Istoriografija - veliki istoricari i njihova dela

[Yoda]

In memoriam - Mirjana Gross (1922-2012), veliki majstor metodologije:

Upotrijebila ga je i na promociji svoje knjige Suvremena historiografija. Korjeni, postignuća, traganja, govoreći o njezinu nastanku: „Našla sam se, dakle, na brisanom prostoru, bez temeljne literature na koju bih se mogla osloniti, ali zato okružena golemom količinom obavijesti, suprotstavljenim mišljenjima, brzim promjenama načelnih pristupa, a i mnogim novim interpretacijama određenih razdoblja starije historiografije. (…) Osim toga sam svoje boravke u bečkim knjižnicama sama financirala, a zbog ograničena vremena i nisam mogla svladati svu nužnu literaturu Na „brisanom prostoru“ se našla i zbog načina kako je hrvatskoj javnosti tada, 7. X. 1996., predstavila svoju knjigu: „Obratila sam (…) pažnju problemima istraživačke prakse kao dinamičnoga spoznajnog procesa, uvjerena da znanstveni postupak, a posebno kritika izvora, postaje jedan od ključnih točaka obrane znanstvenosti historije. Upozoravanje na karakter i nužnost istraživačkog postupka potrebno je i zbog ideoloških, mitskih i uopće diletantskih pritisaka na hrvatske profesionalne povjesničare i povjesničarke“. Na „brisanom prostoru“ svjesno je bila i zbog načina kako je tom prilikom zaključila promociju: „Čitatelji/ce će reći da li je knjiga uspjela kao plaidoyer za znanstvenu historiju, iako ova nije prikazana u idealnom svjetlu. Uostalom, to i jest malo čudna djelatnost, jer su do moje generacije o povijesti pisali isključivo muškarci, a muza joj je ipak žena – Clio. Prilično snalažljiva, lukava, prevrtljiva, a ponekad i kompromitirana gospođa Clio stara je već 2500 tisuće godina, ali bi željela biti vječno mlada. Danas piše na computoru, bavi se „malim ljudima“, a ipak još razmjerno često trubi u fanfare u čast raznoraznih moćnika i „znamenitih muževa“, (…) stavljajući im lovor-vijence na glave. U svakom slučaju njezina sam sljedbenica, iako se stalno s njome razračunavam“. Od 1982. godine, kada sam aktivno počeo surađivati s profesoricom Gross, što točno znači to njezino „razračunavati se“, osjetio sam, uvijek s poštovanjem, dosta puta. Osjetio sam bio da je smeta kada je se atribuira kao povjesničarku hrvatskoga 19. stoljeća, nju, koja je kao rijetko tko ili, bolje, kao nitko u 20. stoljeću, postojano širio svjetske horizonte u hrvatskoj historiografiji i kulturi. Navest ću jedan rani primjer iz vlastitog iskustva.Uredništvo zagrebačkih Naših tema otvorilo je bilo u svome broju 4–5/1984. godine na moj prijedlog javnu raspravu o temi „Južnoslavenski narodi u prijelazu iz feudalnog u građansko društvo“. Razgovarajući u nekoliko prilika o njezinu tadašnjem radu na monografiji Počeci moderne hrvatske. Neoapsolutizam u civilnoj Hrvatskoj i Slavoniji 1850 – 1860., nije mi bilo teško shvatiti da bi upravo profesorica Gross trebala napisati članak za tu raspravu kojim bi vlastita, prebogata istraživačka iskustva u radu na spomenutom razdoblju mogla interpolirati u tranzicijsku problematiku dugog trajanja u hrvatskoj povijesti. Ne mogu reći da je bila oduševljena mojim prijedlogom, a još manje bih to mogao reći za ustrajnost s kojom sam je nastojao uvjeriti u nešto što je ona znala mnogo bolje nego ja sam, tj., koliko bi takav članak bio poticajan u profesionalnoj hrvatskoj historiografiji. Na koncu ga je napisala i objavljen je u br. 11/1984. godine. Referirajući na svjetsku raspravu (Gerschenkron, Rostow, Braudel, Wallerstein itd.), regionalnu (Berend, Ránki) te hrvatske doprinose, napose Adamčekove u vezi sa 16. i 17. stoljećem, zaključila je, fokusirajući se na „zemljišno rasterećenje“ u civilnoj Hrvatskoj i Slavoniji u 19. stoljeću: „To su (bile) dragocjene spoznaje i za moja vlastita istraživanja. Postalo mi je jasno da se bavim jednim od područja „refeudalizacije“ na kojem se feudalni sustav održao do 1848. i stvorio bitne komponente spleta uvjetovanosti za značaj i ritam modernizacije u civilnoj Hrvatskoj i Slavoniji nakon 1848. godine“.[5] Tko se nakon toga ne bi bavio „zemljišnim rasterećenjem“ u civilnoj Hrvatskoj i Slavoniji. I tako dalje. Spomenutu njezinu knjigu sam vrlo pozorno čitao čim je izašla iz tiska iste te godine i pisao o njoj u beogradskom NIN-u: „Knjiga Mirjane Gross nesumnjivo je događaj i u hrvatskoj i u jugoslavenskoj historiografiji: Prednjačeći godinama, zajedno s nekoliko drugih historičara u nas, s metodološkim inovacijama u historiografskim istraživanjima, u posljednjem razdoblju sve odlučnije bila je usmjerena prema istraživanju „određenih društvenih cjelina, pogotovu složenoga međusobnog odnosa njihovih sastavnih dijelova“, tj. prema socijalnoj historiji ili, bolje rečeno, prema globalnoj historiji.“ Nisam mogao eksplicitno ne reći i sljedeće: „Izazov je bio izuzetno velik zbog vrlo slabe istraženosti ovog razdoblja hrvatske povijesti, a još više zbog odija koji prati „Bahove husare“ kao simbol germanizacije u njemu“

Drago Roksandic o Mirjani Gross

[Roger Sanchez]

Ima već neko vrijeme da je umrla. A i Goldi ju je obožavao.Nju nisam stigao upoznati, ali mogu se pohvalit time da sam jedan od rijetkih koji su Dragu Roksandića čekali manje od 2 sata da se pojavi na ispitu... Dapače, ispod jednog, a norma je bila negdje oko 5...

[Yoda]

Pa po istoj kronometriji nabazdarena je vecina Draginih ovdasnjih kolega. :lolol:Iz te vase stare garde ne moze a da se ne pomene Bogdan Krizman. Pravnicki pedantan i pomalo krut u interpretacijama, ali zato prilicno pouzdan.

Богдан Кризман је био хрватски историчар, писац у области правних наука и друштвено-политички ангажован интелектуалац пројугословенске оријентације. Рођен је у Вараждину 13. јула 1913. године, а умро је у Загребу 1994. године.Потицао је из угледне грађанске породице. Школовао се у родном Вараждину, а права је студирао у Загребу где је дипломирао 1937. године. У Француској је похађао Слободну школу политичких наука где је дипломирао 1939. године. Доктор правних наука постао је 1952. године са дисертацијом Дипломатија Дубровачке републике у XVIII стољећу. Прилог проучавању модерне европске дипломатије. На Академији за међународно право у Хагу усавршавао се у областима међународног права и дипломатске историје 1954. године. Након завршених студија Кризман је ступио у редове југословенске дипломатије. Током Другог светског рата хапсиле су га власти НДХ па је једно време провео у заточеништву у логору Лепоглава да би након тога био одведен у Грац где је конфирниран до краја рата. После завршетка Другог светског рата краће време радио је у државној служби, а затим се посветио професорској каријери на Правном факултету Универзитета у Загребу где је предавао Општу историју државе и права.Почетком 50-их година 20. века Кризман је почео да објављује своје обимније научне прилоге. Његова научна интересовања била су широка, а обухватала су дипломатску историју Дубровачке републике, историју распада Аустро-Угарске и настанка југословенске државе, спољну политику Краљевине Југославије, историју усташког покрета и посебно његовог предводника Анту Павелића. Такође се бавио приређивањем грађе. Објавио је више томова грађе о стварању југословенске државе (Грађа о стварању југословенске државе, два тома, приредио заједно са Драгославом Јанковићем, 1964) , делатности југословенске делегације на Мировној конференцији у Паризу 1919. године (Записници са седница Делегације Краљевине СХС на мировној конференцији у Паризу 1919—1920, заједно са Богумилом Храбаком), преписку Стјепана Радића, списе Ситона-Вотсона који су се односили на настанак Југославије, раду југословенских влада у избеглиштву (Југословенске владе у избеглиштву, први том приредио Кризман, други том од 1943. до 1945. приредио је Бранко Петрановић). Учествовао је на већем броју научних скупова, а објавио је око 150 радова укључујући и двадесетак књига које је написао или приредио. Поред конциног синтетичког прегледа историје спољне политике Краљевине Југославије написао је већи број радова из дипломатске историје Краљевине Југославије а посебну пажњу посвећивао је југословенско-италијанским односима. Његови обимни радови о усташком покрету и Анти Павелићу изузетно су документовани и представљају поуздану основу за даља историографска истраживања ове проблематике. Написао је приредио неколико популарно и стручно писаних књига са историјском и дипломатском проблематиком (Што је дипломација?, Заграб 1952; Други свјетски рат у мемоарима Винстона Черчила, Загреб 1952; Свједочанства о Другом светском рату; одломци из мемоара и кроника: Schmidt, Gafenco, Avfuso, Goebbels, Hassel, Stettinius, Bernadotte, 1952; Постанак модерне дипломације, 1957). Свој обиман рад о усташком покрету замислио је у неколико целина које је у свом истраживачком раду и остварио: прва књига Анте Павелић и усташе бавила се оним што је у историографији познато под називом прва усташка емиграција и њеним деловањем од одласка у емиграцију до формирања Независне државе Хрватске, друга и трећа књига Павелић између Хитлера и Мусолинија и Усташе и Трећи рајх (два тома) баве се историјом НДХ а посебно њеним односима са силама Осовине, док се књига Павелић у бјекству бави усташком емиграцијом после Другог светског рата и нарочито емигрантским годинама Анта Павелића.

http://www.istorijskabiblioteka.com/art:bogdan-krizman

[Roger Sanchez]

Uh, Krizman.. Krizman je bog, U posjedu imam samo Pobjeglog Bezglavnika, ali radim da nekako skoro pa džabe nabavim ostatak..

[Dr Arslanagić]

Uh, Krizman.. Krizman je bog, U posjedu imam samo Pobjeglog Bezglavnika, ali radim da nekako skoro pa džabe nabavim ostatak..

ima ovde za džabe da se uzme, kupiću ti ja pa ćeš pokupiti kad budeš svraćao za BG.

[Dr Arslanagić]

Umro Erik HobsbaumJedan od najuvaženijih britanskih istoričara, Erik Hobsbaum, umro je u 95. godini u Londonu.

[beatakeshi]

Često prelistavam Doba ekstrema. Šteta što prevodilac (Predrag Marković) nije temeljitije uradio svoj posao.

[porucnik vasic]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4Wi4_oWo_U

[Prospero]

Umro Erik HobsbaumJedan od najuvaženijih britanskih istoričara, Erik Hobsbaum, umro je u 95. godini u Londonu.

Eric Hobsbawm, 1917-201210-2-12

Eric Hobsbawm in 2009. Credit: Wikipedia.

Michael Burleigh

...Everything Hobsbawm wrote deceitfully downplayed the grim role of the Communists in Spain in the Thirties or the forcible nature of the coups the Soviets carried out in Eastern Europe after 1945. Such a cosmopolitan thinker had ironically become imprisoned within a deeply provincial ideological ghetto, knowing or caring nothing for the brave Czechs or Poles who resisted Stalin’s stooges, while being manifestly nonplussed by the democratic transformations of Central Europe since 1989-90. That the secret police – the Sword and Shield of the Revolution – would end up running Vladimir Putin’s FSB-mafia state was literally inexplicable to him.

Hobsbawm’s implacable refusal to recant his views when faced with their grotesque consequences tells us something about the belligerent mindset of the wider British Left. But the eminence that he and his fellow travellers have enjoyed also speaks to the bovine complacency with which, since Mrs Thatcher, the Conservatives have allowed such dubious figures licence to dominate the soft culture of the BBC and our universities.

Niall Ferguson

It may surprise readers of the Guardian to know that

Eric Hobsbawm

and I were friends.

We were poles apart politically, of course. I still remember the disappointment I felt when I read his autobiography, Interesting Times, which I had hoped would contain some exp

ression of remorse for his decision to remain a member of the Communist party even after the exposure of Stalin's crimes. Indeed, we disagreed about most contemporary political questions.

But his politics did not prevent Hobsbawm from being a truly great historian. I continue to believe that his great tetralogy – The Age of Revolution (1962), The Age of Industry (1975), The Age of Empire (1987) and The Age of Extremes (1994) – remains the best introduction to modern world history in the English language.

Eric Foner

Eric Hobsbawm, who died on October 1 at the age of 95, was perhaps the twentieth century’s preeminent historian and a life-long advocate of social justice. Born in Alexandria, Egypt, in 1917 to a British father and Austrian mother, he was educated in Vienna and Berlin. His family sent him to London in 1933 when Hitler came to power and he lived for the rest of his life in England, where he taught for many years at London’s Birkbeck College....

Hobsbawm’s historical writings brought to bear a sophisticated Marxist analysis that saw class conflict as a driving force of historical change but rejected narrow economic determinism and teleological frameworks. Like Marx himself, Hobsbawm saw capitalism as a total social system, which had to be analyzed in its entirety, and rejected notions of historical inevitability. He insisted that people must strive to envision a more humane social order, but that history had no predetermined trajectory. His 1978 essay “The Forward March of Labor Halted?” offered a prescient and disturbing warning that the postwar expansion of social democracy and the power of organized labor, considered irreversible by many leftists, had reached a crisis point. His writings on the history of British labor helped to launch the “new social history” that dominated historical scholarship in Britain and the United States in the 1970s and 1980s. Yet in an influential 1971 essay, “From Social History to the History of Society,” he warned that studies of the agency of ordinary people, so important in expanding the cast of historical characters, must be placed in the broader context of how social and political power is exercised....

Roy Foster

Most historians are by nature either short-story writers or novelists; Eric Hobsbawm was both. While his organising framework was Marxian (beginning as "an attempt to understand the arts", as he said himself), the subjects included mountain-climbing, opera, jazz and sartorial and eating fashions as well as work patterns, class solidarity and the movements of international finance – all delivered in a marvellously flexible and pungent style.

Stephen Kotkin

...[His] best book, at least to my mind, remains the memoir “Interesting Times” (2002), one of the very few—dare I say—great life stories of a historian. (

I wrote about it for

The New Yorker

.) His memoir enacts the core principles of all his historical work: he wrote for the public, not just for the guild, and he wrote not only with compelling narrative, which is how popular history is delivered, but with strong analysis, too. Does that add up to more than legions of students and well-grounded original interpretations? It is arguably Hobsbawm’s overall life/work rather than any single piece that has been and will continue to prove most influential. On that front, there’s also this: having embraced and never relinquished the passionate early Marx, E. J. Hobsbawm, as he reaffirmed in his last book, was in it to change the world.

Catherine Merridale

[T]hrenodies are not an argument, and memories are definitely not facts (Hobsbawm's pithy condemnation of oral history, delivered at a conference where I was due to speak, was terrifying). Like the students who thumb through his books, we historians would do well to learn from this dazzling professional, though we need not read him for facts. Our lesson lies in his unflinching sense of engagement, his responsibility.

David Priestland

Of all the British Marxist historians, Eric Hobsbawm is probably the most read today, and that is a mark of his extraordinary intellectual flexibility.

Timothy Snyder

...To be a man of Hobsbawm's generation was to have experienced the collapse of capitalism in the Great Depression, to be a Jew of Hobsbawm's generation was to have seen the rise of Hitler and Nazi Germany. In those years of the 1930s, the years when Hobsbawm was a brilliant youth, was to face what seemed to be a binary choice, to be with the Nazis or against them. And no one seemed to be more against the Nazis than the communists. Hobsbawm joined the Communist Party as a very young man, and was loyal, in his way, to the end.

Communism also offered, as perhaps no non-religious ideas do today, a sense of community. To belong to the Communist Party was to have a sense of conspiracy, a loyalty to friends who had suffered and would suffer more, and a collective sense that the struggle was not in vain, for a more glorious world could and would come. Like religion for Americans, who repeat that "things happen for a reason," communism offered a logic of pain and progress. Every arrest, every sentence to a concentration camp, every execution was not just a moment of horror, but further proof of capitalism's decadence and weakness....

Associated Press

Eric Hobsbawm, who was honored as one of Britain's most distinguished historians despite retaining an allegiance to the Communist Party that lasted long after many supporters had left in disgust, has died. He was 95.

Hobsbawm died early Monday at a London hospital, said his daughter Julia Hobsbawm. He had

pneumonia and leukemia.

Read by generations of students and revered for his ability to make history come alive, Hobsbawm used his socialist perspective to tell stories from the people's point of view....

Commonweal

Despite his lucidity and widely attested personal decency, Hobsbawm also became an object lesson in the dangers of ideological devotion. His passion for justice drew him into a cause that would require him to excuse the many injustices that took place in the Soviet Union under Stalin. A lot of Western Communists abandoned ship after the Soviet crackdown on Hungary in 1956. Not Hobsbawm. Nor did he quit after the tanks rolled into Prague twelve years later. In a 1994 interview with Michael Ignatieff he famously claimed that if the Soviet Union had succeeded in creating a true communist society, it would have been worth the deaths of the twenty million people who perished under Stalin. Didn’t Marx himself say that ”no great movement has been born without the shedding of blood”? So

self

-sacrifice

wasn’t the only kind of sacrifice that socialism might require.

Guardian (UK)

When future generations come upon the webpages and news bulletins of the last 24 hours, something may puzzle them about their contents. How was it, they may ask themselves, that the death of a

venerable Marxist historian

could be seen as such a large shared national loss by so many people whose assumptions and worldviews often had so little in common with his? Worthy of an obituary, of course. But a front-page news story?

It is not an unreasonable question. Part of the answer lies in the late Eric Hobsbawm'ssheer academic productivity and prowess. He cast the net of his curiosity far wider than most historians. He knew so much about so many things in the history of so many countries. And he had an unrivalled ability to marshal them in clear prose. No wonder he was such a sage to so many....New York Times

Eric J. Hobsbawm, whose three-volume economic history of the rise of industrial capitalism established him as Britain’s pre-eminent Marxist historian, died on Monday in London. He was 95.

The cause was pneumonia, said his daughter, Julia Hobsbawm.

Mr. Hobsbawm, the leading light in a group of historians within the British Communist Party that included Christopher Hill, E. P. Thompson and Raymond Williams, helped recast the traditional understanding of history as a series of great events orchestrated by great men. Instead, he focused on labor movements in the 19th century and what he called the “pre-political” resistance of bandits, millenarians and urban rioters in early capitalist societies.

His masterwork remains his incisive and often eloquent survey of the period he referred to as “the long 19th century,” which he analyzed in three volumes: “The Age of Revolution: 1789-1848,” “The Age of Capital: 1848-1875” and “The Age of Empire: 1874-1914.” To this trilogy he appended a coda in 1994, “The Age of Extremes,” published in the United States with the subtitle “A History of the World, 1914-1991.”

Jonathan Jones

The historian

Eric Hobsbawm

, who has died aged 95, is rightly being mourned as a great intellectual of modern times. Yet Hobsbawm was more than a powerful historian and political thinker; nor should he be remembered in solitary splendour. He was part of a group of British Marxist scholars who profoundly influenced our understanding of what culture is.

More than 50 years ago, a bunch of dissident Oxbridge-educated academic historians changed the way the British saw culture. They understood, long before anyone else, that culture is what shapes the world. They also saw that culture is totally democratic and comes from the people. While the official guardians of the arts, such as

, were praising the "civilisation" of the elite on television and in print, Hobsbawm and co were resurrecting the lost cultures of Luddites, the masked poachers and anyonymous letter writers, of William Blake and John Milton. They discovered and popularised the value of popular culture – something so integral to our lives today it seems bizarre it was ever denigrated.

Ed Miliband (Labour Party leader and Member of Parliament)

[A]n extraordinary historian, a man passionate about his politics and a great friend of my family.

Related Links

• <a href="http://www.salon.com...wm_in_quotes/">Eric Hobsbawm in Quotes (Salon)

Edited October 3, 2012 by buffalo bill

[Dr Arslanagić]

Intervju – Milan Ristović, istoričar >Istorija i svakodnevica

[Dr Arslanagić]

Mančmelouvljev magistarski rad izuzetno pohvaljen na jednom naučnom skupu

[Dr Arslanagić]

Preminuo akademik Slobodan DušanićAkademik Slobodan Dušanić, redovni član Srpske akademije nauka i umetnosti, preminuo je juče, saopšteno je iz SANU. Bio je istoričar, koji je proučavao antičku istoriju Grčke i Rima.

:(Bilo je veliko zadovoljstvo slušati njegova predavanja.

[MancMellow]

Mančmelouvljev magistarski rad izuzetno pohvaljen na jednom naučnom skupu

Pa ja ovo nisam video :D A ni znao sto mi ne rece onomad? ^_^Dusanic - laka mu zemlja. Predavanja su mu stvarno bila dobra. Edited December 14, 2012 by MancMellow

[Prospero]

profesor starog kova, laka mu zemlja.

[Yoda]

Dugo je i tesko bio bolestan. Hvala za ulazak u svet proslosti, profesore.