Ever since Hans Blumenberg coined the term Metaphorologie (metaphorology) in 1960 to indicate a specific line of historical inquiry, parallel to those undertaken within Begriffsgeschichte (conceptual history), the relationship between the two has been one of tension. In 1992, upon completion of the Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe (GG), Reinhart Koselleck himself remarked that although Blumenberg had dealt "masterfully" with figures of speech, the attempt to integrate his method into GG would have "produced a completely different lexicon". Now, rather than seeing such a statement as discrediting for any relationship between metaphor and concept one might consider it an invitation to reflect on the differences and similarities between Koselleck's and Blumenberg's respective works. Consequently this paper will regard the differences between the history of metaphors and concepts as a fruitful tension, and one that may contribute to the further development of studies within historical semantics. Before this can take place, I am going to take a look at the preceding years of fruitless tension, first of all in order to explain how it can be claimed that metaphorology should suffer from hostility towards conceptuality, but also to install a background for my present aim: investigating how Koselleck's thoughts on historical semantics and conceptuality can be received and partly integrated into the metaphorological enterprise. A final aim of this article - and this is going to be a more peripheral one - will be to argue against certain truisms claiming that metaphorology should be unable to consider metaphors from a rhetorical and therefore political perspective.
Eine Typologie Der Formen Der Begriffsgeschichte: Archiv Für Begriffsgeschichte, Sonderheft 7, 2010, 2010, p. 53-70