The term egodocument refers to texts in which individuals write about themselves, their immediate circle, or their wider community. At the very least, such writings express a personal perspective on the world, whether local or more distant. This category includes, among other materials, heterogeneous notes that do not fit into clearly defined genres, as well as autobiographies, diaries of all kinds, travel accounts, livres de raison, chronicles, and family books.
In the early modern period, egodocuments cover a wide range of textual forms and writing practices. These may operate on different time scales: a diary written on a daily basis, memoirs composed later in life, or a family book kept over several generations. The boundaries between these forms are often fluid. A chronicle, for example, may gradually take on the features of a diary, and vice versa. In most cases, such texts were not intended for publication.
Across Europe, egodocuments [1, 2] is only one of several terms used – often interchangeably – within different historiographical traditions. All of these terms remain debated: écrits du for privé [3], Selbstzeugnisse, scritture del sé, first-person writings and autobiographical writing [4]. The latter has the advantage of being transferable across linguistic contexts. Although correspondence forms part of this broader corpus, it has not yet been systematically included in Egodocuments.ch, largely for practical reasons. The only exception is letter copybooks (copie-lettres) compiled over a given period. Correspondence may nevertheless serve as a complementary source.
There is ongoing debate about which types of texts should be included within the category of ego-documents. In particular, scholars have questioned whether testimonies produced in judicial settings should be considered, given their “non-voluntary” character [5]. Similar issues arise with autobiographical texts written within institutional – especially ecclesiastical – frameworks, which are shaped by normative constraints [6]. Event-focused chronicles have also been discussed, due to the limited presence of an explicit first-person voice [7, 8, 9].
Recent research has tended to broaden the scope of the category [10]. The “personal” dimension is increasingly understood in terms of perspective rather than strict autobiography. While never entirely free from external influences, such perspectives remain marked by identifiable value judgments. As a result, this dimension is now considered to be as significant as explicitly autobiographical discourse – that is, writing in which individuals speak directly about themselves and their immediate circle. This shift has been reinforced by the extension of research beyond Europe, which calls for greater attention to other forms of self-expression [11]. Even reported speech – particularly in studies of the Ottoman Empire –may, under certain conditions, be included within the category of ego-documents [12].
References
[1] “In the early 1950s the historian Jacques Presser invented a new word : « egodocument ». He proposed to use his neologism for diaries, personal letters and other forms of autobiographical writing […] those documents in which an ego intentionally or unintentionally discloses, or hides itself. Texts in which an author writes about his or her own acts, thoughts and feelings would be the shortest definition.” Rudolf Dekker, Egodocuments and History, 2002, p. 7.
[2] “The historical subject we can grasp within and behind the autobiographies, diaries and family chronicles on offer is not an ego. It certainly has a self, whose external contours of personhood some of the documents in question may allow us to study. For all practical historical purposes, what we are looking at in self-narratives are primarily persons in their specific cultural, linguistic, material and, last but not least, social embeddedness. Ultimately a majority of these texts, most certainly early modern ones, probably tell us more about groups than they do about individuals.[…] It may well be too late to stop the current rise in interest in the notion of ego-documents, although it seems unlikely that this will do justice to most early modern self-narratives. The category appears to be universally recognized, and even many specialists seem to assume that a cath-all basket is better than a more narrowly defined category.” Kaspar von Greyerz, “Ego-Documents: The Last Word?”, German History, 28(3), 2010, p. 281.
[3] “After ten years, I am not sure anymore that the term, we are using, in France is wholly appropriate. It tends to reduce the texts we want to study together, to just one of their dimensions, that one which paves the way towards the construction of modern self, which is a simplistic view. Like Kaspar von Greyerz, who has criticized the notion of ‘egodocuments’, I am coming to the conclusion that the term ‘écrits du for privé’, although effective in the French context, obscures more than it helps communication on an European scale”, François-Joseph Ruggiu (ed.), “The Uses of First-Person Writings in the Longue Durée (Africa, America, Asia, Europe)”, in The Uses of First-Person Writings (Africa, America, Asia, Europe), Brussels: Peter Lang, 2013, p. 11.
[4] “I define autobiographical writing as any literary work that expresses lived experience from a first-person point of view. […] I realize that this is a problematic approach, especially since « autobiography » in this sense embraces so many forms that are, strictly speaking, not autobiographical.”
James Amelang, The Flight of Icarus: Artisan Autobiography in Early Modern Europe, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998, p. 47.
[5] “Darunter [= unter Ego-dokumente] sollen alle jene Quellen verstanden werden, die uns über die Art und Weise informieren, in der ein Mensch Auskunft über sich selbst gibt, unabhängig davon, ob dies freiwillig – also etwa in einem Brief oder in einem autobiographischen Text – oder durch andere Umstände bedingt geschieht” , Winfried Schulze, Ego-Dokumente, 1995, p. 10.
[6] “On entend par écrits du for privé livres de raison, livres de famille, diaires, mémoires, autobiographies, journaux de toute nature (personnel ou « intime », de voyage, de campagne, de prison…) et de manière générale, tous les textes produits hors institution et témoignant d’une prise de parole personnelle d’un individu sur lui-même, les siens, sa communauté.” Ecrits du for privé, “Presentation”, available online.
[7] “Das « denckh Büechlin », das die Priorin Verena Reiterin vom Kloster St. Wolfgang in Engen um 1653 geschrieben hat, ist zunächst nicht als Selbstzeugnis zu bestimmen. Über mehrere Jahrzehnte berichtet sie nach Angaben ihrer aus Krankheitsgründen resignierten Vorgängerin und vermerkt sogar ihren eigenen Klostereintritt nur pauschal. Im letzten Teil dieser kleinen Chronik jedoch tritt die Schreiberin mehr und mehr hervor, vor allem in kritischen Situationen. Sie nennt sich zwar in der Regel mit Namen und fügt nur selten ein Ich hinzu, aber nimmt ausdrücklich auf ihre spezifische Lage Bezug. Wir erfahren von ihren Krankheiten, ihren Ängsten, ihren Fluchten, ihrem zupackenden Eingreifen und von der prekären Lage, in die sie gerät, als sie unter Mißachtung der freien Wahl erst zur Subpriorin und später zur Priorin erhoben wird.” Benigna von Krusenstjern, “Was sind Selbstzeugnisse? Begriffskritische und quellenkundliche Überlegungen anhand von Beispielen aus dem 17. Jahrhundert”, Historische Anthropologie, 2(3), 1994, p. 466.
[8] “Savoir si la chronique est autobiographique ou non implique que l’on tienne compte des modalités d’expressions de la vie individuelle propres à la période et au groupe socio-économique auquel appartient le chroniqueur. L’élément autobiographique est, nous semble-t-il, composite. Loin de se limiter au seul parcours de vie, il peut apparaître sous forme d’étapes particulières de ce parcours – peut-être secondaires à nos yeux, mais pas à ceux de l’auteur – et par le biais des opinions personnelles exprimées par ce dernier dans un moment et un contexte donnés où il aurait pu agir. Il ne paraît pas par ailleurs devoir être limité aux apparitions d’un « je » agissant. Il se manifeste aussi dans la manière de présenter les faits, que le jugement soit implicite ou explicite.” Danièle Tosato-Rigo, La chronique de Jodocus Jost, miroir mental d’un paysan bernois au XVIIe siècle, Lausanne: Société d’Histoire de la Suisse Romande, 2000, p. 187.
[9] “Readers frequently annotated almanacs with handwritten notes, and this interaction between manuscript and print may well represent the most common form of self-accounting in early modern England, unfolding in the margins of countless almanacs.” Adam Smyth, Autobiography in Early Modern England, Cambridge, 2016 [2010], p. 19.
[10] “Selbstzeugnisforschung adopts a more open understanding of sources and genres. Beyond diaries, memoirs, and autobiographies, numerous other texts may be considered self-narratives, including letters, chronicles, family histories, travel accounts, biographical dictionary entries, and even diplomatic records.”
Gabriele Jancke and Claudia Ulbrich, “From the Individual to the Person”, in Mapping the ‘I’, Leiden, 2015, p. 18.
[11] “In reality, in Arabic texts of the period 1500-1800, we can find self narratives incorporated in a variety of different genres. We find them in literary works and belles lettres; we find them in academic writings such as histories, chronicles and dictionaries. And of course they ca also be found in travel books and in the more personal genre of letter writing. In fact, except fort he religious sciences – studies of jurisprudence, of prophetic traditions and so on, writings which followed strict academic rules – almost every type of text was open to intervention from the ‘I’ author.” Nelly Hanna, “Self-Narratives in Arabic Texts, 1500–1800”, in François-Joseph Ruggiu (ed.), The Uses of First-Person Writings (Africa, America, Asia, Europe), op. cit., p. 142.
[12] “The limits of the genre [= Ego-Documents] should be drawn generously in order to allow for more texts to be included, texts that have come to light in the last thirty years – often quite unexpectedly – and were sometimes quite difficult to assess. With this in mind, I will analyze a short treatise (risale) that displays a particular constellation of several first-person narratives interlaced with third-person passages. The “Menakib-i Sheykh Mehmed Emin Tokadi” (Vita of Sheykh Mehmed Emin Tokadi) reflects the life and thought of Sheykh Mehmed Emin Tokadi (1664–1745), one of the more influential sheykhs of the 18th century Nakshbandiyya order of dervishes. One of his disciples, Seyyid Yahya Efendi (1711–1784), wrote down Mehmed Emin’s pronouncements – in first person singular – but was not able to finish the work. One of his disciples, Seyyid Hasib Üsküdari (d. 1785–86), took over and wrote down the entire Vita.» Barbara Kellner-Heinkele «The Pearl in the Shell: Sheykh Mehmed Emin Tokadi’s (d. 1745) Self-vita as scripted by Sheykh Seyyid Hasib Üsküdari.” Barbara Kellner-Heinkele, cited in Selim Karahasanoğlu, “Learning from Past Mistakes and Living a Better Life: Report on the Workshop in Istanbul on Ottoman Ego-Documents”, Review of Middle East Studies, 54(2), December 2020, p. 299.
Danièle Tosato-Rigo, 2025