Carolingian History and the Historians’ Metanarrative
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2018 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | História da Historiografia |
Texto Completo: | https://www.historiadahistoriografia.com.br/revista/article/view/1112 |
Resumo: | The essence of historian’s craft or his or her ability to construct narratives where only bits of information had reached him or her by way of written or oral tradition is one of the main problems of investigation in the discipline of history. Historians of the Carolingian age present a particularly difficult task for researchers because their work joined in one narrative both their own attitudes and judgments and the attempts to construct a pro-Carolingian, universal and thus non-partisan historical outlook. Looking to the past, Carolingian historians balanced on the verge between providing a contemporary account of recent events, the narrative being shaped in favor of ruling kings, their patrons, and the need to look deeper into the past in search of forces that underlay the Carolingian success. The historical picture we use today was constructed by contemporary historians and it could not have been produced by relying only on documents. It was not a “fabrication” in the negative sense of the term, but a “construction” in the positive meaning. Thus, key episodes of Charlemagne’s reign could not be understood without the Carolingian historians’ “authorial license”. Only the historical narrative construed a meaningful sequence of events that could be reproduced in the memory. But at the same time, once we approach these key events, we are left with historians’ interpretations rather than facts. Thus, the Carolingian period in the history of the Frankish kingdom, and particularly the reign of Charlemagne, can be seen as a constructed narrative, which cannot be perceived without looking at the context of its origin and the authors’ “creative” influence on the representation of the past. |
id |
UFOP-2_40fe9d7aca014cfb0983d09e530bf317 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.www.historiadahistoriografia.com.br:article/1112 |
network_acronym_str |
UFOP-2 |
network_name_str |
História da Historiografia |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Carolingian History and the Historians’ MetanarrativeCarolingian History and the Historians’ MetanarrativeConstructivismContingencyHistorical cultureConstructivismoContingenciaCultura historicaConstrutivismoContingênciaCultura históricaThe essence of historian’s craft or his or her ability to construct narratives where only bits of information had reached him or her by way of written or oral tradition is one of the main problems of investigation in the discipline of history. Historians of the Carolingian age present a particularly difficult task for researchers because their work joined in one narrative both their own attitudes and judgments and the attempts to construct a pro-Carolingian, universal and thus non-partisan historical outlook. Looking to the past, Carolingian historians balanced on the verge between providing a contemporary account of recent events, the narrative being shaped in favor of ruling kings, their patrons, and the need to look deeper into the past in search of forces that underlay the Carolingian success. The historical picture we use today was constructed by contemporary historians and it could not have been produced by relying only on documents. It was not a “fabrication” in the negative sense of the term, but a “construction” in the positive meaning. Thus, key episodes of Charlemagne’s reign could not be understood without the Carolingian historians’ “authorial license”. Only the historical narrative construed a meaningful sequence of events that could be reproduced in the memory. But at the same time, once we approach these key events, we are left with historians’ interpretations rather than facts. Thus, the Carolingian period in the history of the Frankish kingdom, and particularly the reign of Charlemagne, can be seen as a constructed narrative, which cannot be perceived without looking at the context of its origin and the authors’ “creative” influence on the representation of the past.The essence of historian’s craft or his or her ability to construct narratives where only bits of information had reached him or her by way of written or oral tradition is one of the main problems of investigation in the discipline of history. Historians of the Carolingian age present a particularly difficult task for researchers because their work joined in one narrative both their own attitudes and judgments and the attempts to construct a pro-Carolingian, universal and thus non-partisan historical outlook. Looking to the past, Carolingian historians balanced on the verge between providing a contemporary account of recent events, the narrative being shaped in favor of ruling kings, their patrons, and the need to look deeper into the past in search of forces that underlay the Carolingian success. The historical picture we use today was constructed by contemporary historians and it could not have been produced by relying only on documents. It was not a “fabrication” in the negative sense of the term, but a “construction” in the positive meaning. Thus, key episodes of Charlemagne’s reign could not be understood without the Carolingian historians’ “authorial license”. Only the historical narrative construed a meaningful sequence of events that could be reproduced in the memory. But at the same time, once we approach these key events, we are left with historians’ interpretations rather than facts. Thus, the Carolingian period in the history of the Frankish kingdom, and particularly the reign of Charlemagne, can be seen as a constructed narrative, which cannot be perceived without looking at the context of its origin and the authors’ “creative” influence on the representation of the past.Sociedade Brasileira de Teoria e História da Historiografia, Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro2018-04-29info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://www.historiadahistoriografia.com.br/revista/article/view/111210.15848/hh.v0i26.1112História da Historiografia: International Journal of Theory and History of Historiography; Vol. 11 No. 26 (2018)História da Historiografia: International Journal of Theory and History of Historiography; Vol. 11 Núm. 26 (2018)História da Historiografia: International Journal of Theory and History of Historiography; v. 11 n. 26 (2018)1983-9928reponame:História da Historiografiainstname:Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto (UFOP)instacron:UFOPenghttps://www.historiadahistoriografia.com.br/revista/article/view/1112/714Starostin, Dmitriinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2020-05-02T02:36:54Zoai:ojs.www.historiadahistoriografia.com.br:article/1112Revistahttps://www.historiadahistoriografia.com.br/revistaPUBhttps://www.historiadahistoriografia.com.br/revista/oaivaldei354@gmail.com || historiadahistoriografia@hotmail.com1983-99281983-9928opendoar:2020-05-02T02:36:54História da Historiografia - Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto (UFOP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Carolingian History and the Historians’ Metanarrative Carolingian History and the Historians’ Metanarrative |
title |
Carolingian History and the Historians’ Metanarrative |
spellingShingle |
Carolingian History and the Historians’ Metanarrative Starostin, Dmitri Constructivism Contingency Historical culture Constructivismo Contingencia Cultura historica Construtivismo Contingência Cultura histórica |
title_short |
Carolingian History and the Historians’ Metanarrative |
title_full |
Carolingian History and the Historians’ Metanarrative |
title_fullStr |
Carolingian History and the Historians’ Metanarrative |
title_full_unstemmed |
Carolingian History and the Historians’ Metanarrative |
title_sort |
Carolingian History and the Historians’ Metanarrative |
author |
Starostin, Dmitri |
author_facet |
Starostin, Dmitri |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Starostin, Dmitri |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Constructivism Contingency Historical culture Constructivismo Contingencia Cultura historica Construtivismo Contingência Cultura histórica |
topic |
Constructivism Contingency Historical culture Constructivismo Contingencia Cultura historica Construtivismo Contingência Cultura histórica |
description |
The essence of historian’s craft or his or her ability to construct narratives where only bits of information had reached him or her by way of written or oral tradition is one of the main problems of investigation in the discipline of history. Historians of the Carolingian age present a particularly difficult task for researchers because their work joined in one narrative both their own attitudes and judgments and the attempts to construct a pro-Carolingian, universal and thus non-partisan historical outlook. Looking to the past, Carolingian historians balanced on the verge between providing a contemporary account of recent events, the narrative being shaped in favor of ruling kings, their patrons, and the need to look deeper into the past in search of forces that underlay the Carolingian success. The historical picture we use today was constructed by contemporary historians and it could not have been produced by relying only on documents. It was not a “fabrication” in the negative sense of the term, but a “construction” in the positive meaning. Thus, key episodes of Charlemagne’s reign could not be understood without the Carolingian historians’ “authorial license”. Only the historical narrative construed a meaningful sequence of events that could be reproduced in the memory. But at the same time, once we approach these key events, we are left with historians’ interpretations rather than facts. Thus, the Carolingian period in the history of the Frankish kingdom, and particularly the reign of Charlemagne, can be seen as a constructed narrative, which cannot be perceived without looking at the context of its origin and the authors’ “creative” influence on the representation of the past. |
publishDate |
2018 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2018-04-29 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://www.historiadahistoriografia.com.br/revista/article/view/1112 10.15848/hh.v0i26.1112 |
url |
https://www.historiadahistoriografia.com.br/revista/article/view/1112 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.15848/hh.v0i26.1112 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://www.historiadahistoriografia.com.br/revista/article/view/1112/714 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade Brasileira de Teoria e História da Historiografia, Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade Brasileira de Teoria e História da Historiografia, Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
História da Historiografia: International Journal of Theory and History of Historiography; Vol. 11 No. 26 (2018) História da Historiografia: International Journal of Theory and History of Historiography; Vol. 11 Núm. 26 (2018) História da Historiografia: International Journal of Theory and History of Historiography; v. 11 n. 26 (2018) 1983-9928 reponame:História da Historiografia instname:Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto (UFOP) instacron:UFOP |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto (UFOP) |
instacron_str |
UFOP |
institution |
UFOP |
reponame_str |
História da Historiografia |
collection |
História da Historiografia |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
História da Historiografia - Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto (UFOP) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
valdei354@gmail.com || historiadahistoriografia@hotmail.com |
_version_ |
1797220359162822656 |