English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In this article I analyze historical judgment as an integral part of historiographical production in the 19thcentury. This article explores the dispute of interpretations around the Farroupilha Revolution (1835-1845) that began in 1879 with Tristao de Alencar Araripe’s documented memories and its reception in Court and in the province of Rio Grande do Sul. Araripe’s work and the responses it generated allow us to reflect on the production of judgments by historians in their practice of representing the past. Thus, two interpretation possibilities are explored. First, the social conditioning of historical judgment is analyzed, highlighting Araripe’s training and practice as a scholar and a politician. Following, the principles that grounded the historian’s craft are discussed, such as the selection of sources and impartiality in the appreciation of facts, based on Karl von Koseritz’s critique.

história da historiografia

Com a metodicidade das obras de jurisprudência: o julgamento histórico a partir da Guerra civil no Rio Grande do Sul, de Tristão de Alencar Araripe (1879-1881)