The papers deals with methodological questions of writing a general history of science. We start by defining the scope of general history of science and its relation to general history, followed by a discussion on recent trends in history and philosophy of science. We also examine the impact of the developments in the humanities since the 1970s on disciplines reflecting on science. The second part of the paper focuses on the approach of science and politics as resources for one other, developed by Mitchell Ash, to describing scientific changes in times of radical regime upheavals. We also discuss the intersection between current science and politics framing historians as engaged intellectuals.
The author raises questions concerning the phenomenon of manifestos in science and speciﬁ c theses advanced by the authors of The History Manifesto. The ﬁ rst question is whether a manifesto on the role of historiography in the contemporary world, calling for a revival of a certain seemingly bygone ideal of science, symbolised by the works of Fernand Braudel, can be the subject of scientiﬁ c criticism at all. The second question is whether the diagnosis of a crisis in the role of history as an expert science is accurate, and whether its claims to this role are altogether valid in the modern world.
The article attempts to evaluate Polish historiography dealing with the early modern period, published since 1989, the date marking the political transition in Poland. The transition has affected the way in which history has been practised in recent years, with a clear alteration in the subjectmatters and topics dealt with. Political history and the history of towns/cities and the bourgeoisie are beyond the scope of this discussion and assessment.
This paper focuses on the development of critical methods and the growth of the erudite school in 18th-century Denmark-Norway. It shows how Hans Gram, Andreas Hojer and Jacob Langebek contributed to modernizing the study of history, turning it into a branch of science