Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:59:00.186Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Narrative Constraints on Historical Writing: The Case of the Scientific Revolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Rivka Feldhay
Rivka Feldhay
Affiliation:
The Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and IdeasTel Aviv University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper three canonical studies of the scientific revolution are subjected to narratological analysis. Underlying this analysis is the assumption that in any single product of historical writing it is possible to distinguish, for analytical purposes, between three levels of reference: the object of the text — the events; the representation of the events — the narrative; and the text in which a story is represented by means of narrative. Through texts one learns about historical events (the object of the text), but also about the process of producing the texts (the narrative). Techniques of representation are means of production of texts that represent, in addition to the events, also the producer and his or her authority. The distinction made for any specific text allows the reader to play the two levels against each other in order to create a space within which historical writing should be criticized. Such criticism may draw attention to the difficulty of controlling the meaning of historical stories, and to the need to analyze narrative structures in order to appreciate the ideological changes of historical texts.

Type
Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , Spring 1994 , pp. 7 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Carr, E. H. 1961. What Is History? London.Google Scholar
Cassirer, E. 1963. The Individual and the Cosmos in Renaissance Philosophy. Translated by Domandi, M. New York.Google Scholar
Culler, J. 1988. Framing the Sign. Norman, Uklao.Google Scholar
Danto, A. C. 1985. Narration and Knowledge. New York.Google Scholar
Dijksterhuis, E. J. [1959] 1986. The Mechanization of the World Picture: Pytha goras to Newton. Translated from the Dutch by Dikshoorn, C.. Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
Freudenthal, G. 1986. Atom and Individual in the Age of Newton. Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genette, G. [1972] 1980. Narrative Discourse. Ithaca, N.Y. Originally published as Figures III.Google Scholar
Kermode, F. 1967. The Sense of an Ending. New York.Google Scholar
Koyré, A., 1957. From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe. Baltimore.Google Scholar
Koyré, A. [1939] 1978. Galileo Studies. Translated by Mepham, J.. Hassocks, Sussex.Google Scholar
Rimmon-Kenan, S. 1983. Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics. New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, D. P. 1958. Spiritual and Demonic Magic: From Ficino to Campanella. London.Google Scholar
White, H. 1980. ‘The Value of Narrativity in the Representation of Reality.’ In On Narrative, edited by Mitchell, W. J. T. Chicago.Google Scholar
Yates, F. A. 1964. Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition. London.Google Scholar