The Historical Essays Of Otto Hintze Pdf

A concern with the interrelations between accounting and the state is integral recent studies of accounting change. Yet there has been little explicit attention to ways of thinking about the nature of the linkages themselves, and the concepts that might be used to analyse them. Approaches that rely on an implied exteriority between accounting and the state are argued to neglect these interrelations. The theoretical limitations of “functional” and “external factor” approaches are discussed as a way of highlighting the importance of these issues. A framework is proposed that differs from these models. This focuses on the relays, linkages and interdependecies between the practices and rationales of accounting on the one hand, and the state defined as a loosely assembled complex of rationales and practices of government on the other. The theoretical framework suggested centres on a distinction between two aspects of government. Firstly, the programmatic and abstract field or rationales, statements and claims that sets out the objects and objectives of government, and that is termed “political rationalities”. Secondly, the range of calculations, procedures and tools that materialize and visualize processes and activities, and that is termed “technologies”. Whilst distinct, these two aspects of government are linked in a relationships of reciprocity. The specific rationales that articulate political rationalities allow congruences to be established between the roles of accounting and the objectives of government. The ways of calculating and intervening provided by technologies enable domains to be operated upon and enrolled within programmes of government. This framework is illustrated by reference to innovations in accounting and other practices of government across the “Colbert period” of Louis XIV's reign, 1661–1683. This was a significant period of innovation for private enterprise accounting, and for a range of practices of government. It is through a particular rationale of “order” that these two distinct sets of practices are argued to have been aligned, and roles for accounting articulated. An examination of these issue is considered to demonstrate the importance of examining the interrelations of accounting and the state.

1.Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (1914), p. 744.

2.Meinecke, Friedrich, Erlebtes 1862–1919 (1964), p. 104; cf. Hintze's “Über individualistische und kollektivistische Geschichtsauffassung” (1897), in vol. II.

3. I owe this information to the unpublished Ph.D. thesis of Smith, Leonard S., “Otto Hintze's Comparative Constitutional History of the West” (Washington University, St. Louis, 1967). The thesis, which was written under my direction, deserves being published in a condensed form. Specific factual information in this article is derived either from the introductory essays to the collection of articles or from Smith's thesis.

4.Hintze's political attitude, which is analyzed in this section, has recently been dealt with by Simon, W. M., “Power and Responsibility: Otto Hintze's Place in German Historiography,” in The Responsibility of Power. Historical Essays in Honor of Hajo Holborn, ed. Krieger, Leonard and Stern, Fritz (1967). My own treatment differs considerably in approach and appraisal from Simon's.

5. In Die deutsche Freiheit: Fünf Vorträge, hsg. vom Bund deutscher Gelehrter und Künstler (1917), p. 169.

6. II, 198.

7. “Imperialismus und Weltpolitik” (1907), in vol. I.

8. I, 495.

9. “Bürgerlich-demokratisch” was the term used in the original title of the article in vol. I, according to an archival notice in the Nachlass (see the thesis of Leonard S. Smith).

10. Meinecke, Erlebtes, pp. 260f.

11. Hintze concentrated on social history in its bearing on institutions. He did not deal with social history as an independent topic. Hence his studies on Prussian officialdom could be complemented by the investigation of the relation of nobility and officialdom; cf. Rosenberg, Hans, Bureaucracy, Aristocracy and Autocracy. The Prussian Experience, 1660–1815 (1958).

12. II, 390.

13. II, 421, 419.

14. II, 57.

15. I, 425.

16. I, 89, 160ff. (cf. also below, p. 34); II, 433ff.

17. I, 163.

18. Cf. Oestreich, G., “Ständestaat und Ständewesen im Werk Otto Hintzes,” in Gerhard, D., ed., Ständische Vertretungen in Europa im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert (“Veröffentlichungen des Max Planck Instituts für Geschichte,” XXVII, 1969).

19. II, 242.

20. II, 157, 162.

21. See the obituary of Schmoller in vol. II

22. II, 23, 26, 436.

23. Cf. above, pp. 21–22.

24. II, 264.

25. An attempt to sketch Hintze's relation to both Droysen and Ranke can be found in Covensky, Milton, “Hintze and the Legacy of Ranke,” in White, Hayden V., ed., The Uses of History. Essays in Intellectual and Social History Presented to William J. Bossenbrook (1968). It appeared after this article had been written.

26. II, 290.

27. I, 230ff.

28. II, 163.

29. II, 367. Oestreich assumes, probably correctly, that this is the first mention of Goethe's “schaffender Spiegel.” Meinecke later frequently referred to it. In 1948 a collection of Meinecke's historiographical and methodological articles was published under this title.

30. II, 171.

31. In the introduction to “Die Entstehung der modernen Staatsministerien” (1908), I, 275.

32. II, 336.

33. II, 177.

34. Cf. the excellent article on Die Entstehung des Historismus by Schulin, Ernst: “Das Problem der Individualität,” Historische Zeitschrift, CXCVII (1963), 102. Hintze was very outspoken in rejecting Troeltsch's thesis that historicism developed as a specifically German way of thinking, in contrast to the West. He saw in the emphasis on this contrast— in my opinion rightly—an aftereffect of the propaganda of the First World War (II, 329). Meinecke, differing from Hintze, regarded the French and English contributions as a prologue, while the climax was reached in the deutsche Bewegung of classical idealism and romanticism. Oestreich rightly stresses that Hintze was much closer not only to the social sciences but also to historical writing in Western Europe than most of the other German historians. I differ from Iggers, Georg G., The German Conception of History (1968), whose book also contains some interesting remarks on Hintze, in my appraisal of the earlier phases of German historical-political thought. The conscious counterposition against the West was only taken as a result of the propaganda and counterpropaganda of the First World War, whose effect is usually underestimated in this country.

35. II, 382.

36. II, 251.

37. Cf. above, p. 25.

38. II, 146. Hintze was impressed by Dilthey's plan to write a “Critique of Historical Reason”; throughout his whole life he paid special attention to all epistemological studies bearing on history. He regarded the exposition of his Berlin colleague, Heinrich Maier, as particularly enlightening. Oestreich rightly emphasizes the influence of Maier, who is far too little known. Hintze referred especially to Maier's distinction between general notions which science uses and “types” which are based on perceptive (anschauliche) abstractions. Recently the problem of the “Typus” has been discussed by, among others, Schieder, Theodor in Staat und Gesellschaft im Wandel unserer Zeit (1958), pp. 172–87, and in Geschichte als Wissenschaft (2nd ed., 1968), pp. 46–50.

39. I, 422.

40. I, 218.

41. III, 99, criticizing Loening (cf. above, pp. 22–23).

42. II, 144.

43.Brunner, Otto, Land und Herrschaft (4th ed., 1959), pp. 161–63. Cf. also Birtsch, G., “Die landständische Verfassung als Gegenstand der Forschung,” in Ständische Vertretungen in Europa im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert, ed. Gerhard, D. (1969).

44. Cf. above, p. 27, n. 7.

45. II, 370.

46. II, 364–65.

47.Meinecke, Friedrich, Die deutsche Katastrophe (1946), p. 89.

48. II, 373.

* This article I sent to Hajo Holborn in manuscript while he was in the hospital after his last operation, remembering our common attachment to Hintze. In the preface to his History of Modern Germany he testified to his deep respect for Hintze. Hintze's great articles on Troeltsch and Sombart and on the comparative history of the West which between 1927 and 1931 were published in the Historische Zeitschrift (cf. below, pp. 29ff.) impressed both of us deeply. They were the topic of many conversations. I am therefore happy to be able to contribute this article to an issue which is devoted to memory of Hajo Holborn. While evaluting Hintze's work as a whole I am centering my analysis on his collected essays: Otto Hintze, Gesammelte Abhandlungen (3 vols., 2nd enlarged ed., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht): I, Staat und Verfassung. Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur allgemeinen Verfassungsgeschichte, ed. Gerhard Oestreich, intro. Fritz Hartung (1962); II, Soziologie und Geschichte. Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur Soziologie, Politik und Theorie der Geschichte, ed. and intro. Gerhard Oestreich (1964): III, Regierung und Verwaltung. Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur Staats-, Rechts- und Sozialgeschichte Preussens, ed. and intro. Gerhard Oestreich (1967). References to the articles will be annotated only in exceptional cases: when Hintze is directly quoted, or when the passage is not part of the article being discussed in the text.

Categories: 1

0 Replies to “The Historical Essays Of Otto Hintze Pdf”

Leave a comment

L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *