braw-ranke.pdf

7/28/2019 Braw-Ranke.pdf

1/17

Wesleyan University

Blackwell PublishingWesleyan Universityhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4502283 .

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Blackwell Publishing and Wesleyan University are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access toHistory and Theory.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wesleyanhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4502283?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4502283?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wesleyanhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black


2/17

Historyand Theory,ThemeIssue 46 (December2007), 45-60 C WesleyanUniversity2007 ISSN: 0018-2656

VISION AS REVISION:RANKE AND THEBEGINNINGOF MODERNHISTORY

J.D. BRAW

ABSTRACT

It is widely agreedthat a new conceptionof historywas developedin the earlynineteenthcentury: he pastcame to be seen in a new light, as didthe way of studyingthe past.Thisarticle discusses the natureof this collective revision,focusingon one of its firstand mostimportantmanifestations:Ranke's 1824 Geschichtender romanischenundgermanischenV6lker.It arguesthat,in Ranke'scase, the drivingforce of the revision was religious,andthat,subsequently,an understanding f the natureof Ranke'sreligiousattitude s vital toany interpretation f his historical revision.Being aesthetic-experiential ather han con-ceptualor "positive," his religiouselementis reflectedthroughoutRanke'senterprise,nsourcecriticism andin historicalrepresentation o less than in theconceptionof cause andeffect in the historicalprocess.These three evels or aspectsof thehistoricalenterprise or-respondto the experienceof the past,and are connectedby the essence of theexperience:visualperception.Thehighlyindividualcharacter f theenterprise,ts foundationn senti-ments and experiencesof little persuasiveforce thatonly with difficulty can be broughtinto language at all, explainsthe paradoxicalnatureof the Rankeanheritage.On the onehand, Ranke had a great and lasting impact;on the otherhand,his approachwas neverre-utilized as a whole, only in its constituentparts-which, when not in the relationshipRanke had envisioned,took on a new and differentcharacter.This also suggests the dif-ference between Ranke'srevisionand a new paradigm:whereas the latter s anexemplarysolutionprovidingbinding regulations, he former s unrepeatable.

I. GESCHICHTENERROMANISCHENNDGERMANISCHENOLKERS REVISIONAmong historicalrevisions in historiography,Leopoldvon Ranke's Geschichtender romanischen und germanischen Volker has a given place. The author was aself-conscious, radical, and far-reaching revisionist: "The entire history of thesixteenth century needs a thorough critical revision," he wrote in an 1824 let-ter to Barthold Georg Niebuhr.' Of this complete revision, the Geschichten wasonly the first installment. Ranke also repeatedly pointed out the originality of hisapproach, both in the work itself and in its critical appendix, Zur Kritik neuererGeschichtsschreiber.2 Posterity has generally accepted this claim, that historiog-

1. DietrichGerhard, ZurGeschichte er Historischen chule:DreiBriefevon RankeundHeinrichLeo,"HistorischeZeitschrift132 (1925), 102.2. See, forexample,Leopoldvon Ranke,Geschichtender romanischenundgermanischenVilkervon 1494 bis 1514, 3rd ed. (StimmtlicheWerke,vol. 33) (Leipzig:Duncker& Humblot,1885), VII(hereafterreferred o as Geschichten);Leopoldvon Ranke,Zur KritikneuererGeschichtsschreiber,3rded.(Stimmtliche erke,ol.34)(Leipzig:Duncker&Humblot,885), V(hereaftereferredo


3/17

46 J.D. BRAWraphytook a new turn and developed a new character n and throughRanke'sGeschichten.A modem historyof historiography hatdoes not include the idealthat Ranke postulatedin contrastto existing historiography--to write history"wiees eigentlichgewesen"--is more or less inconceivable.Yet, paradoxically,there is little consensus as to the nature of this turn ordevelopment.AlthoughRanke'sreputationas a groundbreakingigurein the his-tory of historiographys uncontested, he shift he broughtabout is rarelyseen asa revision,in the sense of a new interpretation, f a given periodor development.Rather, t has, first,been seen as a revision of the historian'stask, and the scopeandnatureof historicalknowledge.Especially in the Anglo-Americanhistoricaltradition,t is primarilymethodological nnovationsand scientificaspirations hathave been ascribedto Ranke, whereas Ranke's conception of the past-whennoticed-has been interpretedas an unconscious reflection of his political andreligious bias.3Accordingto a second interpretation,t was exactly his concep-tion of the past-eventually being called historicism or historism-that was thenovelty of Ranke.4Third,albeit moreinfrequently, t has been argued hat Rankewas the first to makeacademichistoriographynot only a science but also a liter-arygenre,thatis, critical and readableat the same time; this is supposedto havebeen the essentialnovelty of the Rankeanrevision.5

Contrary o these interpretations, will arguehere thatRanke's revision wasbased on an aesthetic andreligious experienceof the past thatsubsequentlywasreflectedat all levels of his historicalenterprise: ourcecriticism,representation,and interpretation ll correspondto this experience of visual perception.Thisexperiencethus providesthe connectionamong these threeaspects or levels ofhistoricalstudy,and the reason for Ranke's insistence on the need for historytobe all these threethings simultaneously.In his lecture on "the idea of universalhistory" rom the early 1830s, Rankedevelops this themeby startingwith "purelove of truth,"proceedingvia the critical andthoroughstudyof sourcesandtheinterest n the universalto the perceptionof totality.6"Everythings connected,"Ranke wrote in the introductionto his Analecten der englischen Geschichte;"criticalstudy of the authenticsources, impartialobservation,objective repre-sentation;-the aim is the realization [Vergegenwdrtigung] f the past."7Andin 1873, Ranke wrote that "the historicalmethod, which only searches for the

as ZurKritik).3. See Georg G. Iggers, "The Image of Ranke in Americanand GermanHistoricalThought,"Historyand Theory2 (1962), 17-27.4. Ibid., 27-34.5. See, forexample,ErnstSchulin,"RankeserstesBuch,"HistorischeZeitschrift203 (1966), 584;Rudolf Vierhaus,"Leopoldvon Ranke:Geschichtsschreibung wischen Wissenschaftund Kunst,"HistorischeZeitschrift244 (1987), 286-287.6. Leopold von Ranke, Aus Werkund Nachlass, vol. IV: Vorlesungseinleitungen, d. VolkerDotterweichand Walther Peter Fuchs (Munich and Vienna: R. OldenbourgVerlag, 1975), 77-83.Hereafterreferred o as Vorlesungseinleitungen.7. Leopold von Ranke,Englische Geschichte vornehmlich m siebzehntenJahrhundert,3rd ed.(SiimmtlicheWerke,vol. 21) (Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1879), 114; cf. Leopold von Ranke,Franzdsische Geschichte vornehmlich im sechzehnten und siebzehnten Jahrhundert, 3rd ed.(SiimmtlicheWerke,vol. 12) (Leipzig:Duncker & Humblot,1877), 5.

*


4/17

VISIONAS REVISION 47authentic and true, is immediately connected to the highest questions of thehuman race."8

Although it might be arguedthat Ranke's skill at combining and balancingthese threeaspectsincreasedovertime, andthat differentaspectscame to assumedifferentdegrees of importanceas his careerproceeded,the conceptionas suchwas presentin the first work; indeed, the novelty thatRankeemphasizedin theprefaceto the Geschichten was exactly this coherenceof the historicalpractice.Alreadyin the shortprefaceto the Geschichten,Rankedeals with all threeques-tions as related andmutuallydependent.He begins with the large-scale concep-tion of history-the unityof the RomanicandGermanicnations;thenmakeshismuch-quotedand much-misunderstood omment on the purpose of historicalrepresentation: To historyhas been assigned the office of judging the past, ofinstructing he contemporaries or the benefit of the future: o such high officesdoes the presentattemptnot aspire; t only wants to show, how it actuallywas."9Ranke goes on to discuss the sources he has used: "memoirs, diaries, letters,legation reports,and original accounts from eyewitnesses," then returnsto theprinciplesof historicalrepresentation hat follow from intention[Absicht]andmaterials[Stoff]:first, the "strictpresentationof the fact";second, the presenta-tion of every people and every power first "whenit enters, leading and active"the course of events; throughthis literarystrategy,"theline, which they gener-ally adhereto, the path, which they take, the thought,which moves them"begrasped.'0The degree to which Rankemanagedto combine these principlesinhis first work is of comparatively ess concern;what is important s that Rankesaw them as interdependent, ne following from the other,and that he attemptedto revise historicalpracticeon all three levels simultaneously.

What, then, was the connection that Ranke envisioned among these three,seemingly quite different,aspects?In a letterto Dilthey, Count Yorck identifiesthe connection,or rather, he foundation,of Ranke's conceptionof history andhistoriographyas visual perceptionor "ocularity."" n Ranke'sworks andin hiscorrespondence,terms related to visual perceptionare indeed used again andagain to describe the historian'svocation and practice.12This "ocularity"s nomere superstructure,nd is not confined to the later,somewhat morespeculativestages of historiography; ather,Count Yorckargues,even Ranke'scriticalprin-ciples are of "ocularnatureandprovenance."'3

8. Leopoldvon Ranke,Das Briefwerk, d. WaltherPeterFuchs(Hamburg:HoffmannundCampeVerlag, 1949), 519.9. Ranke,Geschichten,VII. In the originalversion,Rankewrote"say"[sagen]rather han"show"[zeigen]. For a discussion of why this change was made in the second edition, see ThomasMartinBuck, "Zu Rankes Diktumvon 1824: Eine vornehmlich extkritischeStudie,"HistorischesJahrbuch119 (1999), 159-185.10. Ranke,Geschichten,V-VII.11. Briefwechselzwischen WilhelmDilthey und dem GrafenPaul Yorckv. Wartenburg,1877-1897, ed. Sigridv. d. Schulenburg Halle:VerlagMax Niemayer, 1923), 59-60.12. See, forexample,RudolfVierhaus,"HistoriographyetweenScienceandArt," n LeopoldvonRanke and the Shaping of theHistoricalDiscipline,ed. GeorgG. Iggersand James Powell (Syracuse,NY: Syracuse University Press, 1990), 64-65; LeonardKrieger,Ranke: The Meaning of History(ChicagoandLondon:Universityof ChicagoPress, 1977), 79.13. Schulenburg,ed., Briechwechselzwischen WilhelmDilthey und dem GrafenPaul Yorckv.Wartenburg, 0.


5/17

48 J.D. BRAWHere, I will interpretRanke's threefoldrevision of history in this light; but Iwill also attempt o go beyond Yorck, and reflect on why ocularitycame to besuch a centralconcernin Ranke'shistoriographical nterprise.Severalexamplesexist of how Rankemakes visualperception he endof histo-

riography.The youngRankestressed he close relationbetween historicalscience(or scholarship) ndart:scienceinvestigateswhat hashappened; rtgives shapetothat which has happenedandbringsit before one's eyes, Rankewrites in a frag-ment from his periodat Leipzig (1814-1818).14 In 1827, Ranke,who by then hadbecome assistantprofessorat the Universityof Berlin,makesthe same argument,now in a lectureon the historyof literaturen the eighteenthcentury:"The aim ofhistory-writingHistorie] s to bringpastlife before one's eyes."15

Historyshould in other wordsbe seen; and Ranke's insistence on this prompt-ed a return o thepastwith new questions,new approaches,andnew expectations.Thisaspirationed, by default,to a thoroughgoing evisionof the whole historicalenterprise:n oppositionto existing history-writing,Rankeattempted o found anew historicalapproach hatrejectedeverythingthat,as HaydenWhite has writ-ten, "preventedhe historian rom seeing the historicalfield in its immediacy,itsparticularity, nd its vividness."'6This meant,in practical erms, first, the searchfor the most genuine and visual source; second, the attemptto write the mostvivid and lifelike prose;third,the developmentof a conceptionof the past thatstressed its characterof life and individuality n contradistinctiono the barrenschemes of philosophersandtheologians.This coherence of Ranke's historicalenterprise, ts being foundedon visual per-ception, is evident in his first publishedwork. To any readernot blindedby thenotion of Rankeas a "positivist"or proponentof an exclusively scientific para-digm, it is clear alreadyin Geschichtenthat Ranke's revision of historiographywas not limited to source criticism,and that even the use of the sources, beingbased on the principleof visual perception,was anythingbutpositivist.1. Ranke has oftenbeen creditedwithhavingappropriatedhe source criticismused in Bible studiesand classical philology, and for the first time putit to use inmodernhistory.As describedby Blanke,Fleischer,andRtisen,"the new qualityof sourcecriticism consistedmainly in understanding iterary raditionsas beingthemselves a productof history and individual texts within a given traditionasderivingfrom sourceswhich could be traced andwhich reflectedgroupinterestsandmotives."17 In Ranke's case, however, the methodhad an aestheticandreli-gious depththat s notcoveredby this definition.Only in relation o this aestheticand religious depth can Ranke's decision to make source criticism, the "newmethod,"an integralpartof his historicalenterprise,be explained.

14. Leopold von Ranke,Aus Werkund Nachlass, vol. I: Tagebiicher,ed. WaltherPeter Fuchs(Munichand Vienna:R. OldenbourgVerlag, 1964), 103. Hereafterreferred o as Tagebiicher.15. Ranke,Vorlesungseinleitungen,4.16. Hayden White, Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-CenturyEurope(Baltimoreand London:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress, 1975), 164.17. Horst Walter Blanke, Dirk Fleischer, and Jorn Rtisen, "Theory of History in HistoricalLectures:The GermanTraditionof Historik,1750-1900,"Historyand Theory23 (1984), 342.

**


6/17

VISION AS REVISION 49At times, Ranke'senterprisehas been describedas a processin which the partsare given qualitativedifferences: source criticism providesthe groundfor his-toricalrepresentation,which in turn eads to the sought-for"universalsympathyand co-knowledge [Mitgefiihl,Mitwissenschaftdes Alls]."'8Source criticism is,in this interpretation, preparation, laying of foundations or the more artisticand speculative activities of historicalrepresentationand interpretation.Yet in

practicethis was not the way in which the differentaspectswere connected: theprimacyof visual perceptionwas at work alreadyin the selecting and readingof sources. Ranke as practitionerof the critical methodsought to find the mostgenuine,most congenial, and most receptiveobserver of a given event, in orderto come as close as possible to seeing the event itself. Sources were chosen onthe basis of theirvisual quality,theirAnschaulichkeit.19pon the publicationofthe Geschichten,his fellow historianHeinrich Leo wrote a review in which hecriticized Rankefor, among otherthings, buildinghis representation f a givensequenceon the unreliablePirkheimer'saccount20;this was particularly raveasRanke himself had, in ZurKritik,describedPirkheimeras a sourcegenerallynotto be believed.21Rankerepliedthathe had usedPirkheimer,n spiteof his unreli-ability, first, because there was in this particular ase supportfrom other,morereliable, sources; second, and more importantly,because Pirkheimerdescribedthe event in question in a "particularly isual way."22Already in Zur Kritik,Ranke hadpraisedthis qualityof Pirkheimer's, ts "clarity, ife, andcredibility"and the way in which the historicalagents "appear n their special nature andparticularity."23he accountswrittenby Guicciardini,Giovio, Pirkheimer,andsoforth were thus dealtwithnot as neutralandin themselvesuninteresting eposito-ries of "facts"but as experiences,literaryachievements,and visions of events.Ranke's approachwas thus based on historicalexperience in both senses ofthe concept:the experienceof the personbehind the source was to be re-experi-enced by the person reading he source.24Hencethe search not only for authenticaccounts of events, but for original, personalobservations of events: the morevivid the experienceof the personbehind the source had been, the more visualwould the historian's mage of the event become.This search for personality,originality, and perceptivityrequireda kind ofreadingthattranscended he sphereof merecomparisonof accounts.As Ranke'spupilHeinrichvon Sybel pointedout in his commemoration peechon his teach-

18. Ranke,Tagebiicher,240.19. See Schulin,"Rankeserstes Buch,"584, 594-595.20. HeinrichLeo,"[Reviewof] Geschichtender romanischenundgermanischenVolkervon 1494bis 1535, von LeopoldRanke," n ErgdnzungsblditterurJenaischenAllgemeinen Literatur-Zeitung17/18 (1828), 136. In his reply to Leo, Ranke writes: "Er hat liber meine Forschung, Darstellungund Gesinnung n einem gleich wegwerfendenTone geredet" "Hehas spokenin anequallydismis-sive tone of my research,my representation, ndmy disposition").Leopoldvon Ranke,SdmmtlicheWerke,vol. 53/54: Zur eigenen Lebensgeschichte,ed. Alfred Dove (Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot,1890), 659. Hereafterreferred o as SW 53/54.21. Ranke,ZurKritik,119-120.22. Ranke,SW53/54, 661.23. Ranke,ZurKritik,120.24. See Martin Jay, Songs of Experience: Modern American and European Variationson aUniversal Theme Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress, 2005), 218.


7/17

50 J. D. BRAWer, the historicalmethoditself implies, in its reconstructionof the perspectivesof the individuals who have written the accountsthe historianuses as sources,creative andsympathetic magination: he core of human ndividuality"onlyletsitself be understoodthrough observing imagination [anschauendePhantasie],thatis, througha procedure hat is through-and-throughnalogousto the artisticprocedure."25In the reconstruction f the author'sperspective,the personalityof the authorgained an interest of its own, independentof the facticity of the account; itbecame, as it were, an aesthetic-historical vent in itself. In Zur Kritik,Rankedemonstratedhat Guicciardinibasedhis work on otherrepresentations,he reli-ability of which were subject to doubt;yet this did not lead Ranke to dismissGuicciardini ntirely,as his writingshadoriginalityand were "fullof spirit."26 nhis replyto HeinrichLeo's criticalreview, Rankeexplainsthis principle:"In thecritiqueof historians,"he writes, "I have only searched where originality,indi-vidualobservation[Anschauung], ullness of life may be, andI have not wantedto be deceived. Thatis all."27

2. These qualities originality, individualobservation,and fullness of life-are more or less the same as the ideals Ranke had set himself as a writer ofhistory.28ndeed, so close was the relationbetween sources and representationthat Ranke in his first work came to imitate the style of the chronicles he hadbeen studying.29The concern with either Ranke's methodological innovationsor his historicistconception of the past has led to a certainnegligence amongcommentatorson the literaryqualitiesof Ranke's historicalwritings;discussionsregardingthe literaryaspect are a relativelyrecent addition to the literatureonRanke.30Yet from the most particulardetails to the most generalobservations,Ranke's Geschichtenwas an exercise not only in seeing historybut also in mak-ing history visible.31To be sure, Ranke and some of his readers-among themNiebuhr--foundthe result to be less thansuccessful,32 andaccording o Leo, lan-guage was "abused n the most dreadfulway"on every page33; ut nevertheless,Ranke's intention,to bringthe past before the eyes of the reader, s perceivablethroughout he work. Moreover,the extent of the literaryfailure should not beexaggerated:Ranke's work also received some approvalfor its ability to makethe past come alive. "ThinkaboutRanke's firstbook,"Jacob Burckhardtwrites

25. Heinrich von Sybel, "Geddichtnisredeuf Leopoldv. Ranke,gehaltenin derkgl. preuBischenAkademie derWissenschaftenzu Berlin am 1. Juli 1886,"HistorischeZeitschrift56 (1886), 475.26. Ranke,ZurKritik,37.27. Ranke,SW53/54, 663.28. See, for example,Ranke,Das Briefwerk,64.29. Ranke,SW53/54, 62.30. See Hermannvon der Dunk, "Die historischeDarstellungbei Ranke: Literaturund Wissen-schaft," n Leopoldvon Rankeunddie moderneGeschichtswissenschaft, d. WolfgangJ. Mommsen

(Stuttgart:Klett-Cotta,1988), 140. For a discussionof Ranke's style, see PeterGay, Style in History(New York:Basic Books, 1974), 59-94; see also Jrn Riisen, "Rhetoricand Aesthetics of History:Leopoldvon Ranke,"Historyand Theory29 (1990), 190-204.31. Onthe style of Ranke's firstpublishedwork,see HannoHelbling,LeopoldvonRanke und derhistorische Stil (Affolternam Albis: BuchdruckereiDr. J. Weil3,1953),45-61.32. Ranke, SW 53/54, 663; BartholdGeorg Niebuhr,Briefe. Neue Folge: 1816-1830, vol. III:Briefeaus Bonn (182--1830), ed. EduardVisher(Bernand Munich:FranckeVerlag, 1983),446.33. Leo, "[Reviewof] Geschichten,"130.

cuando dice hacer visibl

el pasado, no se refiere a

hecho mismo o fecha

exacta. La recuperacin

del testimonio del testigo

es vital, aunque no s qu

tanto acepta el rollo de la

percepciones.


8/17

VISIONAS REVISION 51in an 1870 letterto BernhardKugler,"thisfantasticandwonderfulwork"with its"permanentelationto the truly iving."34n thereviewpublished n the VienneseJahrbiicherder Literatur "Wiener ahrbiicher")n 1826,Ranke'sliterarycapac-ity was praisedhighly, and his style was describedas havingsharpnessand vital-ity [Lebendigkeit]35-thevery qualitiesfor which Ranke had aimed.Ranke's conception of historical representationwas directed against threedifferentinadequateways of seeing history, practicedby three differentgroups.A first group, the fragmenters,buried themselves in details and isolated facts,and therebylost trackof the more generalcontexts and developments.36A sec-ond group,the poets and novelists, saw in historywhateverthey wantedto see;therebythey simply made the past a projectionscreen for their own imagina-tion-which was very limited in comparisonwith the creativityof the past.37Thirdwere the philosophersand theologiansof history,who indeed saw plans,developments,andgeneralstructures ut were blindto everythingelse, includinghistorical ife itself.38

Beginning with the last of these threemisconceptionsof history,in fact littleevidence suggests that Ranke at this early stagewas well enoughacquaintedwithphilosophyof historyto reactagainst t. This seems to have been a laterdevelop-ment, albeit seen as following logically from the conceptionof historyreflectedin the Geschichten. nthe debatebetween the "historical" nd the "philosophical"school going on at Berlin at the time of his appointment,Ranke sided with theformer."Against hebackground f my whole natureandmy studies,I couldonlybelong to the historicalschool,"Ranke said in an 1867 speech.39The second misrepresentation as at times been given an importance t hardlycan have had. Ranke's disapprovaland ultimaterejectionof Sir WalterScott'snovel QuentinDurward,describedin one of his autobiographical ketches,hasbecome "canonical in the historiographicalprofession's credo of orthodoxy."40Yet this book was not publisheduntil 1823, at which stage Ranke's interestinmodernEuropeanhistoryhadalreadybeen awakened: n an 1820 letter,he men-tions his intention to study"the life of the nations"duringthe fifteenthcentury,and in an 1822 letterhe indeed describes the historyof the Germanicnationsas"thestudyof my life."41At most, it seems, the comparisonbetween Scott's noveland the authentic ources confirmedRanke's ideathatthe latterwere,as he writesin one of his autobiographical ketches,more beautiful andinterestingthananyproductof purely literary maginationandrepresentation.42

34. JacobBurckhardt,Briefe, vol. V, ed. Max BurckhardtBasel and Stuttgart:Schwabe& Co.,1963), 78.35. "[Reviewof] GeschichtenderromanischenundgermanischenVolkervon 1494 bis 1535, vonLeopoldRanke,"Jahrbiicherder Literatur34 (1826), 40.36. See, for example,Ranke,SW53/54, 28.37. See, forexample,LeopoldRanke,"ZurGeschichtedes Don Carlos,"JahrbiicherderLiteratur46 (1829), 244.38. See, for example,Ranke,Vorlesungseinleitungen,4-75.39. Leopold von Ranke,SdmmtlicheWerke,vol. 51/52: Abhandlungenund Versuche,third ed.(Leipzig:Duncker & Humblot,1888), 588.40. White,Metahistory,163.41. See Ranke,Das Briefwerk,17, 29.42. Ranke,SW53/54, 61.


9/17

52 J. D. BRAWRemainingis the first option, that of unsatisfactoryhistoricalrepresentations.In a fragment hatWaltherPeterFuchs has datedto 1816-1817, Ranke writes that"as history is an empiricalscience, it happens only too often, that it fragments

itself";only when the empirical s "weddedto the idea"[mitder Idee vermdhlt]can history attract he human spirit.43n one of his autobiographical ketches,Ranke recountshow he had been repelled by his firstexperienceof how historywas studied andtaughtat the university evel: the studentswere to learn"massesof unprocessed acts" withoutany inner coherence or leadingidea." This way ofrepresentinghistory,combinedwith moralizingand utilitarian trandsof thought,was fundamentally ncapableboth of doing the historical-aesthetic xperiencejustice and of leadingto a renewedexperience,"attractinghe spirit."Ranke nowattempted o write historythat combined all the elements he had found wantingin the existing historiography:ullness, richness, authenticity,colorfulness,andunity;the result was the Geschichtender romanischenundgermanischenVilker.Ranke's aspirationhad stylistic and structural s well as methodologicalcon-sequences. In his reply to Leo, Ranke makes clear what his stylistic principlehad been:"Inand with the event, I have tried to present ts course andspirit,andhave made an effort to discover its characteristic eatures."45 his principle is,Rankenoted,also the essential aspectof poetic andartisticexpressions;"I havethoughtit permitted,"he writes, "to make such an attempt n the writingof his-tory as well."46Ranke went aboutthis task in severalways. One of these was, ashas been seen, to search for the source in which the most vivid and perceptiveaccount was given. Anotherstrategy requentlyemployedis the use of metaphorsandanalogies:for instance,Julius found himself in a situationsimilar to that "ofthe picador,when the death blow has failed";that is, the attackerhad becomethe attacked.47imilarly,Caesarwas describedas a predator hat had come to anagreementwith the herdsmen.48With the help of these and similarly developedanalogies,Rankecould in a few words capture he essence of andpoint aboutagiven situation.A thirdstrategy s that of illustrating he situationwith contemporarybeliefs,often of a religiouskind. In Udine,Rankewrites, it was believed that two angelswith bloody swordshad been seen over the church.49n anothercontext, Rankewrites that "it was said, that an ancientbook had been found" thataccordingtopopularbelief prophesied he decline of the Ferrantefamily.50Ranke treats thesebeliefs precisely as beliefs, and does not go into the questionof their facticity;they do not serve as facts, but as colorful strokesaddingto the vividness of therepresentation.A fourthstrategy,which gives the representationts energy and direction,isthat of bold introductory r concludingstatements;with the help of these, Ranke

43. Ranke,Tagebiicher,233.44. Ranke,SW53/54, 28.45. Ibid.,665.46. Ibid.47. Ranke,Geschichten,255.48. Ibid., 139.49. Ibid., 236.50. Ibid.,23.


10/17

VISION AS REVISION 53could tell the readerthata new, and different,"moment"had entered and whatthe nature of this moment was. For instance, Ranke writes on the decline ofVenetianpower:"Venice could not become more than t hadalreadybecome;butthat which had come into being still could assertitself."5'At times, the conclu-sions could be quitedrastic:on PhilipI of Castile,Rankeconcludesthat "hehadcome not to live as a king, butto die as one."52Generally,however, these state-ments andconclusionssoughtto locate the event within the largercontext of theentangled historyRankeattempted o write: for instance,"it is remarkable,howclosely the innersituationof Germany s relatedto Frenchwarandpeace."53These arejust a few of the literarystrategiesRanke used. Throughouthis firstworkhe also chose quotations hat wereparticularly olorful54 nd included littleinsignificantdetails with no real importance or the narrative.55What the strate-gies all had in common was theircapacityto create a lifelike pictureof the past,a pictureas colorful, rich, complex, and dramaticas the experienceof the pastitself; in otherwords,an image of the past "as it actuallywas."3. The ambitionto write this kind of historycan only be understoodagainstthe backgroundof Ranke's conceptionof the past, his "philosophicaland reli-gious interests" hat, as he said, "led me to history."56 hese religious interestshad alreadycome up for discussionin the debateon the Geschichten.Leo, in hisreview, seized on Ranke's somewhatambiguousstatementof belief in an inter-vening God. But whereas Leo merelymentionedthe lack of clarityof the state-ment, Rankerespondedwith a seriousexplanationof his thoughton the matter.From this explanation, t is clear how deeplyRanke was influencedby the classi-cal world of his educationalbackground,and how far he was from the Lutheranmotives (forexample,the idea of deusabsconditus) hat havebeen ascribed o hisconceptionof history.57 irst,he writesof an alternativeview of history,that of"anancienttheology andtragedy,"which"subjected verythingto fate";second,he writes that he has followed another ine of interpretation,hat of Xenopohon,in whose historicalwritingsthe "immediateeffect"of the divinity is seen in the"decisivemoments.""58hen it says in the prefacethathistorydeals with human-ity as it is and "attimes, the hand of God above them," t does not, as Leo ironi-cally suggested n his review,implythatGodonly "attimes"raises his hand,59utthat"the hand of God" can only at times be observed. In the Geschichten,thesedecisive momentsareall entirelyimmanent: he divinity appearsat crucial turns

51. Ibid., 244.52. Ibid., 193.53. Ibid., 178.54. See, for example, Ranke, Geschichten,242. For more on Ranke's literary strategies, seeWolfgang Hardtwig,"Die Geschichtserfahrung erModerneund die AsthetisierungderGeschichts-schreibung:Leopold von Ranke,"Geschichteund Gesellschaft23 (1997), 104-107;von der Dunk,"Die historischeDarstellungbei Ranke,"153-155, 158-159; Felix Gilbert,History:Politics or Cul-ture?Reflectionson Rankeand BurckhardtPrinceton:PrincetonUniversityPress, 1990), 41-42.55. For instance,nightingaleswere mentioned severaltimes."Ftirdie Nachtigallenscheint Hr. R.eine besonderePassion zu haben..." Leo, "[Review of] Geschichten,"133.56. Ranke,Das Briefwerk,216.57. See, forexample,CarlHinrichs,Rankeund die Geschichtstheologieder Goethezeit Gdttingen,Frankfurt, ndBerlin:Musterschmidt,1954), 112-113.58. Ranke,SW53/54, 665.59. Leo, "[Review of] Geschichten,"134.


11/17

54 J.D. BRAWin the "courseof events,"but its effect is limited to this course of events itself;God restores(or even, one might argue,is) the balanceof the conflictingpowers,butdoes not leadthe historicalprocessto anydiscernibleaim outsideitself. It is,in otherwords,a secularprovidence hroughout.6

Religion was identified at an early stage in the literatureon Ranke as one ofthe principalmotives of his historicalwritings.61 he importanceof this religiouselement has been discussed largely in terms of finding a "divine plan"in his-tory, of uncoveringa "holy hieroglyph,"or finding the moments in which theDivinity interfereswith humanaffairs.Meinecke, for instance,describes Rankeas a "priest n the serviceof God,"observingthe divine providenceatworkin thehistoricalprocess.62 Yet if Ranke's intention n writingthe Geschichtenhad beento point to a divine will at work in humanhistory, the result was by all meansa failure:there are only a few instances in which "God"or "God's finger"areevoked,andeven thenonly at some distancefrom thenarrative,n cases where noother cause is needed.63 urthermore,everal of these instanceswere excluded inthe second edition withoutsignificantlyaltering he meaningof the narrative.64"divineplan"completelyfails to materialize,even in the first edition.One way of making sense of this apparent ncoherence has been to declarethe religious aspect, the recognitionof God in history,the end to which criticalmethod was the means;von Laue concludes thatbefore Ranke could commencethe searchfor God, he needed to have the historical truth"pureand simple."65Others have interpretedhe religious aspect as a mere drivingforce, which maywell have led Ranketo history and given some depthto his enterprise,but didnot exert any influence over his critical-methodologicalwork.66Meinecke findsit remarkable hat Rankemanagedto avoid the trapof subjectingthe historicalprocess to theological concepts andtracingGod in the details.67There s, however, ittleevidence to suggestthat hiswas ever animminentdan-ger. As Ilse Mayer-Kulenkampff as demonstrated,he young Ranke'sreligiousattitudewas not bound o any particular objectivereligion."68 ather, t was basedon the idea of a religious experiencethatcan be separated romthe "positive"or"objective"manifestationsof religion, and indeed is more authentic han these;dogma and doctrines are essentially reflections upon this religious experience.Rankewas thus aproponent f a broader ontemporaryulturalandreligiousshift,

60. See FriedrichNietzsche, KritischeStudienausgabe,vol. 11:Nachlafl1884-1885, ed. GiorgioColli andMazziniMontinari Berlinand New York: de Gruyter,1999),662.61. See, for example,HermannOncken,Aus RankesFriihzeit (Gotha:VerlagFriedrichAndreasPerthes, 1922), 2, 3; GerhardMasur,Rankes Begriff der Weltgeschichte(Munich and Berlin: R.Oldenbourg,1926), 54.62. FriedrichMeinecke,RankeundBurckhardt:Ein Vortrag,gehaltenin derDeutschenAkademieder Wissenschaften u Berlin(Berlin:Akademie-Verlag,1948), 13.63. Theodore von Laue, Ranke: The Formative Years (Princeton:PrincetonUniversity Press,1950), 29-30.64. Silvia Backs, DialektischesDenken in RankesGeschichsschreibungbis 1854 (Cologne andVienna:B6hlau Verlag, 1985), 96, 277-279.65. Von Laue,Ranke,43.66. See Oncken,Aus RankesFriihzeit,7-8.67. Meinecke,Ranke undBurckhardt,13.68. IlseMayer-Kulenkampff,RankesLutherverhiiltnis: argestelltnach demLutherfragmenton1817,"HistorischeZeitschrift172 (1951), 78.

El poder que le otor

En Ranke subyace lade la historia de la hque restaura el equiliSin embargo no lo dla historia, sa es ex


12/17

VISIONAS REVISION 55describedby MartinJay as "the shift fromfaith identifiedprimarilywith adher-ence to belief, eitherrationalor willed, in certainpropositionsaboutGod and Hiscreation o faithunderstoodphenomenologicallyas devotionalor piousbehaviourderived fromsomethingakin to an emotionallycharged,perceptual xperienceofdivinity or the holy."69"Perceptual xperience"or, as he himself called it in an1825 letter,"theuntroubledruthof the innersense [dieunverkiimmerteWahrheitdes innerenSinnes]"70 as the essence of Rankeanreligion.The few instanceswhere Ranke invokes God arethereforeat most reflectionsof a belief in the divinity as the last instanceof orderof the universe;to build acoherenttheology of historyon these scatteredand increasinglyrare referencesis not likely to be very fruitful.7The religious significanceof Ranke'senterpriseis ratherthe concentrationon historicallife, and the aspiration o sharein thislife throughaesthetic-historicalexperience. Despite occasional expressions ofthe aspiration o go behindthe manifestationsof life to the source of life itself,Rankein his historicalworks,not least in the Geschichten,clearly stayedon thestage of appearances.As aesthetic-religiousexperiencerather han explanationor analysiswas the aim, there was indeed,as Diltheynoted,no seriousattempt ogo beyondthe admirationof the fullness andrichness of the appearances.72his,it would seem, is what Ranke means when he writes thathe wishes to acknowl-edge "notGod, but in the feeling of him, everythingelse"-the humanrace, thepeoples, the history.73As Gadamer tates,"becauseall historicalphenomenaaremanifestationsof universal ife, to share n them is to share n life. This gives theword 'understanding'ts almost religious tone. To understand s to participateimmediately n life, withoutany mediationthroughconcepts."74Ranke'srevision, as it has been interpretedhere,was an attempt o do justice tothe experienceof the richness and life of the past, an experiencethat was seennot only as aesthetic but also as religious. What stimulatedthis revision? Incontrast o other"revisionists,"and to contemporaryhistorians ike NiebuhrandSchlosser,Rankeseems to have hadno particular oliticalandmoralpurposesordrivingforces. In his writings, "politics" s often employed as a counterconceptof "history,"75ndalthoughmoralreflections andjudgmentswerepartof thegen-eral reflectionsRanke includedin his historicalrepresentation,moral concernswere not the originandmoralargumentsnot thepointof Ranke's historicalrepre-sentation:on the contrary,Rankerejectedthe "highoffice" of moral udgment.76Rather,the stimulus of Ranke's historicalenterprisewas the perceived inability

69. Jay,Songs of Experience,80.70. Ranke,Das Briefwerk,86.71. See Backs,DialektischesDenken in Rankes,96-101.72. Wilhelm Dilthey, Der Aufbau der geschichtlichen Welt in den Geisteswissenschaften(Frankfurt . M.: Suhrkamp,1970), 118.73. Leopoldvon Ranke,NeueBriefe,ed. BernhardHoeft and HansHerzfeld(Hamburg:HoffmannundCampeVerlag, 1949), 19.74. Hans-GeorgGadamer,Truthand Method,2nd ed., transl.Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G.Marshall(Londonand New York:Continuum,2004), 207-208; cf. FriedrichMeinecke, Werke,vol.IV: ZurTheorie undPhilosophieder Geschichte(Stuttgart:K. F. KoehlerVerlag, 1965),232.75. See, for example,Ranke,Vorlesungseinleitungen,1.76. Ranke,Geschichten,VII.


13/17

56 J.D. BRAWof existing historiographyo representand lead to historical-aesthetic xperience,the visual perceptionof the richness and fullness of historical life Ranke wasconvinced existed.77nthe last instance,both these characteristics nd the experi-ence of them were conceived as related to religion:richness and fullness beingmanifestationsof divine creativity,the experience being the "knowledgeof theheart" hat Ranke saw as the core of religion.This visionaryconceptionof the natureof the past also implied a revision ofhow history should be written and how it should be researched.As opposed tothe colorless and bloodless historiography hat existed, the new historiographyshould reflect richness, development, and fullness; in short, human life. Asopposedto whatRankeperceivedas fragmentedandfragmentinghistoriography,the new historiography hould show the coherence and unity of humanhistory.As opposedto whatRankeperceivedas the traditional haracterof existing his-toriography,hat s, its buildingon the accumulatedperceptionof events, the newhistoriography hould concern itself with the original and authenticexperienceof the event itself.

Some commentatorshave found tensions in and between these ideals, eitheralong the lines of universality-particularityr of critical research-literary ep-resentation.78While Ranke recognized some shortcomingsof his own in bothaspects, he nevertheless did not see his ideals as conflicting or impossible toattain,and hence did not see the attempt o combinethem as futile. At times, hecriticizeshis own workanddoubtshis own capacityto translate he ideal combi-nation ntopractice,buthe does not seem to believe it impossibleto writehistoryin the way that he had envisioned.79The idea that one should have to chooseone ideal over the othersimplydoes not appear,even though, accordingto somecommentators,t should have.The fact that Rankedoes not seem to have doubtedthe tenabilityof either combinationsuggests that the ideals need to be interpreteddifferently, n line with the ocularityof his enterprise: hatis, as aestheticratherthanphilosophicalor methodologicalcategories.In overlooking or downplayingthe visual characterand the aesthetic aspectof Ranke's entire enterprise,or limiting it to the level of historicalrepresenta-tion, recentcommentatorshave neglecteda crucialobservationrepeatedlymadein earlier Ranke literature.Von Sybel, in his memorial speech on Ranke, hadalreadyidentifiedthe core of Ranke's conceptionof historyand historiographyas "the aesthetic oy in every appearance f a particularbeing, a particularife."80Dilthey describedRanke as a "greatartist,"observing the world in a "poeticmood."81GerhardMasur, n his 1926 RankesBegriffder Weltgeschichte,defines"the visualjoy in the concreteevent"as the essence of Ranke's intuition.82

77. Ranke,Das Briefwerk,18.78. See, forexample, Krieger,Ranke: TheMeaningof History, 107; SiegfriedBaur,Versuch iberdie Historikdesjungen Ranke(Berlin:Duncker& Humblot,1998), 83.79. See, forexample,Ranke,SW53/54, 663.80. Von Sybel, "Geddichtnisredeuf Leopold v. Ranke," 468; see also Iggers, "The Image ofRanke,"29-31.81. Dilthey,Der Aufbauder geschichtlichenWelt,118-119.82. Masur,RankesBegriffder Weltgeschichte,66.


14/17

VISIONAS REVISION 57This observation s importantas it helps to explain the coherence of Ranke's

conceptionof historyandhistoriography.As partof properlydeveloped philoso-phy of history seeking to combine universalityand particularity,developmentand individuality,Ranke's enterprisewould have been deeply problematic.83When universalityand particularityare understoodas primarilyaesthetic con-cepts, however, the conflict appearsless critical.84There is no necessary con-tradictionbetweenenjoying a partof a work of artandenjoyingthe work of artas a whole. An operaor an oratorio s not fragmentedby listeners' appreciationof an individualaria;on the contrary, his is "means and end at the same time"(Herder).The very movementbetween the whole and the individualpartscan initself be a sourceof an aestheticexperience, namelyof how the partfits into thewhole, and how the whole is reflectedin the part.85The same principle appliesto the appreciationof individualpersonsor nations in relation to "universalhis-tory"; he aestheticenjoyment may assume slightly differentcharacters,but it isthe same aestheticexperiencenonetheless;and the movementbetweenthe wholeand its parts s likewise a source of aestheticexperience.

Similarly, when critical method is understood as ascertaining"purefacts"(whatever hatmay be), it mightbe in conflict with literaryrepresentation;whencriticalmethodhoweveris understoodas based on creative magination,as Rankein his replyto Leo suggestedit shouldbe, thedistinctionagainloses its sharpness.Criticalmethodmightof coursemean that whateverstorythe historianattemptsto tell falls apartand shows itself to be full of gaps.Yet Ranke,like Niebuhr,wasno stranger o bridgingthese gaps with the help of creative imaginationand acertainelasticityof language,attempting, or instance,to divinethe goings-on inindividualminds,an attempt or which there was little support n the sources.86

II. REVISIONSAND PARADIGMSHIFTS

WasRanke'srevisionof historyandhistoriography paradigm hift?This hasbeenarguedmostrecentlyby SiegfriedBaur,according o whom "aparadigm hift hasseldom been initiated n a moreparadigmaticway"thanRanke's"critiqueof his-tory-writingn general.""87et the character f this revision,especiallyin its rootsin religiousandaestheticexperience,highlights hedifferencebetween revisioninhistoryandparadigmshifts in other scientific disciplines. Paradigms,as definedby ThomasKuhn,are "universallyrecognizedscientific achievementsthatfor atime providemodelproblemsandsolutionsto a communityof practitioners."88Asthe widely differing interpretations nd appropriations f Ranke demonstrate,

83. On this inherentconflict in Rankeanprinciplesunderstoodas philosophicalprinciples,see F.R. Ankersmit,"Historicism:An Attemptat Synthesis,"Historyand Theory34 (1995), 153.84. See Ranke,Das Briefwerk,96.85. On the connection between the historical school and romantichermeneutics,see Gadamer,Truthand Method,195-214.86. Ranke had written n his first work that the historianshould"research he particular nd com-mend the rest to God."87. Baur,Versuch iberdie Historik,80.88. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structureof Scientific Revolutions,2nd ed., enlarged (Chicago andLondon:Universityof ChicagoPress, 1970), viii.


15/17

58 J. D. BRAWhowever, there is no consensus as to the natureof his "scientific achievement"(andit was not "universally ecognized,"even in Germany).Thus there is no consensus on what "Rankean"historiographys or ought tobe: differentgroupshave appropriated ifferentaspects of the holistic Rankeanconceptionof history,andat times endedup with conceptionsalmostcompletelycontrary o that of theirauthority:Ernst Troeltsch'sdescriptionof post-RankeanGermanhistoriography eads like a catalogueof the thingsmost alien to Ranke,such as the "fragmentation ndemptyingof the image of history[ZersplitterungundEntleerungdes historischenBildes]."89 ubsequently,Troeltsch'sdescriptionof the reactionagainst this kind of historiography s, if not identical with, farmore closely relatedto Ranke's vision of historyandhistoriography.9?This dis-crepancybetween achievement and reception(and between various receptions)suggests that there cannotreallybe a "Rankeanparadigm,"providingthe framefor some Rankeannormalscience.

The same goes, it seems, for the notoriouslydifficult concept of historicism,the meaninganduse of which has causedalmostas muchdebate as the phenom-enon it seeks to describe.91Despite this lack of conceptualconsensus,historicismhas been interpreted s a paradigmand indeedas a paradigmatizationn the his-toricaldiscipline.92 Historicismcan be seen as a paradigm n at least three differ-ent ways: as atheoryof human ife, withemphasison its fundamentalhistoricity;as a (critical)scholarly practice;or as a combinationof these two.93Yet the deeper consensus on approachand interpretationpostulated by thetheory of paradigmsfails to appear,even in Germany.A comparisonbetweenthe often supposedlyclosely relatedenterprisesof Ranke andDroysen(in which

Droysen has frequentlybeen given the role of a conceptuallyclearerand morerigorousversionof Ranke)makes clear how little commongroundand how littlecommon understandingherewas in the intellectual movement that has come tobe labeled historicism.94 he comparisonwas indeedmade by the "historicists"themselves: Ranke was highly critical of Droysen's Tendenzgeschichte,andDroysen disapprovedof Ranke's "eunuch-likeobjectivity."95 These were notsuperficialdifferences;on the contrary, hey are relatedto the fundamentalques-tions of the conceptionof time andof the proper ask of the historian.The only way of makingRanke's revisionpartof aparadigm hift,to bringit inline with contemporaryhistorians,philosophers,and so on, is to postulatea low-est common denominator, uch as "a new experienceof reality,"an experience

89. ErnstTroeltsch,Der Historismusund seine Probleme(GesammelteSchiften,vol. 3) (Aalen:Scientia, 1961),4-5.90. Ibid.,5.91. See Georg G. Iggers, "Historicism:The History and Meaning of the Term,"Journal of theHistory of Ideas 56 (1995), 129-137.92. Jorn Rilsen, "Von der Aufkliirung zum Historimus: Idealtypische Perspektiven einesStrukturwandels,"n Von der Aufkldrungzum Historismus: Zum Strukturwandel es historischenDenkens,ed. Horst WalterBlanke andJkrnRtisen(Paderborn: erdinandSchdningh,1984), 21.93. See Iggers,"Historicism,"142-151.94. See Michael J. Maclean,"JohannGustavDroysenand the Developmentof HistoricalHerme-neutics,"Historyand Theory21 (1982), 347-365.95. Ibid., 357-358.


16/17

VISIONAS REVISION 59of the historicityof beingorchangeas afundamental spectof human ife.96Thiswould, however,on the one hand makeVico, Winckelmann,andHerderhistori-cists or at least proto-historicists,"anticipatinghistoricism."On the otherhand,it would quite possibly exclude Ranke:the object of his researchand writing,humanity"as it is," was not fundamentallydifferentover time, at least not moredifferent than it being possible to make general--including moral--statementsabout human affairs.97

These countertheoreticalimitationsandcounterintuitive esults arediscourag-ing in theirown right.But morecrucially,as theoutline of Ranke's revision abovesought to illustrate,the idea of "critical"or "historicist"paradigmstakes onlythe peripheryof Ranke's thought nto consideration.Ranke did insist on criticalmethod,but unless his reasonsfor doing so andthe creative-imaginativeway inwhich he pursuedcritical research s takeninto account,the "paradigm"emainsa mere shadow of Ranke's thought.In the same way, "change"does describean integral aspect of Ranke's thought;but unless the way in which change andtransformation,ogetherwith interdependence,he "causalnexus,"personalandnationalindividuality,and other expressionsof historical life capturedRanke'simaginationand led to historical-aesthetic xperience,the concept of "change"itself does not approach he coreor explainthe coherenceof Ranke'sthought.98In the paradigm-based nterpretation,Rankebecomes eithera leaderof semi-nars,a historicalthinker,or a historicalwriter;yet he attempted o be all in oneand all at once. By necessity, the constructionof a criticalor historicistparadigmhas the same effect on any otherhistoricalenterprisebelieved to be partof thesame broaderdevelopmentsof historiography.Complexityandindividualityaresacrificedfor the sakeof overallcoherence; heindividualhistorian s replacedbya supraindividual ubject,"Historicism,"with an intellectual ife of its own.The difference between these two kinds of observationmight be described asone of taste,and as suchfalling underthe rule of non disputandum.Yet the curi-ous fact that histories or prehistoriesof historicism writtenby self-proclaimedhistoricists tend to be so overtlyantihistoricist, hatis, presentinghistoricism asthe telos of a process in which the historicist state of mindgraduallyovercomesthe barriersof humanthoughtandrealizesitself, suggests a crucialway in whichthe historicaldiscipline differs from physics.99"Normalscience"may be regu-larlyconfrontedwith anomalies;butit is inconceivablethat a practitioner f nor-mal science committed to the approachesand solutionsof the currentparadigmwouldactivelyproduce hese anomalies.Yet this has been shownto be eminentlypossible in historiography.n otherwords,a historicalconceptionis neitherfullycommunicatednorfully appropriated.

96. See, for example, Ulrich Muhlack, Geschichtswissenschaft m Humanismus und in derAufkliirung:Die Vorgeschichtedes Historismus Munich:VerlagC. H. Beck, 1991), 414.97. See Gilbert,History:Politics or Culture?38-40.98. For a descriptionof thiscoherence,see von derDunk,"DiehistorischeDarstellungbei Ranke,"144.

99. The most obvious example of this kind of interpretations Meinecke's Die EntstehungdesHistorismus.FriedrichMeinecke, Werke,vol. III:Die Entstehungdes Historismus,ed. CarlHinrichs(Munich: R. OldenbourgVerlag, 1965), 580; cf. Meinecke, Werke,vol. IV, 344; for a modemexample, see Iggers,"Historicism,"146.

LEER A DETALLE STEPRRAFO!


17/17

60 J. D. BRAWThis is especially trueof Ranke's conceptionof history,which might explainthe diversityamongRanke's students.'"Being grounded n aestheticexperience,Ranke'svision of historycan only be brought nto languageby meansof analo-

gies andmetaphors.Thatis, it can only to a limited extent be shared: t does nothave the force to prove its correctness,nor does it attempt o.'01At most, it canevoke a similarexperiencein the studentor reader;but alreadythere,it mergeswith other factors, mixes with different motives (moral, political, scientific,religious, and so on), and assumes a different character.Von Sybel, Dove, andMeinecke were all, in differentsenses, influencedby the Rankeanconceptionofhistory,andyet none of them(or indeedanyoneelse) worked or representedhis-tory in the same way as Ranke.

Moreover,even the very methodbeing based on "imagination," s von Sybelcalls it, "normalscience" or a "scientific community"could hardly emerge.Eitherthe followers could "slip into routine and miss the profundity"'12f theirauthority,beginningto carryout "mopping-up perations"'03andinvestigateevermore minusculefractionsof theirfield;or theycould continuethetradition,usingtheir own imaginationand literary creativity.In both cases, they wrote historyquite different from that of their authority.Following Ranke, in other words,always impliednot following Ranke.Ranke'sconceptionof historyandhistoriographywas a deeply individualandhistorically particularconstellation of "religious and philosophical interests,"emotionaldetachment,aestheticperceptivity,dislike of extremes,creativeimagi-nation, a certainmoral insensitivity, and political indifference,belonging to agenerationwhose experiencesdifferedradicallybothfromthose of the precedinggenerationand from those of the generationof his followers.'"1n this way, theterm Rankeused to describe his studentsand students' students-as a "scientificfamily"'10- seems to capturemoreof thediversityanddevelopmentof this groupthandoes "paradigm."The Rankean egacy is indeedconfusingand ambiguous;however, given its seemingly infinite capacity to give rise to historiographicalreflection anddebate,it could as well be describedas rich andcomplex.

UniversityCollege London/UniversitdtBielefeld

100. And indeed,the diversityof views held by Ranke;as Gadamerhas shown, thereis a strongHegelianelementin the anti-HegelianRanke'sthought.Gadamer,TruthandMethod,201.101. Ranke,Vorlesungseinleitungen,7, 83.102. HerbertButterfield,Man on His Past: The Study of the Historyof Historical Scholarship(Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniversityPress, 1955), 100.103. Kuhn,The Structureof ScientificRevolutions,24.104. See, for example,Meinecke,Ranke undBurckhardt, , 7.105. Von Sybel, "Gedichtnisredeauf Leopoldv. Ranke,"476.

braw-ranke.pdf

Documents