ABSTRACT

Anachronisms are a well-known chronological misconduct, by some even regarded as a historical mortal sin. Less known are prochronisms, parachronisms and metachronisms. Between the sixteenth and the eighteenth centuries, however, all these chronisms were intensively discussed in the scholarly world. On the one hand, we pursue these concepts with the interest of a history of historiographical practice. What is hidden behind these chronisms? And why did scholars in early modern Europe think that they needed these chronological instruments? On the other hand, and in a more general way, we see these chronisms as forms of how present times connect themselves with absent times (pasts and futures). We call these temporal relations ‘chronoferences.’ Against this background, chronisms prove to be interesting for a theory of history. They can be reconceptualized to make clear how present times relate to pasts.

摘要

不合时宜是众所周知的按时间顺序的不当行为，有些人甚至认为这是历史上的凡人犯罪。鲜为人知的是时序，准时和元时。然而，在十六至十八世纪之间，所有这些年代论在学术界都得到了深入的讨论。一方面，我们以史学实践史为兴趣追求这些概念。这些时间顺序背后隐藏着什么？为什么现代欧洲早期的学者认为他们需要这些按年代顺序排列的工具？另一方面，从更普遍的角度来看，我们将这些时间顺序视为当下时代与过去时间（过去和未来）之间的联系形式。我们称这些时间关系为“时间参差”。在这种背景下，按时间顺序被证明对历史理论很有趣。