More reading on Historiography

My reading continues to be mostly based on historiography - for the first time I feel i am beginning to get a flavour for the "history of history" I have been struck by the comparisions between the history theory that I am reading and the Lakatos meta-methodology arguments that I was studying back in October. Persumably, when one writes a history of ideas on history, one is using an idea of what history is in order to write the history of history. So different theories of history produce different histories of histories. But does this meta-history result in a vindication of any particular theory of history? Can they be tested in the way Lakatos suggests philosophies of science can be? Might there be "exemplars" in history that all methodologies of history must, in some sense, "get right" e.g. the Holocaust.

Latest journal being reviewed is Archive of History of the Exact Sciences - this has some very interesting stuff in it but only goes back to 1997 via the LSE link. I wonder if I can request a widening. I have a fairly full working day today with Linda and Emma up in London. However I am reading too much and not writing enough. I assume that when my mini-literature review is finished that this will change.

As part of my detailed review on spending money, I have decided to stop using emusic.com each month. I was annoyed to discover that my unused allowance from previous months does not carry forward. Most of my last downloads were Japanese Koto music and some final Pete Namlook.

.

A real find late afternoon - an article called Oxford - 1990: A case-study of contemporary British Philosophers by Illia Kassavine. This is a "king of sociological review" in which various types of Oxford Don are distinguished according to various factors. This fits in beautifully with my current reading on academia.

.

One of my best photos of Oxford, taken three or four years ago