As John Womack correctly pointed out the term "Dogmenschichte" means
doctrinal history and is of theological origin. Thus we have

Johann Friedrich Gaab, *Abhandlungen zur Dogmengeschichte der ältesten
griechischen Kirche bis auf die Zeiten Klemens von Alexandrien*,  Jena, bei
Christian Heinrich Cuno's Erben, 1790.

The term, however, has extended to other disciplines quite early, e.g.,

Karl Otto von Madai, *Beiträge zur Dogmengeschichte des gemeinen
Civilrechts*, Riga, 1839.

In economics the earliest title, to my knowledge, is Berens on land rent:

Eduard Berens, *Versuch einer kritischen Dogmenschrift der Grundrente*,
Leipzig, K.F. Koehler, 1868.

Roscher in his Preface to his 1874 History of national economy [economics]
in Germany, mentioned by Womack,  writes that for political economy
[Nationaloekonomik] "a mere Dogmengeschchite as it well possible, e.g., in
mathematics, will not be fruitful".  So it seems that the term was by then
well established as history of thought.

The term is still in use in Germany, e.g., Frank Schulz,  *Zur
Dogmengeschichte der funktionalen Finanzwirtschaftslehre*, Berlin, Duncker &
Humblot, 1987.

So it seems -  and our German friends may be laughing by now ["showing your
grandfather his vineyards" as we say in Greece] -  that the term is
equivalent to history of thought, or HET is this context.

Nicholas Theocarakis






On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Floris Heukelom <[log in to unmask]
> wrote:

>  Dear Colleagues,
>
> Schumpeter labels the historical method of *Epochen der Dogmen- und
> Methodengeschichte *(1914) and *History of Economic Analysis *(1954)
> Dogmengeschichte. I'm not really sure how to translate this into English,
> doctrinal history perhaps? The English translation of the first book solves
> the matter as: *Economic Doctrine and Method, an historical sketch *(1954).
> Mark Blaug's *Economic theory in retrospect *(1997) understands it as
> dogmatic 'positivism.' Would anyone know if a standard English translation
> exists for Dogmengeschichte?
>
> More importantly, would anyone know of an (historical) analysis of this use
> and understanding of history? Schumpeter spends a few words defending the
> history of economics in the first few pages of *History of Economic
> Analysis*, but doesn't elaborate on how his approach compares to other
> historiographies. Moreover, earlier books mentioned in *Epochen* as well
> as historical approaches of Dutch economists in the nineteenth century
> (which is what brought me to it in the first place) suggests it goes back
> further, and suggests also it defies the usual distinction between
> relativist and absolutist historical analysis.
>
> Any help would be greatly appreciated and may be sent either via the SHOE
> list or off-list to [log in to unmask]
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Floris
>