Suchergebnisse

As Fritz Redlich has had occasion to point out, business history is neither of American nor of recent vintage–that interest in company histories which began on the Continent early in the nineteenth century had by 1900 prompted at least one prominent German scholar to suggest how a study of business might be developed into an academic discipline. What was new in the United States was the term "business history," and what is more relevant for my comments in this paper were the circumstances that led to its emergence as a special field and the effect that this separation has had on the relationship between business history and economic history.

A historical retrospective of the interrelationships of social & conceptual history is presented, particularly their basis in linguistic expressions, ie, speech & writing. Both histories presuppose a connection between synchronic events & diachronic structures. The example of marriage is detailed using two models, one oriented toward events, actions in speech, writing, & deed, & another toward diachronic presuppositions & long-term transformation. It is concluded that the two histories need & refer to one another without being able to coincide with each other; they have different rates of change, & are based in different repetitive structures, but both must be considered in any study of history. M. Malas

The ensuing remarks are addressed to two topics which seem to me important: (a) what conflicts, if any, are there between business history and economic history; and (b) how can research in the two areas be mutually helpful.