Historiography and postmodernism: F. R. Ankersmit’s theory of representation
Keywords:
Postmodernism, historiography, F. R. Ankersmit, historical representationAbstract
This article analyses F. R. Ankersmit’s aesthetic theory of historical representation.After some preliminary thoughts on the discipline, I examine the work of Arthur C. Danto and Ernst H. Gombrich, both of which were an important influence for Ankersmit. Then I present the rapprochement between historiography, literature and aesthetics proposed by Ankersmit, alongside with some of the criticism it aroused, namely by Perez Zagorin. The article concludes with a general assessment of the essential core of postmodernist historiography.
Downloads
Downloads
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2016 Aitor Manuel Bolaños de Miguel
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors whose contributions are accepted for publication in this journal, accept the following terms:
a. The authors retain their copyright and guarantee to the magazine the right of first publication of their work, which will be simultaneously subject to the Creative Commons Attribution License Attribution-Noncommercial-No derivative works 4.0 Spain, which allows third parties to share the work as long as its author and its first publication is indicated.
b. Authors may adopt other non-exclusive license agreements to distribute the version of the published work (e.g. deposit in an institutional repository or archive, or published in a monographic volume) provided the initial publication in this journal is indicated.
PLAGIARISM AND SCIENTIFIC FRAUD
The publication of work that infringes on intellectual property rights is the sole responsibility of the authors, including any conflicts that may occur regarding infringement of copyright. This includes, most importantly, conflicts related to the commission of plagiarism and/or scientific fraud.
Plagiarism is understood to include:
1. Presenting the work of others as your own.
2. Adopting words or ideas from other authors without due recognition.
3. Not using quotation marks or another distinctive format to distinguish literal quotations.
4. Giving incorrect information about the true source of a citation.
5. The paraphrasing of a source without mentioning the source.
6. Excessive paraphrasing, even if the source is mentioned.
Practices constituting scientific fraud are as follows:
1. Fabrication, falsification or omission of data and plagiarism.
2. Duplicate publication.
3. Conflicts of authorship.
