Omkring 'Danmarks Riges Historie'

Resumé

Danmarks Riges Historie (DRH) was published between the years 1896 and 1907. In 1974, the late Prof. Aksel E. Christensen could still call it "our country's most comprehensive and well-rounded scientific basic text" in the field of history. Eight eminent Danish historians filled out its six volumes with the story of Denmark from the earliest times to the year 1864.

Recent historiographic research has shown that the period around the turn of the century was marked by a distinct polarization in the Danish historian milieu between a nationalist, conservative tradition and a radical critique trend. Seen in this light, the publication of DRH is something of a paradox, in as much as the work was authored by historians who are considered as belonging to either the one or the other of these opposing schools.

The present article gives a detailed account of how DRH originated and how it was carried out. It shows that the conflicting approaches in the professional circles never prevented smooth cooperation, whether in the period of preparation or during the years of publication. It also stresses that DRH was a commissioned work that brought its authors a sizeable income.

In its final form DRH appears as eight separate works, and some of these are of great distinction. But looked at as a whole, and on the basis of modem conceptions of what constitute reasonable requirements for a synthetic presentation, it becomes difficult to maintain Prof. Christensen's favourable assessment.

Although the article stops short of a complete comparative analysis of DRH's various contributions, it does offer examples of some of their similarities and differences. And when these are seen against the background of how the work originated and how it was carried through to completion, there is much to indicate that the familiar contrasts between two opposing schools of history were due to more than different approaches to the study of history, and that these other factors were, at least, just as important. Among these, the article points out the small size of the professional community, the pronounced individualism of its members and - ever so characteristic of the times - their highly optimistic conception of scientific history and its potential.