No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 February 2017
There seems little doubt that comparative studies are the vogue in these days of “new frontiers” and “new directions.” There is even a new quarterly entitled Comparative Studies in Society and History. To be sure, comparative studies are as old as historiography, but there is a new insistence about them today that is unmistakable. Geographers have so expanded their specialty in depth as superficially to become historians. Anthropologists are no longer content merely to delineate present-day primitive cultures. They have broadened their discipline to include other cultures “not quite up to our date,” earlier cultures, and even our own. What is more, they have begun to explore behind the facade, to be aware of the influence of the past and thus, superficially at least, to become historians. A like tendency has long been afoot among sociologists, economists, political scientists, students of literature, students of the arts, and philosophers.
1. Vol. I, No. 1 appeared October, 1958.Google Scholar
2. E.g.: Murdock, G. P., Africa: Its Peoples and Their Culture History (New York, 1959), especially Chapter 18.Google Scholar
3. The phrase is that of the late Coomaraswamy, A. K. in The Art Bulletin, 21 (1939) 375, n.2.Google Scholar
4. Cf. Huizinga, J., “Ueber den Begriff der Geschichte,” Wege der Kulturgeschichte (Munich, 1930), 30; also in his Im Bann der Geschichte (Bruxelles, 1943), 94ff.; English translation in Klibansky, R., ed., Philosophy and History: Essays presented to Ernst Cassirer, (Bruxelles, 1936), 9.Google Scholar
5. (Uppsala, 1960), 1, n. 3.Google Scholar
6. Panofsky, 3, notes 1 and 2; in the latter the reference to Jahrbuch der Kunstwissenschaft should be IV (1927), 77ft.; G. Boas in Journal of Aesthetics & Art Criticism, XI (1952), 252ff.Google Scholar
7. Panofsky, p. 7; cf. also Idem, 5, notes 1 and 2, and add Brown, H., “The Renaissance and Historians of Science,” Studies in the Renaissance, 2 (1955), 176ff. Google Scholar
8. Thorndike, L., “Renaissance or Prenaissance,” Journal of the History of Ideas, 4 (1943), 65ff. Google Scholar
9. Marrou, H.-I., De la connaissance historique (Paris, 1956).Google Scholar
10. Ibid., 30.Google Scholar
11. E.g.: Abbot Engelbert of Admont (c. 1250–1331) in his prologue to Ps. 118; cf. forthcoming edition in Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, 29 (1962).Google Scholar
12. Guardini, R., Das Ende der Neuzeit (Basel, 1950).Google Scholar
13. Marcus, I. in Comparative Studies in Society and History, 3 (1961), 123ff. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Djurdjev, B. in Resumes du XIe Congrès International des Sciences Historiques, Stockholm (1960), 41.Google Scholar
15. Meyer, E., Geschichte des Altertums, 2nd revised ed. (Stuttgart, 1937), Vol. III, 230–767.Google Scholar
16. Langer, W. L., “The Next Assignment,” American Historical Review, 63 (1957–1958), 283ff. Google Scholar
17. Dove, A., “Der Streit um das Mittelalter,” Historische Zeitschrift, 116 (1916), 208ff.; H. Spangenberg, “Die Perioden der Weltgeschichte,” Hist. Zetschr., 127 (1922), 1ff; W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (Baltimore, 1940), 82f.; H. Heimpel has defended the Middle Ages as a distinct period with its own physiognomy in his essay “Ueber die Epochen der mittelalterliche Geschichte,” reprinted from Dile Sammlung (1947) in his Der Mensch und seine Gegenwart (Göttingen, 1957), 42ff., especially 50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Lehmann, P., “Mittelalter und Küchenlatein,” Hist. Zeitschr. 137 (1927), 197ff.; reprinted in his Erforschung des Mittelalters, Band, I. (Stuttgart, 1941 and 1959), 51ff.Google Scholar
19. Cf. note 15 above; also Wilcken, U., Griechische Geschichte im Rahmen der Altertumsgeschichte, 8th ed. (Munich, 1958), 68–82.Google Scholar
20. Grousset, R., Histoire de la Chine (Paris, 1942), English trans. entitled The Rise and Splendour of the Chinese Empire (London, 1952), 24.Google Scholar
21. Comparative Philosophy (New York and London, 1926), 62–113.Google Scholar
22. Ibid., 113.Google Scholar
23. Colie, R. L., “Time and Eternity: Paradox and Structure in ‘Paradise Lost,’” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 23 (1960), 127ff. Google Scholar
24. Cf. note 5 above.Google Scholar
25. Cf. note 13 above; also Haas, W. S., The Destiny of Mind (New York, 1956), 39.Google Scholar
26. Bosl, K. in Gebhardt, B., Handbuch der deutschen Geschichte, I. Band, 8th ed. (Stuttgart, 1954), 585–684.Google Scholar
27. Toynbee, A. J., A Study of History, Vol. 10 (Oxford, 1954).Google Scholar
28. Mitteis, H., Die Rechtsidee in der Geschichte (Weimar, 1957).Google Scholar
29. Weber, M., Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Sozial–und Wirtschaftsgesschichte (Tübingen, 1924).Google Scholar
30. Gilbert, F. in: XIe Congrès International des Sciences Historiques, Stockholm (1960). Rapports I (Methodologie), 41.Google Scholar
31. Bloch, M., The Historian's Craft (New York, 1953), 43.Google Scholar
32. American Historical Review, 61 (1955–1956), 265–283.Google Scholar
33. Rostovtzeff, M. I., Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire. (2nd ed. revised by Fraser, P. M., Oxford, 1957), Vol. I, 541.Google Scholar
34. Bloch, , 13; cf. the preface of W. L. Westermann, Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiquity (Philadelphia, 1955), x.Google Scholar
35. A rare example of the macrocosmic type, a work of that haute vulgarization we need so desperately is Genicot, L., Les lignes de faîte du moyen âge (2c ed., Tournai-Paris, 1952), revised for the German translation by Buchmayer, S. (3rd ed., Graz-Vienna-Cologne, 1957).Google Scholar
36. Im Bann der Geschichte, Vorwort.Google Scholar
37. Bloch, , 197.Google Scholar