This study explores the connection between politics and historical scholarship in the case of the Hungarian historian, Gyula Szekfu, whose career spanned one of the most significant and eventful periods of Hungarian history. His writing is particularly suited for an inquiry into the relationship between politics and historiography becasue the changes in Szefku s political and historical points of view parallelled the drastic changes which occurred in Hungary. "

This book, originally published in 1977, is a survey of European historiography from its origins in the historians of Greece and Rome, through the annalists and chroniclers of the middle ages, to the historians of the late eighteenth century. The author concentrates on those writers whose works fit into a specific category of writing, or who have inlfuence the course of later historical writing, though he does deal with some of the more specialist forms of medieval historiography such as the crusading writers, and chivalrous historians like Froissart. He maintains that modern history did...

Examining why the study of history as a science was not as advanced as other disciplines, the author of this book, originally published in 1933, examines the arguments in the controversy of what the object of history should be. He then discusses the impact of the study of history on government, war and revolution .

This book, originally published in 1963, discusses the place of history in education and general culture, methods of teaching and how to tackle reading. It deals with problems that are among the most pressing intellectual issues of the twentieth century as well as being a practical handbook, on how to read history.

The essays in this volume, originally published in 1992, examine some of the pervasive implications of Victorian medievalism, and assess its creative manifestations and dual capacities for expression of reformist anger and escapist retreat. Some of the emotional and intllectual reasons for the strong Victorian attraction to medieval history and litereature are discussed and emblematic responses to this attraction are examined. "

The first important scholarly consideration of Enlightenment historiography of the twentieth century, this book, originally published in 1926, critically examines the ideas of Voltaire, Hume, Robertston and Gibbon with respect to the theory and practice of historiography. The substantial introduction outlines the main differences between the ideals of these literary-philosophical schools and those which prevailed among historians in the early 20th century. The author argues that history can never be devoid of philosphical and literary interest, and that if it concerns itself merely with...

The recent wave of interest in oral history and return to the active subject as a topic in historical practice raises a number of questions about the status and function of scholarly history in our societies. This articles in this volume, originally pubished in 1990, and which originally appeared in "History and Anthropology, Volume 2, Part 2, " discuss what contributions, meanings and consequences emerge from scholarly history turning to living memory, and what the relationships are between history and memory.

In this work, originally published in 1989, the author establishes a tradition of radical historicism from Hegel to the Budapenst School. He charts both its continuous evolution from the early 19th century to the late 20thh, and its transformation in the context of European social, economic and cultural change. Through a reappraisal of historical interpretation from Hegel to Foucault, the book demonstrates the contemporary relevance of radical historicism. It includes detailed analyses of Marx, Dilthey, Simmel, Weber, Lukacks, Horkheimer, Adorno and Habermas. "

Taking the evidence of maps and documents, this book, originally published in 1957, describes 6 journeys inthe field: to parish boundaries, Elizabethan villages, the planted medieval towns and to parks of all periods.

In this volume, originally published in 1972, the author discusses the conflict between the historian s own expressed political views and the judgements he makes on political events in history. "