analyses that seek to problematize events, their root causes, their effects andthe implications of all these to understandings of the flux of time. Readerswill do well to wonder how to change this pre-egological disposition tocertain logics and modalities of historical thought since the logics are basedon a proclivity. Perhaps historical education at schools, from an early age,could help to change this scenario.

The importance of Blum’s findings therefore goes beyond his identi-fication of the twelve logical ways of presenting history. By showing howhistorical knowledge is predetermined by an individual’s own rational andlogical proclivity, Blum questions the Kantian legacy which argues thatknowledge is free, thus showing that patterns of mind determine more aboutone’s perceptions of time and representation of past events than was pre-viously imagined. This is, in itself, a considerable contribution, and onewhich will not go unacknowledged by historians of ideas/intellectualhistorians.

In conclusion, Blum’s book will interest readers of Rethinking Historyowing to its radical departure from existing models of understandingphenomenological historiography. The book reviewed here places his voiceas original and potentially very influential in intellectual history andphilosophy of history.

Isabel DiVannaUniversity of Cambridge

id239@cam.ac.uk� 2009, Isabel DiVanna

Time and history: The variety of cultures, edited by Jorn Rusen, New Yorkand Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2007, xii þ 248 pp., £37.50, US$75.00, ISBN978-1-84545349-7

In Jorn Rusen’s estimation, history is far from at an end. Rather, as heargues in the introduction to this, the tenth volume of Berghahn’s ‘MakingSense of History’ series, its resurgence in the minds of professionals and thepublic alike justifies the articulation of a new philosophy of history (vii). ForRusen, that philosophy should not mean the proposal of definitions byprofessional historians. Rather, it should mean ‘making sense’ (viii) of theconnections between understandings of time, history and memory. Rusen iswell suited to coordinate the expression of that philosophy of history – andBerghahn’s series – for he has persistently argued in texts such as Zeit undSinn (1990); Konfigurationen des Historismus (1993); Historische Orientier-ung (1994); Geschichte im Kulturprozeß (2002) and History: Narration,interpretation, orientation (2005), historical knowledge and theory is itselfhistorically embedded.

568 Book reviews

That understandings of time and history are culturally and historicallyembedded is apparent from the collection of essays in Time and history. Inthe opening section, devoted to time concepts, Fritz Kramer notes thedrama that resulted from the lack of regularity in the social events used toconstruct time in Nuba communities prior to 1992, and Achim Mittagargues that the co-presence of linear, spiral, compartmentalized and linearconcepts of time is a key feature of Chinese intellectual history. This forms aclear contrast with the temporal atomism – and even the sense ofNietzschean ‘eternal return’ – that Otfried Weintritt sees at play in Islamichistorical writings. Weintritt’s view, in turn, comes under scrutiny later inthe volume, in Aziz Al-Azmeh’s reflections on Islamic history and theteleological ‘question for organism’. Across the chapters in part one we alsogain a sense of the relationship between various media and time concepts, aswith the connection between time and the harveting and usage of milletamong the Nuba and Georg Berkemer’s documentation of the emergence oftime conventions in stone, temple and copper inscriptions in Hindi,Buddhist and Jaina groups in South Asia. No single collection of essayscould hope to induct readers into the rich variety of time concepts that areco-present in the world today, let alone over time. If one was to point toobvious gaps in the coverage in this collection, then indigenous societiesoutside of Africa spring to mind. Discussion of such societies would allowreaders better to judge the largely theoretical claims that Klaus Mullermakes about what he calls ‘traditional’ societies in chapter two. Further, thefirst part does little to encourage the recognition that contemporary‘modern’ or ‘western’ views of time are as embedded as those of othersocieties. Nonetheless, part one of Time and history manages to give readersa reasonably strong sense of the ways in which social activities shape timeconcepts and time concepts in turn foster social integration.

Less successful on that count is part two, which is focused on concepts ofhistory. Here the coverage is even more concentrated, with essays onJapanese, Islamic and Indian (also emphasized in chapter seven) historio-graphy dominating. Aziz Al-Azmeh, for instance, connects historiographicalneoromanticism with epistemological aporia or ideas of continuing origin,and notes the distance of neoromanticist pronouncements from the practiceof Islamic history, Abdullah An-Na’im draws upon the case of Sub-Saharanhistoriographies to argue that competing visions of history are important inidentity formation and that they need not preclude intercultural under-standing, B.D. Chattopadhyaya and Michael Gottlob note that Indianhistoriography was not – as is often assumed – birthed by colonialism, andthat the recurring trope of a lost but retrievable past serves a nationalist, andnot necessarily religious imperatives, while Masayuki Sato sees the Japaneseadoption and adaptation of the Chinese historiographical term Rekishi inthe late nineteenth century as a strategy to emphasise its connection withwestern historiographical tradition. In line with part one, there is some

Rethinking History 569

attempt to direct readers towards what might be thought of as less thanstandard historiographical sources, as with Shingo Shimada’s argument thatthe curriculum vitae provided people in Japan with the opportunity to stressthe lead of Japan over China in the development of civilization.Additionally, there is a reprise of the more theoretical approach of Mullerfrom part one in D.L. Sheth’s reflection on the uneasy relationship betweenpolitics and history. Sheth’s insistence that historiography can be opened upto some political concepts without politicization will be taken by somereaders as resting upon less than convincing arguments, but it would servewell as a discussion point in classes on history theory and methods.

Taken together, parts one and two provide clear evidence of theembeddedness of concepts of time and history, not just in terms of content,but also in terms of historiographical translation. That nearly all of thechapters were originally written in another language – in this case German –will be apparent to readers by approaches to argument not always seen inEnglish-language texts. Such differences provide an important reminder thatthe activity of historiography itself is also embedded. Consequently, whetherthe chapters are instantiations of Rusen’s claims that time is the ‘mostimportant and fundamental category of historical thinking’ (2), that ‘there isno cultural orientation of human life without a complex interrelationship ofmemory and expectation’ (8) and that telling stories is a ‘universal andfundamental mental strategy’ that helps us to master contingency (9) isquestionable. Greater acknowledgement of indigenous notions of time inpart one, for instance, might have seen space accorded more attention inRusen’s account of historical sense making. Further, his interest in storyas the basis of historical sense making – a view akin to that of DavidCarr – conflicts with at least one of the authors included here: that is, Al-Azmeh’s portrayal of Islamic historiography as primarily discontinuous.These points prompt us to wonder at the purpose of introductions inedited collections on historiography. Do they serve to bind thecontributions of others to explanatory concepts and frames? Do theyserve to master contingency through the suggestion of an organizingstory? The disjunction between Rusen’s reflections and the material thatfollows suggest that we answer both of these questions in the negative. Ifanything, Rusen’s introduction reinforces the point that history cannot bereduced to a set of definitions; but it is also the case that this volumedoes not add up to an intercultural and interdisciplinary theory ofhistory. Rather, it leaves us wondering whether historiography ischaracterized more by fragments than narratives.

Marnie Hughes-WarringtonMonash University, Australia

Marnie.hughes-warrington@adm.monash.edu.au� 2009, Marnie Hughes-Warrington

570 Book reviews