The Practice of Conceptual History

Koselleck, R. (2002). The Practice of Conceptual History: Timing History, Spacing Concepts. Stanford University Press.

Type

Book

Intellectual base

Review or monograph

Year

2002

DOI

10.1515/9781503619104

ISBN

9781503619104

DOI registrant

Stanford University Press

Link

https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781503619104/html

Cited from

history_historiography

Cited by

2 citations across 2 artifacts.

Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.

Primes

• Anachronism
  • As Koselleck (2002) demonstrated through Begriffsgeschichte, naming anachronism gives a concrete target for correction that is more tractable than the diffuse "presentism" label.

    This sourceProgrammatic Begriffsgeschichte: tracking when modern concepts acquired their modern meanings as a method for marking and avoiding anachronistic projection — supports the conceptual-emergence/clarity claim (D40-065) and the Koselleck formal-program example (D40-071).

    Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract

    Koselleck's abstract establishes him as the foremost exponent of Begriffsgeschichte, but says nothing about naming anachronism as a more tractable target than the "presentism" label.

    “He is the foremost exponent and practitioner of Begriffsgeschichte, a methodology of historical studies that focuses on the invention and development of the fundamental concepts underlying and informing a distinctively historical manner of being in the world.”

    Read by an automated reader; not a human review. How support was checked

Mechanisms

• Period Vocabulary Audit
  • It is the working form of conceptual history: the recognition that concepts have their own histories

    This sourceTreats concepts as historically changing semantic formations and cautions that later readings can alter meanings inherited from earlier periods.

Verification

Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.

Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 2 citations: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.

Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.

See how references were verified.

Links previously used in the corpus

Before the registry existed this work was also linked 1 other way.

• https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503619104 ×1

Registry ID ref:40c9b18897ee · see in the full table