ABSTRACT
This volume on the state of the discipline of International Relations (IR) in Europe makes an important contribution to what Duncan Bell (2001) has referred to as the dawn of a historiographical turn. Prior to the most recent interest in the historiography of IR, there was not only a paucity of literature devoted to examining the disciplinary history of IR, but the overall quality of many of these accounts was less than adequate (Schmidt 1998b, 2002b) . Recently, however, IR scholars have followed the trend that is underway in a number of the social sciences, particularly political science, and are examining the disciplinary history of the field in a much more careful and systematic manner. Scholars are increasingly aware of the close relationship that exists between the present identity of a field and the manner in which its history is constructed (Dryzek and Leonard 1988; Kahler 1997) . The new literature on the history of IR has not only challenged many of the conventional understandings about the field’s development, but it has also fostered an academic debate on the most appropriate method for investigating and reconstructing the history of the field. In this Epilogue, I have two main aims. First, I want to discuss briefly some of the recent findings about the history of IR and comment on the historiographical issues that this literature has generated. Second, I want to remark on some of the interesting themes and issues that the contributors have identified in their study of IR in Europe.
