Pest,Stadt, Wissenschaft — Wechselwirkungen in oberitalienischen Städten vom 14. bis 17. Jahrhundert

After the Black Death of 1348 the Plague was not only the cause of personal disasters and individual despair, but was also of political and social significance. Each outbreak of the epidemic implied a crisis for the community with crucial consequences for trade, jurisdiction, administration, executive powers and for food supply. The faith in authority by the leading university medics was tragic, as they subscribed to the hippocratic-galenical humoral pathology and to the miasmatic theory. On the other hand, municipal authorities, from the 14th century onwards responded to the epidemic in a pragmatic manner, isolating the sick, carrying out checks, imposing trade embargos and special epidemic laws. From the 15th century onwards people were also put under quarantine. The medics' role, their relationship with the government and their tendency to play down the diagnosis will be discussed at length, together with the questionable tradition of the Regimina pestis.     

Kameralismus als paradoxe Konzeption der gleichzeitigen Stärkung von Markt und Staat. Komplexe Theorielagen im deutschen 18. Jahrhundert

Cameralism as the paradox concept of simultaneous strengthening of market and state. Complex theoretical constellations in Eighteenth Century's Germany. Cameralism is an early theory of political economy of the 17^th and 18^th century in Germany and Austria, defining markets as a mode of political order of the absolutistic state. Men are incomplete actors; the state has to arrange a secure life and well being. But all regulation and order is the basement for individual action and a certain kind of early liberty. To regulate men's actions is to protect them against any arbitrariness of the governor. In the shadow of strong regulation of the economy and the society we see the development of the liberal market society.     

5. IMPERIAL SPACES IN PEKKA HÄMÄLÄINEN'S THE COMANCHE EMPIRE

This review focuses on Pekka Hämäläinen's characterization and analysis of the Comanche empire as a spatial category in The Comanche Empire and discusses how this work relates to broader discussions about space and power in borderlands and imperial histories. Although empires have long been central actors in borderlands histories, “empire” has not necessarily been a category of spatial organization and analysis and certainly not one used to describe spaces controlled by Native peoples. By contrast, while Hämäläinen emphasizes the imperial characteristics of the economic, political, and cultural dimensions of Comanche history (as other contributors to this forum discuss), he also uses “empire” to characterize Comanche dominance spatially. Hämäläinen helps us to rethink the spatial dynamics that both shaped and were produced by the encounters between Comanches and Spaniards, French, Mexicans, Americans, and other Native peoples in the Great Plains during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. By analyzing how Comanches came to control vast stretches of the southern plains, The Comanche Empire challenges our assumptions about how Native polities and imperial powers (and groups like the Comanches that Hämäläinen argues were both) thought about territorial claims and how they employed more nuanced spatial strategies to assert their authority, extend their cultural influence, and control trade and resources.     

3. INDIGENOUS EMPIRES AND NATIVE NATIONS: BEYOND HISTORY AND ETHNOHISTORY IN PEKKA HÄMÄLÄINEN'S THE COMANCHE EMPIRE

How should historians write Native history? To what extent should one privilege Native terms, sources, chronologies, and epistemologies? And to what extent should historians align Native history with concepts developed for other peoples and places? These crucial questions about emic (insider) and etic (outsider) approaches to the past are cast into sharp relief in Pekka Hämäläinen's award‐winning The Comanche Empire. This essay charts the perils and possibilities of each position. It then explores possible ways to move beyond the emic/etic division that has dominated many of the recent debates about Native history through a rereading of an episode in which Comanche history collides with US and Mexican history.     

Geschichte ohne Kausalität. Abgrenzungsstrategien gegen die Wissenschaftssoziologie in zeitgenössischen Ansätzen historischer Epistemologie

History Without Causality. How Contemporary Historical Epistemology Demarcates Itself From the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. Contemporary proponents of historical epistemology often try to delimit their enterprise by demarcating it from the sociology of scientific knowledge and other sociologically oriented approaches in the history of science. Their criticism is directed against the use of causal explanations which are deemed to invite reductionism and lead to a totalizing perspective on science. In the present article I want to analyse this line of criticism in what I consider are two paradigmatic works of contemporary historical epistemology: Lorraine Daston's und Peter Galison's Objectivity and Hans‐Jörg Rheinberger's Toward a History of Epistemic Things. I first present their arguments against the sociological and causal analysis of scientific knowledge and practice and then try to defend sociological work in the history of science against their charges. I will, however, not do so by defending causal explanations directly. Rather, I will show that the arguments against sociological analysis put forward in contemporary historical epistemology, as well as historical epistemology's own models of historical explanation and narration, bear problematic consequences. I argue that Daston, Galison and Rheinberger fail to create productive resonances between macro‐ and microhistorical perspectives, that they reproduce an internalist picture of scientific knowledge, and finally that Rheinberger's attempt to deconstruct the dichotomy between subject and object leads him to neglect questions about the political dimension of scientific research.