How did historical discourse change between 1750 and 1850, the era that Koselleck referred to as the Saddle Period? Besides the much-debated phenomenon of scientification, what part was played by the love of history, hopes of making a political impact, an orientation to aesthetic memorability, and hypothetical historical designs? Was the old notion of historia magistra vitae truly abandoned or did it live on with a new function?

Autorentext

Elisabeth Décultot und Daniel Fulda, Universität Halle-Wittenberg.