Dilettantismus oder „Nebenwerk“?

M. Mulsow
{"title":"Dilettantismus oder „Nebenwerk“?","authors":"M. Mulsow","doi":"10.3790/zhf.48.3.475","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Dilettantism or “Nebenwerk”?\nA Gotha Proposal on the Position of Science at the Courts in the Late 18th Century\nThis essay discusses the contents of a presumably collective program that Gotha intellectuals published in 1776. In the text under study, “Von der spielenden Gelehrsamkeit”, they seek to legitimate their scientific and scholarly part-time work in addition to their employment as court officials or professionals in the ducal residence. The text is polyphonious and seems to be based on compromises between different authors. Accordingly, it does not present a consistent argument. For the historian, the consistency of the text is less relevant than what it reveals about the precarious status of part-time science and how it was viewed by contemporaries. The authors of the proposal argue that a self-confident form of patriotism – a patriotism that is related to the princely territory – and the emphasis on practical applications could help to prevent science and scholarship from sliding into pedantic specialization. For the authors, however, this did not mean rejecting the micrology, the collection of seemingly insignificant individual observations. On the contrary: micrology should be possible precisely because the part-time scholars – through their work for the principality at court – would never lose sight of the big picture. In the previous research discussion about the role of dilettantism in the genesis of science, the question of the relationship between the main activity at court and the secondary activity, the Nebenwerk, as a scientist has so far been neglected. The text under discussion therefore throws an important light on the coupling attempts that have been made here between different social subsystems.","PeriodicalId":408014,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Historische Forschung: Volume 48, Issue 3","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift für Historische Forschung: Volume 48, Issue 3","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3790/zhf.48.3.475","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Dilettantism or “Nebenwerk”? A Gotha Proposal on the Position of Science at the Courts in the Late 18th Century This essay discusses the contents of a presumably collective program that Gotha intellectuals published in 1776. In the text under study, “Von der spielenden Gelehrsamkeit”, they seek to legitimate their scientific and scholarly part-time work in addition to their employment as court officials or professionals in the ducal residence. The text is polyphonious and seems to be based on compromises between different authors. Accordingly, it does not present a consistent argument. For the historian, the consistency of the text is less relevant than what it reveals about the precarious status of part-time science and how it was viewed by contemporaries. The authors of the proposal argue that a self-confident form of patriotism – a patriotism that is related to the princely territory – and the emphasis on practical applications could help to prevent science and scholarship from sliding into pedantic specialization. For the authors, however, this did not mean rejecting the micrology, the collection of seemingly insignificant individual observations. On the contrary: micrology should be possible precisely because the part-time scholars – through their work for the principality at court – would never lose sight of the big picture. In the previous research discussion about the role of dilettantism in the genesis of science, the question of the relationship between the main activity at court and the secondary activity, the Nebenwerk, as a scientist has so far been neglected. The text under discussion therefore throws an important light on the coupling attempts that have been made here between different social subsystems.
业余爱好者还是“Nebenwerk”?
业余爱好还是“新工作”?关于科学在18世纪晚期法院地位的哥达建议本文讨论了哥达知识分子于1776年发表的一份可能是集体计划的内容。在正在研究的案文“Von der spielenden Gelehrsamkeit”中,他们除了担任宫廷官员或公爵住所的专业人员外,还寻求使他们的科学和学术兼职工作合法化。文本是复音的,似乎是基于不同作者之间的妥协。因此,它并没有提出一个前后一致的论点。对于历史学家来说,文本的一致性不如它揭示了兼职科学的不稳定地位以及同时代人如何看待它。该提案的作者认为,一种自信的爱国主义形式——一种与王侯领地有关的爱国主义——以及对实际应用的强调,可能有助于防止科学和学术滑向迂腐的专业化。然而,对于作者来说,这并不意味着拒绝微观学,即看似无关紧要的个人观察的集合。相反,微观学之所以成为可能,正是因为那些兼职的学者——通过他们在朝廷为公国工作——永远不会忽视大局。在先前关于业余爱好在科学起源中的作用的研究讨论中,作为一名科学家,在宫廷中的主要活动与次要活动(即Nebenwerk)之间的关系问题迄今为止被忽视了。因此,本文所讨论的内容对不同社会子系统之间的耦合尝试提供了重要的启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信