The publication of the correspondence between Reinhart Koselleck and Carl Schmitt enables readers to assess the relation between the conceptual historian and his radically conservative mentor, a topic of some longstanding controversy. In this review essay, I discuss their correspondence in relation to Gennaro Imbriano's book on Koselleck, which also relies on the correspondence to argue that Koselleck gradually transcended his earlier Schmittian beliefs. I seek to capture the current state of scholarship regarding this particular issue and anticipate possible future developments in the field. Although they do not offer major revelations about Koselleck and Schmitt's relationship, the recently published letters add welcome nuance to earlier scholarly estimations thereof and show how Koselleck gradually assumed a more equal role in the exchange. The most fertile theoretical points in the letters pertain, first, to Schmitt's observations about the uniqueness of history and the repetition of key questions in history and, second, to Koselleck's remarks on the need for a proper theoretical basis for historiography, including readjusted historicism and criticism on the philosophy of history's ideological ramifications. Imbriano's book characterizes Koselleck as a systematic thinker of history's political aspect who differed from Schmitt in making the distinction between politics (as a regulating process) and “the political” (as a principle in need of containment). As I argue, this distinction is not sufficient to set Koselleck's moderate conservatism apart from Schmitt's radical conservatism because Schmitt also took both aspects into account. I also predict that future scholarship will display a balanced use of archival material that further clarifies the genesis of Koselleck's theorems, in turn directly serving historical theory by examining its emergence out of concrete historical, political, and intellectual contexts.

中文翻译：

---

漫长的告别：最近对科塞莱克/施密特问题的看法

莱因哈特·科塞莱克 (Reinhart Koselleck) 和卡尔·施密特 (Carl Schmitt) 之间通信的出版使读者能够评估这位概念史学家与其极端保守的导师之间的关系，这是一个长期存在争议的话题。在这篇评论文章中，我讨论了他们与 Gennaro Imbriano 关于 Koselleck 的书的通信，这本书也依赖于通信来论证 Koselleck 逐渐超越了他早期的施密特信仰。我试图捕捉关于这个特定问题的学术现状，并预测该领域未来可能的发展。虽然他们没有提供关于科塞莱克和施密特关系的重大启示，最近发表的信件为早期的学术估计增添了可喜的细微差别，并展示了科塞莱克如何逐渐在交流中扮演更平等的角色。信件中最丰富的理论观点首先涉及施密特对历史的独特性和历史中关键问题的重复的观察，其次涉及科塞莱克关于史学需要适当理论基础的评论，包括重新调整的历史主义和批判历史哲学的意识形态后果。Imbriano 的书将 Koselleck 描述为历史政治方面的系统思想家，他与 Schmitt 在区分政治（作为调节过程）和“政治”（作为需要遏制的原则）之间存在差异。正如我争论的那样，这种区别不足以将科塞莱克的温和保守主义与施密特的激进保守主义区分开来，因为施密特也考虑了这两个方面。我还预测，未来的学术将展示对档案材料的平衡使用，进一步阐明科塞莱克定理的起源，进而通过检验其从具体的历史、政治和知识背景中的出现来直接服务于历史理论。