Abstract Lucian’s work De historia conscribenda not only presents reflections on how one should or should not write history, but also illustrates possible ways to represent the authorial activity of a historian (i. e. how one writes ‘metahistory’). In this, two basic forms can be distinguished, both of which can be understood from a narratological perspective as metalepses. In the first case, the historian is represented as the direct originator of the action; in the second he acts as a mere observer, but one who moves spatially in and with his action. Both forms of statement stand within traditions of motifs that can be traced from antiquity through to the modern era; yet Lucian nonetheless makes an innovative contribution by inscribing value judgements into the motifs. The result is the suggestion that the historian fulfils the role of observer, while the role of originator turns out to be more apt for the poet than for the historian. This permits far-reaching conclusions to be drawn about the conception of poetry and historiography as a whole.

中文翻译：

---

tut ein Geschichtsschreiber 是 tut ein Geschichtsschreiber 吗？

摘要 卢西安的著作 De historia conscribenda 不仅反映了人们应该或不应该如何书写历史，而且还说明了表现历史学家创作活动的可能方式（即如何书写“元历史”）。在这方面，可以区分两种基本形式，这两种形式都可以从叙事学的角度理解为metaepses。在第一种情况下，历史学家被描述为行动的直接发起者；在第二种情况下，他只是一个观察者，但随着他的行为在空间上移动。两种形式的陈述都属于可以追溯到古代到现代的主题传统；尽管如此，卢西安还是通过将价值判断写入主题做出了创新贡献。结果是建议历史学家履行观察者的角色，而始作俑者的角色更适合诗人而不是历史学家。这使得我们可以对诗歌和史学的整体概念得出深远的结论。