Search

In this article we will review the classic(well-known/traditional) debate faced by Simiand and Seignobos in the first decade of the 20th century. Generally, the epistemological aspect of the dispute is considered the main matter at stake. The debate is usually remembered due to Simiand's critique on the implicit determinisms (political, individual, chronological idol) in the historians's method. Nevertheless, the purpose of this article is to suggest a change of look in understanding this intellectual dispute. Far from exhausting the discussion on normal scientific practices' confrontation, the dispute will be studied within the framework of a broader struggle in which two candidatures (sociology and history) strives for the hegemony of the human sciences of the French university. To that end, it is necessary to analyze which institutional spaces were respectively filled by the historical and by the sociological discipline within the framework of the republican higher education. Finally, we will reflect on the lack of symmetry that characterized the relationship between both disciplines, to conclude that such disparity may be the cause of the semi-failure of the Durkheimian attack against the historians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is about the bicentennial of the Battle of Boyacá on August 7, 1819. It recalls Simón Bolívar's strong cultural education, which is attempted from the exegesis of the books in his library found in Guayaquil. Particularly, his proximity to and study of Benjamin Constant's constitutional writings stand out. The results of this assessment are contradictory. Bolívar appears as a great strategist of his era on the battlefield, an example of which is the Battle of Boyacá (but not the only one). Yet, his constitutional models are insufficient and inadequate, especially the Constitution of Bolivia of 1826, for its excessive presidentialism, power centralization, and disproportionate exceptional powers, which provoked criticism from Constant himself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]