In Rationalities in history, the distinguished historian David d'Avray writes a new comparative history in the spirit of Max Weber. In a strikingly original reassessment of seminal Weberian ideas, d'Avray applies value rationality to the comparative history of religion and the philosophy of law. Integrating theories of rational choice, anthropological reflections on relativism, and the recent philosophy of rationality with Weber's conceptual framework, d'Avray seeks to disengage 'rationalisation' from its enduring association with Western 'modernity.' This mode of analysis is contextualised (...) through the examples of Buddhism, Imperial China, and sixteenth-century Catholicism--in the latter case building upon unpublished archival research. This ambitious synthesis of social theory and comparative history will engage social scientists and historians from advanced undergraduate level upwards, stimulating interdisciplinary discourse, and making a significant contribution to the methodology of history. D'Avray explores the potential of this new Weberian analysis further in his companion volume, Medieval religious rationalities"--Provided by publisher. (shrink)

This article demonstrates that arguments which historians use can be expressed in terms of formal logic to revealing effect. It is widely taken for granted and sometimes explicitly stated that historical inference is not susceptible of being formalized, at least not in a way that might add something to historians’ understanding of the logic of their reasoning from evidence. The two model derivations in formal logic included here show otherwise. Each is a representation in propositional logic of an historical argument (...) relating to the evidence of medieval marriage law, annulment processes and papal dispensations. The way in which the conclusion is derived from the premises in each case permits the formal logical validity of inferences made to be traced and checked. The paper aims to make the logic underlying much historical argumentation more transparent. A supplementary aim is to show that this kind of historical reasoning is compatible with Bayesian logic. (shrink)