history; historiography; narrative; infrastructure; superstructure; Goldstein.

The distinction between the superstructure (i. e. final product of historians, mostly in anarrative form) and the infrastructure (i. e. actual historical practice and its methods, not intended for a layman consumer) of history was coined by L. J. Goldstein in his book Historical Knowing in 1976.Since then, it has received varying and ambiguous reception from philosophers of history and historiography. Many philosophers have questioned the intelligibility of this distinction (Nowell-Smith, 1977; Ankersmit, 1994; Gorman, 2007; Kuukkanen 2015), while others have accepted Goldstein?s implications without any hesitation (Tucker, 2004; O?Sullivan, 2006; Murphey, 2009). The distinction is commonly conceived as an attempt to refute the narrativism. The aim of the first part of this paper is to review the original distinction presented by Goldstein with special regard to his later texts and the recurrent discussion of this topic in the last few years.The second part focuses on refining the distinction in order to answer the criticism and to retain its possible merits. Contemporary philosophers distinguish between ?history? and ?historiography?, while Goldstein consistently used term ?history? in his texts and he insisted that history (Greek historiameans ?inquiry?) is a type of knowledge. Thus, the ?philosophy of history? should be able to give an account of the endeavour of historians in its entire complexity, ancillary disciplines included. But, Goldstein never denied that majority of the most popular pieces of history writing is narrative. It would be a mistake to neglect the role of narrative style. So another subtype of philosophy ought to seek an understanding of historians? motives, goals and narratives. This subtype of philosophy isconcerned with history writing; therefore, it would be proper to call it the ?philosophy ofhistoriography?.