Cliohres.net

Creating Links and Innovative Overviews for a New History Research Agenda for the Citizens of a Growing Europe

Thematic Work Group 5

Frontiers and Identities I

The Consortium Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz (Austria) Universiteit Gent (Belgium) Sofiyski Universitet „Sveti Kliment Ohridski“ (Bulgaria) Univerzita Karlova v Praze (Czech Republic) Panepistimio Kyprou (Cyprus) Roskilde Universitetscenter (Denmark) Tartu Ülikool (Estonia) Turun Yliopisto (Finland) Université Pierre Mendès-France, Grenoble II (France) Université de Toulouse II - Le Mirail (France) Universität Hannover (Germany) Forschungszentrum Europäische Aufklärung (Germany) University of Aberdeen (Great Britain) Cardiff University (Great Britain) University of Sussex (Great Britain) Ethniko kai Kapodistriako Panepistimio Athinon (Greece) Aristotelio Panepistimio Thessalonikis (Greece) Debreceni Egyetem (Hungary) Miskolci Egyetem (Hungary) Háskóli Íslands (Iceland) National University of Ireland, Galway/ Ollscoil na hĖireann, Gaillimh (Ireland)

Università di Bologna (Italy) Università degli Studi di Milano (Italy) Università degli Studi di Padova (Italy) Università di Pisa (Italy) Latvijas Universitāte, Riga (Latvia) L-Università Ta’ Malta (Malta) Universiteit Utrecht (The Netherlands) Universitetet i Oslo (Norway) Uniwersytet Jagiellonski, Krakow (Poland) Universidade de Coimbra (Portugal) Universidade Aberta (Portugal) Universitatea Babeş Bolyai din Cluj-Napoca (Romania) Universitatea ‘Stefan cel Mare’, Suceava (Romania) Moskowskij Gosudarstvennyj Oblastnoj Universitet (Russian Federation) Slovenskej Akademie Vied (Slovakia) Univerza v Mariboru (Slovenia) University of KwaZulu-Natal (South Africa) Universidad de Alcalá de Henares (Spain) Universidad de Deusto (Spain) Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain) Universitat de Valencia (Spain) Universität Basel (Switzerland) Orta Dogu Teknik Üniversitesi (Turkey)

Frontiers and Identities Exploring the Research Area

edited by Lud’a Klusáková and Steven G. Ellis

Frontiers and identities : exploring the research area / edited by Lud’a Klusáková and Steven G. Ellis (Thematic work group) 320.1 (21.) 1. Nazione - Concetto I.  Klusáková, Luda II. Ellis, Steven G. CIP a cura del Sistema bibliotecario dell’Università di Pisa

This volume is published, thanks to the support of the Directorate General for Research of the European Commission, by the Sixth Framework Network of Excellence CLIOHRES.net under the contract CIT3-CT-2005-006164. The volume is solely the responsibility of the Network and the authors; the European Community cannot be held responsible for its contents or for any use which may be made of it.

Volumes published (2006) I. Thematic Work Groups I. Public Power in Europe: Studies in Historical Transformations II. Power and Culture: Hegemony, Interaction and Dissent III. Religion, Ritual and Mythology. Aspects of Identity Formation in Europe IV. Professions and Social Identity. New European Historical Research on Work, Gender and Society V. Frontiers and Identities: Exploring the Research Area VI. Europe and the World in European Historiography II. Transversal Theme I. Citizenship in Historical Perspective III. Doctoral Dissertations I. F. Peyrou, La Comunidad de Ciudadanos. El Discurso Democrático-Republicano en España, 1840-1868 Cover: František Kupka (1871-1957), The Eddy, oil on canvas, Museum of Grenoble. © 1990. Photo, Scala Archives, Florence.

© Copyright 2006 by Edizioni Plus – Pisa University Press Lungarno Pacinotti, 43 56126 Pisa Tel. 050 2212056 – Fax 050 2212945 [email protected] www.edizioniplus.it - Section “Biblioteca” ISBN 88-8492-405-7 Manager Claudia Napolitano Editing Francesca Petrucci Informatic assistance Michele Gasparello and Fabrizio Sodini

Contents Preface Ann Katherine Isaacs, Guðmundur Hálfdanarson

. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . .

» VII

Introduction Luďa Klusáková, Steven G. Ellis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » XIII

Terms

and

Concepts

Terms and Concepts: ‘Frontier’ and ‘Identity’ in Academic and Popular Usage Luďa Klusáková, Steven G. Ellis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . »

Concepts

and

1

Methods

Frontiers and Identities: Approaches and Inspirations in Sociology Olga Seweryn, Marta Smagacz . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. » 17 Methodological and Theoretical Aspects of ‘Social Identities’ Research in Historiography László Vörös. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 27 Slavoj Žižek, the Enfant Terrible of Contemporary Social Sciences: Writing about the Other and about Ethnic Conflicts in the Balkans Ondřej Daniel . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . » 47

Mapping

the

Field

of

Research

Limes Romanus: Modern Historiography about the Roman Frontier Carlos Herrero Martinez . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . » 55 Frontiers and Identities in the Historiography of the British Isles Steven G. Ellis . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . » 67 Rediscovering Ourselves. Frontiers and Identities in Polish Historiography of the 19th and 20th Centuries (1989- 2005) Barbara Klich-Kluczewska, Olga Seweryn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 87

Within and Beyond: the Reciprocal Relations and Intersections of Identities and of Symbolic and Territorial Borders Luďa Klusáková, Karel Kubiš, Blanka Říchová, Veronika Sušová, Martina Krocová, Ondřej Daniel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 101 Collective Identities and their Borders: a Slovak Perspective Eva Kowalská, László Vörös . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 137 Frontiers and Identities in Modern Greece Iakovos D. Michailidis . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . » 147 Frontiers and Identities. How French Historiography Constructs the National Identity Ludivine Olard . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. » 155 Frontiers and Identities: an Approach to the Last Fifteen Years of Romanian Historiography Ştefan Purici, Harieta Mareci, Crina-Cristina Capota, Vasile Vese . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. » 175 Note on the Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 209

Preface Frontiers and Identities: Exploring the Research Area announces in the title itself its critical intent. It takes up the challenge of staking out a particularly contested territory, that of boundaries of many types (physical, political, social, psychological or ‘cultural’ frontiers, boundaries and borders) and what many consider an overused and, at best, equivocal concept – identity. The volume has two main objectives: to show what conceptual tools are being used today by historians and other social scientists to study ‘frontiers’ and ‘identities’ in the broadest sense; and to see what significance those concepts may have in chosen national contexts. We are happy to present this stimulating and provocative study to the academic and research community as well as to the general reader. It is one of seven volumes in the first publication cycle of our pan-European Network of Excellence, CLIOHRES.net (www. cliohres.net). With this book, the Network’s Thematic Work Group 5, on “Frontiers and Identities”, beings its five year research programme. The Work Group has decided to approach its object by first forging its conceptual tools. The resulting volume is neither a catalogue nor a chronicle, avoiding the Scylla and Charybdis of the historiogaphically banal. It addresses the theoretical issues face on. Teams of researchers have prepared the chapters published in this volume jointly, in a structured way, in order to achieve the full benefits of comparison and collaboration, while attempting to elucidate the peculiarities and the potential of the specific research area. Although Frontiers and Identities does not ignore such widely studied cases as France, Spain, the British Isles or Italy, a distinguishing trait is the ample space it devotes to eastern and central Europe, particularly to Romania, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic (as well as to Greece). In substance, this volume could not have been written before the current phase of European enlargement, and the consolidation of the ‘new’ democracies of central and eastern Europe. The disappearance of the frontier symbolised by the wall of Berlin both allows and requires a new approach to ‘frontiers and identities’. This volume constitutes an important step in that direction. This effort is part of the overall CLIOHRES.net agenda of rethinking current research practices and strategies in European history, by placing them in a broad analytical and comparative context, and using this juxtaposition to achieve a new level of critical understanding, necessary for an informed citizenship. In this first volume of the Work Group on “Frontiers and Identities” it is clear that consolidated ways of studying the development of political and cultural frontiers from an institutional or social point of view are no longer adequate. Many of our new or future member states have been faced recently and even dramatically with the necessity of creating or reconstituting their

VIII

Ann Katherine Isaacs, Guðmundur Hálfdanarson

form of government; states have divided into their component parts; the relationship of the present states and their histories with various political formations from the preCold War period invite exploration. In this process History has played an important role, positive and negative. Sometimes it has provided guidance through narratives of past cohesion; sometimes it has been used or misused to obscure large swathes of the past. History is often thought of as remote and unconnected with daily life, but it is evident in the present case that this is not true: with what arguments, if not through History, can frontiers and identities be justified and explained? In our view, it is vital that citizens be aware of the power of History, both as a heuristic tool and as a means of obfuscation. We are aware that it is usually absorbed in the form of general ‘knowledge’, and often assumes the form of generally shared convictions, orientations and prejudices which have their roots in national narratives. These narratives took form everywhere in specific political and cultural contexts, but very few are aware of how and why they have taken the shapes they have. Our Network of Excellence is based on observations made over a number of years on the power of history in forming social and political attitudes, and in moulding our perceptions of ourselves and of others. Received ideas about the past influence each of us in our interaction with society and with other individuals, and in our decisions regarding actions to be taken and values to be observed or enforced. Such ideas form the foundation for the division of the world into ethnic or social groups, whose historical construction and maintenance serve as the basis for virtually all claims of national and other collective identities. CLIOHRES.net began its work in June 2005, thanks to a five year research contract with the European Commission through the Sixth Framework Programme of its Directorate General for Research, under Priority 7, dealing with “Citizenship”. As a matter of fact, CLIOHRES.net is an important result of the long term cooperation among a large number of European universities. Collaboration originally began with the ECTS History Network, which grew out of a pilot project launched at the end of the 1980s. Then the History Subject Area Group of the pilot project assumed the task of testing and developing methods of credit transfer and transparent rules for assessing performance in order to facilitate student mobility and recognition throughout Europe. At the outset, the ECTS History Network counted fifteen universities in eleven member states of the European Union; when the project ended in 1995, the Network had expanded to include 26 institutions in 16 EU and EFTA countries. In the following years, the partners developed two Socrates Curriculum development projects, the second of which, CLIOH (“Refounding Europe: Creating Links, Insights and Overviews for a new History agenda”) was privileged to be able to include members from central and eastern Europe for the first time. CLIOH grew into CLIOHnet, the Erasmus Thematic Network for History (www.clioh.net), which at present has 80 partner institutions in 35 European countries, as well as a large number of associate partners. CLIOHnet has promoted inclusion and reciprocal knowledge and has extended its membership as fast



Preface

IX

as possible to partners from newly eligible countries and from various kinds of institutions. It is a sister Network, specialising in issues of higher education, and an essential complement to our research Network of Excellence. CLIOHnet and CLIOHRES.net are intertwined with the remarkable social and political transformations which have taken place in Europe during the last twenty years, with the integration, consolidation and expansion of the European Union and the formation of a unique polity. The Networks correspond to a vision of what Europe is and should be. In this context, “excellence” does not mean a closed club of a few institutions of recognised prestige. “Excellence” means taking advantage of unique opportunities of cooperating across and beyond the European Union. It means finding ways for motivated and open-minded academics and researchers from many of the excellent universities and centres in Europe to collaborate, creating new knowledge and insights thanks to their very different points of view. Doing so means developing innovative teaching and research programmes, and requires that the two be tightly linked. The CLIOHRES Network of Excellence builds on the experience gained to develop the field of historical and related research in an innovative way. Its name stands for “Creating Links and Innovative Overviews for a New History Research Agenda for the Citizens of a Growing Europe”. The Network is a consortium of 45 universities and research institutions in 31 countries. Each institution is represented by two senior researchers and two doctoral students, coming from various academic fields – primarily from history, but also from art history, sociology, archaeology, architecture, philology, political science, literary studies and geography. Thus the network serves as a platform for dialogue and debate, comparisons and cooperation across national, generational and disciplinary boundaries. The 180 researchers in the network are divided into six thematic work groups, each of which deals with a broadly designated research area – ‘states, institutions and legislation’, ‘power and culture’, ‘religious and philosophical concepts’, ‘work, gender and society’; ‘frontiers and identities’ and, finally, ‘Europe and the world’. Furthermore, the Network as a whole addresses ‘transversal themes’ of which one is emphasised each year. These are ‘citizenship’, ‘identity’, ‘migration’, ‘gender’, ‘discrimination’ and ‘tolerance’. Each of the thematic work groups addresses these transversal themes from its specific point of view. During the first year, the theme addressed was ‘citizenship’, which is the topic of another volume included in the same publication cycle. As a network of excellence, CLIOHRES is not an ordinary research project. It does not focus on a narrowly defined research question or on a set of specific questions. Rather it is conceived as a forum where researchers representing various national and regional traditions can meet and elaborate their work in new ways thanks to structured interaction with their colleagues. The objective is not only to transcend the national boundaries that still largely define historical research agendas, opening new avenues for research, but also to use those very national differences to become critically aware of how current research agendas have evolved.



Ann Katherine Isaacs, Guðmundur Hálfdanarson

In order to create a meaningful context for dialogue, the people engaged in it need to recognize both the similarities and marked differences between the various historical traditions in Europe. For this reason, the first phase of the project has been devoted to ‘mapping’, to exploring how the questions perceived as important for each thematic area appear in different national historiographies. In future years, further mapping will take place, while the groups proceed through the further stages of identifying research themes that can be of interest for all historiographies, comparing methodologies and sources, demonstrating how problems defined in one historiographical tradition can be developed in new contexts. In this way, in its five years of activity, the Network intends to create novel paradigms for European historical research. In order to present the discussions and debates that take place in the Network to the wider public, CLIOHRES.net plans five publication cycles. Every year, the work groups will present at least one volume each, and the Network as a whole will treat one of the ‘transversal’ themes. This year’s volumes vary in nature, but may be considered collections of working papers, documenting progress, rather than claiming to be the last word on the subject they deal with. They bring together scholars from very different stages in their professional careers. Some of the authors are doctoral students, while others are established professors with long experience of academic work. They also represent various discursive traditions, which is only appropriate, as history is perhaps the most heterogeneous scientific field that exists. CLIOHRES aims to facilitate dialogue between traditions and to open paths towards new critical understanding, but not to homogenize historical research in Europe. Diversity is intended, explored and desired. History can be and is studied and narrated in many different ways – these ways in themselves being products of history, and worthy of investigation. As the first year of this project comes to a close, we express our gratitude to the European Commission and its Directorate General for Research which has supported our Network generously through the Priority 7 of the Sixth Framework Programme. The grant awarded has given the Network the financial means to carry out its ambitious programme. Even more importantly, it is a recognition of the important role that history can play in shaping a better future for European citizens. We thank our project officers, Giulia Amaducci and Ioannis Kampolis. Their careful and knowledgeable support and advice has been of great importance. Our thanks also go to the University of Pisa and to its Rector, Marco Pasquali. The University of Pisa supports the Network very generously in addition to giving great moral support. Without the understanding and backing of the coordinating institution, it would be impossible to carry out a programme of this kind. We thank the director of the central administration of the University, Dr Riccardo Grasso, for accepting the responsibilities connected with the management of the Network; Miriana Donati and Elisa Cascio for their special help; the Pisa team, Laura Burgisano, Adrian Marinescu and Pasquale Cuomo for their total immersion; and our student helpers Ileana Buzic, Lorenzo Gatti, Andreas Verdigi, Nicoletta Scapparone and Marina Cappelli, for their assistance in various different phases of the project. For their patience, motivation and



Preface

XI

professionalism in guiding the actual publishing and printing process of this and of the other volumes published this year, we especially thank Francesca Petrucci, Michele Gasparello, Fabrizio Sodini, Stefano Fabbri, Ambra Seymons, Claudia Napolitano, and Patrizia Pacini of Edizioni Plus, the Pisa University Press. Above all we are grateful to all members of the Network for a stimulating, challenging and productive year. We express our appreciation to the members of Thematic Work Group 5. The group has given an important contribution by writing the chapters in the present volume and participating in the debates and dialogues that have shaped it. Many members of TWG 5, on “Frontiers and Identities” have contributed not only to this book but also to the research carried out by the entire Network on the transversal theme of “Citizenship”, the results of which are published in a separate volume. The TWG5 section is almost a book in itself. Edited by Steven G. Ellis, the “Frontiers and Identities” section of “Citizenship in Historical Perspective” includes contributions by Steven G. Ellis, Brendan Osswald, Anna Maria Pult Quaglia, Stefan Purici, Vasile Vese and Crina Capota, Jean Francois Berdah, Iakovos D. Michailidis, Jaroslav Ira, Veronika Susova and Martina Krocova, Barbara Klich-Kluczewska and Evelina Szpak. For the success of both endeavours our special thanks go to the group’s dynamic and proactive leaders who are also the co-editors of Frontiers and Identities: Exploring the Research Area – as well as being themselves the authors of specific chapters. The Thematic Work Group Leader, Lud’a Klusáková of the Charles University in Prague, has given strong and careful guidance, contributing in a significant way to the planning of the CLIOHRES project as well as to its execution. Steven G. Ellis of the National University of Ireland, Galway, is the Reference Person for TWG5 in the CLIOHRES.net Management Committee and in that role as well as others has given an important contribution to the success of the enterprise. We express gratitude to both. We also thank the institutions and the people who co-organised the meetings: particularly the members of the Prague ‘team’ and the Toulouse ‘team’, and the leader of the latter, Jean-François Berdah, for their very effective work in creating the proper environments for pleasant and productive collaboration. Ann Katherine Isaacs Guðmundur Hálfdanarson C oordinators, CLIOHRES.net Pisa - Reykjavik, May 2006

Introduction The twin themes of frontiers and identities which form the subject of the present volume have in recent years attracted a considerable discourse, both within academic circles and more widely among the general public. The problem of borders, especially state borders and border conflicts, has long been a focus of historical attention. At present, moreover, a whole range of projects and indeed centres of scholarship have been established in relation to the political and anthropological, as well as the historical, study of frontiers, border conflicts and related issues. Similarly, the problem of identities, particularly national or ethnic identities, has also attracted considerable attention in recent years. Thus, the discourse on frontiers and identities addresses at the one level the issues and problems surrounding the various kinds of frontiers or borders, both symbolic and physical, which have divided people and territories. At another, it examines the ways in which these barriers have initiated or accelerated the process of identification or construction of collective identities both in the past and in contemporary societies. The present volume explores this field of research from an international, European perspective. The contributors include political scientists and sociologists as well as historians. They are all members or collaborators of Thematic Work Group 5: Frontiers and Identities, one of six Work Groups established as part of CLIOHRES.net, a Network of Excellence of the European Commission’s Sixth Framework Programme. The Work Group comprises thirty-two designated researchers drawn from eleven European countries, together with a growing number of collaborating colleagues less formally linked to the project. Work commenced on the project in June 2005, following which there were conference meetings held in Prague (25-27 August 2005) to establish and develop the Group’s particular research field; in Pisa (2-3 December 2005) where work also advanced on the Group’s contribution in respect of frontiers and identities to the Network’s opening Transversal Theme, which is Citizenship; and finally in Toulouse (17-18 February 2006). This opening volume of the project is devoted chiefly to charting (or ‘mapping’) the existing contributions as written from the various national historiographies to the Group’s research field on frontiers and identities. As is typical for the Network as a whole, the members of the Group and contributors to this volume include scholars with very varied methodological approaches, different theoretical backgrounds, and with a wide range of historical interests ranging from antiquity to the 21st century. The intention is to explore the existing research field of frontiers/borders and identities/‘alterities’ from different perspectives. As is readily apparent, these different perspectives were in many cases shaped by ‘the national agenda’ of the traditional national historiographies which have grown up since the 19th century and are a product of the age of nation-states. We have organized the chapters in the volume into three thematic sections. In the first place, there is a section which discusses the use and nuances of the traditional terms and concepts as employed by historians

XIV

Lud’a Klusáková, Steven G. Ellis

working within the different national traditions. The second section comprises three chapters which explore the influence of more recent methodological concepts and of sociology in particular on the general debate about frontiers and identities. The contribution by Marta Smagacz and Olga Seweryn provides an overview of those sociological concepts which inter alia have influenced the researches and enriched the discussions of historians. There follow chapters contributed by Laszlo Vörös and by Ondřej Daniel which explore the particular influence of Rogers Brubaker and Slavoj Žižek on this discussion. The final section comprises eight historiographical chapters which, with one exception, were written from the perspective of the respective national historiographies. The exception is the section’s opening chapter written by Carlos Herrero Martinez which is both a survey and conceptual, focused specifically on the historiography on the Limes Romanus. The chapters which follow offer both an overview and a commentary, discussing the academic debates on frontiers and identities with particular reference to the last fifteen or twenty years on the British Isles, on Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Greece, France and Romania respectively. Reflecting the particular focus of the national historiographies and the interests of the contributors, the timeframe of these chapters varies. Steven Ellis has chosen to focus on British historiography in the Renaissance period, while the Schwerpunkt of the contribution by Barbara Klich-Kluczewska is the social history of Poland in the 19th and 20th centuries. The authors of the chapter on the Czech Republic, Luďa Klusáková, Karel Kubiš, Blanka Říchová, Veronika Sušová, Martina Krocová and Ondřej Daniel also include a discussion of the preferred methodological concepts in order to explore both the academic debate and the particular forms of interaction (“communicating vessels”) between frontiers and identities from the perspective of particular disciplines in the social sciences. From a Slovak perspective, collective identities and their limits and boundaries are studied by Eva Kowalská, Elena Mannová, Petra Rybářová, and László Vörös. Iakovos D. Michailidis provides an overview of the historiographical debate on this topic from a Greek perspective. The pervasive influence exercised by French scholars on the wider European stage has been a particular feature of historiographical developments at least since the Second World War: here Ludivine Olard offers a panorama of the evolution of interests and preoccupations in the main fields of French historiography. Finally, there is a chapter with contributions by Ştefan Purici, Harieta Mareci, Crina-Cristina Capota and Vasile Vese which offers a revealing overview and commentary on developments in regard to frontiers and identities in Romanian historiography over the last fifteen years. As will be seen, the geographical focus of the various contributions falls into two parts. There is a preponderance of papers on Ostmitteleuropa, with a small ‘western section’ on developments in France and the British Isles, but nothing on Scandinavia, the German lands, or the Mediterranean world. In retrospect, a more even geographical spread of contributors and chapters would have been preferable. As has frequently been observed, however, ‘History is past politics’, and no more so than in respect of ‘live’ issues like frontiers. What each of these chapters demonstrates is the extent to which the



Introduction

XV

terms, concepts and perspectives developed in each of the historiographies of the European nation-states have their roots in national narratives formed in past political and cultural contexts in each country. While the inclusion of essays on the states of northern and southern Europe would surely have offered more variations on the same theme, it would not, as we think, have altered significantly the overall picture. The challenge presented by these essays, therefore, is to devise another way of looking at the Europe of the nation-states and the national historiographies. We need to show how the particular concepts or ‘national agenda’ developed for the one country may also be applied to another, so as to view the different nation-states and their histories as a part of a wider European tradition rather than simply as individual and self-referential historiographical units. This is a challenge to which we intend to return in the next volume.

Luďa Klusáková Steven G. Ellis