplanning, politics in Renaissance England, Ro-

man poetry—all these themes have been re-cently analysed in terms of intellectual history,or at least their authors assumed they were do-ing so.2 It must be added that ‘intellectual histo-rians’ approach their topics with di¤erent tech-niques and di¤erent questions. Is it possible ormeaningful to force these di¤erent researchesinto a single mould? The old philosophical dic-tum nihil est in intellectu quod prius non fuerit insensus does not help us define what intellectualhistory is about (intellectual history would beall historical writing).

Nor is intellectual history in its present formidentical with the ‘history of ideas’ as Lovejoythought it should be in the 1920s and 1930s.From this vantage point the concern with thenecessity of an unbroken continuity expressedin Donald Kelley’s otherwise very importantessays is misplaced.3 The appeal to the out-standing accomplishments of the past and pre-sent members of the History of Ideas Club,founded by Arthur Lovejoy, Gilbert Chinard,and George Boas in Baltimore in 1923, can bevery moving. However, a ‘should-be’ definitionof intellectual history, as expressing the concernwith human self-understanding, on the onehand lacks a clear focus and on the other isoverambitious (indeed intellectual historyshares this concern with quite a few other disci-plines!).4

I would rather pick up Kelley’s descriptivedefinition of intellectual history as comprising

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

1 Peter Novick, The Noble Dream: the ‘Objectivity Ques-tion’ and the American Historical Profession (Cam-bridge University Press, 1988), 7.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

2 Jean-Claude Perrot, Une histoire intellectuelle de l’éco-nomie politique: 17.–18. siecle (Paris: Éditions del’École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, 1992);Peter Hall, Cities of Tomorrow: an Intellectual Historyof Urban Planning and Design in the Twentieth Century(Oxford: Blackwell, 1990); Stephen Collins, From Di-vine Cosmos to Sovereign State: an Intellectual HistoryofConsciousness and the Idea of Order in RenaissanceEngland (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), J.D. Maynard, Lucretius and the Late Republic: an Essayin Roman Intellectual History (Leiden: Brill, 1985).

3 ‘Horizons of Intellectual History: Retrospect, Cir-cumspect, Prospect’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 48(1987): 143–69 and ‘What is Happening to the Historyof Ideas?’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 51 (1990): 3–25 (reprinted in this issue, pp. 36–50).

4 ‘What is Happening to the History of Ideas?’, 25 (50).

A ‘should-be’ definition of intellectual history,as expressing the concern with human self-understanding, on the one hand lacks a clearfocus and on the other is overambitious.

d i f f e r e n t a p p r o a c h e s t o i n t e l l e c t u a l h i s t o r y

� �

� �

��������������������������

��������������������������

[ 18 ]

INTELLECTUAL NEWS Autumn 1996

a range of approaches to texts,5 which intellec-tual historians analyse with all possible tech-niques and asking all possible questions. I wouldsuggest that typical of the intellectual historianis keeping in mind two points, which distinguishthe approach in terms of intellectual historyfrom other perfectly legitimate approaches. Thefirst point is the texts’ nature as historical arte-facts, produced in time, before and after othertexts, while the second point is the texts’ rel-evance to a historical problem, whose analysisrequires the assumption of a non-textual reality,which the historian projects from his presentinto the past. Intellectual history is therefore acommon ground, strongly interdisciplinary butclearly staked out, for historians of various ori-gins (the historical interest is crucial).

In 1938 Lovejoy listed twelve points forminga rubric for the history of ideas to come. Kelleyhas aptly commented on the changes that tookplace ever since. In fact priorities have varied inthe last fifty years even more than Kelley isready to assume.6 I plead for the extension ofthe rubric to include topics whose relevance hasdramatically increased for intellectual histori-ans. The history of historiography is prominentamong them. There are quite a few reasons whyhistory of historiography belongs to ‘intellec-tual history’. It seems to me that what Lovejoycalled Wissensoziologie and Kelley sees as enter-ing eclipse,7 has been integrated in the last dec-ades into an enlarged vision of the history ofhistoriography that borders on and shares per-spectives and problems with the history of sci-ence and the analysis of collective imagination.History of historiography has ceased to be thelearned description of the straightforwardprogress to the historical truth. Direct and im-mediate contact with the past has been acknow-ledged to be a chimera. If experience of the pastis possible at all, it must be either the aestheticgrasping of surviving fragments or the analysisof texts of whatever nature in order to assess

their meaning in our cultural context. A special-ized discipline dealing critically with the at-tempt to make sense of history is relevant to allbranches of history, and especially so to intel-lectual historians, who are in the first place in-terested in the relationship between texts andworlds of experience. Besides, it is worth notingthat as history of historiography is potentially apervasive approach, it would greatly profitfrom a constant interaction with the challengescoming from the wider, interdisciplinary fieldof ‘intellectual history’.

Intellectual History in Political Theory○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

John Christian LaursenDepartment of Political Science,

University of California, Riverside(USA)

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

An International Society for Intellectual His-tory might make a breakthrough possible forthe intellectual history of political theory.

By far the better part of political theory iscarried out in historical terms. That is, if wewant to think about any question or dilemma inpolitical theory, we begin with a survey of whatprevious thinkers have said and build upon thatbasis. This way of thinking is frustrating tosome, because it means that reading Habermas,for example, requires familiarity with Durk-heim, Weber, Mead, and a host of other figures.The answer to those who question the necessityfor this is that this just is the way most greatfigures think. Those who are not willing tothink through the work of the previous thinkersjust will not understand Habermas.

There are at least two ways of thinkingthrough the meaning of the previous writers inorder to understand Habermas. One is to readtheir work as a series of analytical points, withno understanding of their contexts, problems,etc. This may be the more common way, but itcan lead to unsatisfactory results, missing theirpoints and Habermas’s point in citing them. Po-litical theorists of the analytical stripe who talkonly with other analytical theorists will nevercome to appreciate what they are missing.Hence the potential value of talking to other in-tellectual historians. If political theorists couldbe persuaded to participate in a Society for In-tellectual History, their attention might be

If political theorists could be persuaded toparticipate in a Society for Intellectual History,their attention might be drawn to the alternat-ive way of reading, which is understandingprevious thinkers in their contexts.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

5 Ibid., 19 (46). 6 Ibid., 13–17 (42–5).7 Ibid., 17 (45).

d i f f e r e n t a p p r o a c h e s t o i n t e l l e c t u a l h i s t o ry