This paper argues for a new version of holism about historiography. The argument starts with an analogy with Aristotle’s conceptions of soul and character. The aim is to overcome the central problem critics have identified in Ankersmit’s holism about historical representations: it is not clear how a posited holistic entity can make a difference to a work of history. The solution offered in this paper is that there are two – modally distinct – dimensions of content in works of history. One comprises its explicit content as given in its statements. This corresponds to actuality, action, and narrative in Aristotle. The other is where we find a holistic entity: a work of history’s representation of a historical situation. This is analysed here as a unified range of possibilities for action generated by the interrelated complex of factors introduced by the work’s explicit contents. This corresponds to potentiality, soul, and character in Aristotle. The theory is further developed in relation to two examples, one idealized, the other an example of real historiography. By distinguishing between actuality and possibility as dimensions of a historical representation, the holistic entity is enabled to be implicit while having real importance in relation to the content of historiography.

本文提出了关于史学的整体主义的新版本。争论始于与亚里士多德的灵魂和品格概念的类比。目的是要克服批评家在安克斯密特（Ankersmit）的整体主义中发现的有关历史表征的核心问题：尚不清楚一个完整的整体实体如何对历史作品产生影响。本文提供的解决方案是，在历史作品中存在两个（在形式上截然不同的）内容维度。一个包含其声明中给出的显式内容。这与亚里士多德的现实，行动和叙事相对应。另一个是我们找到整体的地方：历史作品对历史情况的再现。本文将其分析为统一的可能性范围，这些可能性是由工作的明确内容所引入的相互关联的复杂因素所产生的。这对应于亚里斯多德的潜力，灵魂和品格。该理论与两个例子有关，一个是理想化的，另一个是真实史学的例子。通过区分现实和可能性作为历史表示的维度，整体实体可以隐含，而相对于历史实体则具有真正的重要性。史学的内容。