Skip to main content

ahlect024

<?xml version="1.0"?>

<!DOCTYPE TEI.2 SYSTEM "base.dtd">

<TEI.2><teiHeader>

<fileDesc>

<titleStmt>

<title>Ranke</title></titleStmt>

<publicationStmt><distributor>BASE and Oxford Text Archive</distributor>

<idno>ahlct024</idno>

<availability><p>The British Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading, under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Centre for English Language Teacher Education, Warwick) and Paul Thompson

(Department of Applied Linguistics, Reading), with funding from BALEAP,

EURALEX, the British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. The

original recordings are held at the Universities of Warwick and Reading, and

at the Oxford Text Archive and may be consulted by bona fide researchers

upon written application to any of the holding bodies.

The BASE corpus is freely available to researchers who agree to the

following conditions:</p>

<p>1. The recordings and transcriptions should not be modified in any

way</p>

<p>2. The recordings and transcriptions should be used for research purposes

only; they should not be reproduced in teaching materials</p>

<p>3. The recordings and transcriptions should not be reproduced in full for

a wider audience/readership, although researchers are free to quote short

passages of text (up to 200 running words from any given speech event)</p>

<p>4. The corpus developers should be informed of all presentations or

publications arising from analysis of the corpus</p><p>

Researchers should acknowledge their use of the corpus using the following

form of words:

The recordings and transcriptions used in this study come from the British

Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus, which was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Warwick) and Paul Thompson (Reading). Corpus development was assisted by

funding from the Universities of Warwick and Reading, BALEAP, EURALEX, the

British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. </p></availability>

</publicationStmt>

<sourceDesc>

<recordingStmt>

<recording dur="00:49:46" n="8262">

<date>20/10/1999</date><equipment><p>video</p></equipment>

<respStmt><name>BASE team</name>

</respStmt></recording></recordingStmt></sourceDesc></fileDesc>

<profileDesc>

<langUsage><language id="en">English</language>

<language id="fr">French</language>

<language id="de">German</language>

<language id="la">Latin</language>

</langUsage>

<particDesc>

<person id="nm0087" role="main speaker" n="n" sex="m"><p>nm0087, main speaker, non-student, male</p></person>

<personGrp id="ss" role="audience" size="m"><p>ss, audience, medium group </p></personGrp>

<personGrp id="sl" role="all" size="m"><p>sl, all, medium group</p></personGrp>

<personGrp role="speakers" size="3"><p>number of speakers: 3</p></personGrp>

</particDesc>

<textClass>

<keywords>

<list>

<item n="speechevent">Lecture</item>

<item n="acaddept">History</item>

<item n="acaddiv">ah</item>

<item n="partlevel">UG3</item>

<item n="module">Historiography</item>

</list></keywords>

</textClass>

</profileDesc></teiHeader><text><body>

<u who="nm0087"> okay <pause dur="0.8"/> Leopold von Ranke <pause dur="1.5"/> he's dead <pause dur="0.7"/> and he's German <pause dur="0.6"/> but do we need to know more about him <pause dur="0.3"/> well we probably do <pause dur="0.5"/> even though he's not a historian who is read <pause dur="0.2"/> all that much today perhaps more than most historians <pause dur="0.3"/> of that time <pause dur="0.6"/> i should # add at this point by the way before i claim any # <pause dur="0.2"/> credit or otherwise that the lecture i'm about to give is actually the lecture normally given by Dr <gap reason="name" extent="2 words"/> <pause dur="0.4"/> who's kindly given me his lecture notes and <pause dur="0.3"/> while i've added one or two details <pause dur="0.3"/> the # substance of the lecture today <pause dur="0.3"/> is almost all his so # <pause dur="0.3"/> he's with us in spirit and # <pause dur="0.3"/> any questions that you have should probably be directed to him <pause dur="0.3"/> rather than me as he is the # <pause dur="0.4"/> the only begetter <pause dur="0.3"/> of this lecture <pause dur="1.4"/> so # <gap reason="name" extent="2 words"/> actually told me the other day that <pause dur="0.2"/> Ranke <pause dur="0.3"/> some of his writings on diplomatic history in the late nineteenth century <pause dur="0.3"/> is still someone whom he recommend <pause dur="0.3"/> to students to read <pause dur="0.4"/> on various subjects <pause dur="0.2"/> and so it is the case that some of what he's written <pause dur="0.3"/> is still read

today as history <pause dur="0.5"/> but that's not <pause dur="0.2"/> probably the main reason <pause dur="0.2"/> that <pause dur="0.3"/> we <pause dur="0.2"/> we # we ask you to look at him in this historiography course <pause dur="0.5"/> # in nineteen-ninety-nine <pause dur="1.2"/> other things <pause dur="0.3"/> which owe a lot to his influence perhaps are not so immediately obvious <pause dur="0.4"/> but the fact for instance that you've been studying for most of the last two-and-a-half years in seminar groups <pause dur="0.4"/> and the fact that you've # learned how to use the footnote function on Microsoft Word <pause dur="0.4"/> are indirectly tributes to Ranke <pause dur="0.4"/> who was one of the most important <pause dur="0.4"/> # historians <pause dur="0.3"/> in using these new as they were in the nineteenth century <pause dur="0.3"/> new methods to try and put forward a new <pause dur="0.3"/> scientific type of history <pause dur="0.3"/> getting away from the more sort of romantic and unobjective sort of history <pause dur="0.3"/> that had existed before he didn't invent these methods <pause dur="0.2"/> but he was very influential <pause dur="0.3"/> in popularizing them so # <pause dur="0.3"/> seminars and # footnotes are at least some of the # the legacies of Ranke <pause dur="0.2"/> you might say <pause dur="1.6"/> in the lecture plan that you'll see on the # <pause dur="0.2"/> the

handout <pause dur="0.6"/> i'll just briefly go through what we're going to <pause dur="0.2"/> go through today first of all <pause dur="0.5"/> we're going to talk a little bit about who Ranke was <pause dur="0.5"/> where he came from what his intellectual background was <pause dur="0.4"/> and why <pause dur="0.2"/> he decided to become <pause dur="0.3"/> a historian <pause dur="1.1"/> we'll then talk a bit about the way in which he studied history which is probably the most important thing you'll take away <pause dur="0.2"/> i hope from the lecture but also from your reading <pause dur="0.2"/> and your seminars <pause dur="0.3"/> on Ranke <pause dur="0.3"/> in other words the ideas that changed the way in which historians <pause dur="0.2"/> think about <pause dur="0.3"/> history <pause dur="0.8"/> we'll talk a bit about the kind of history that went before and therefore what <pause dur="0.2"/> Ranke was # reacting against <pause dur="0.5"/> and then we'll finish off <pause dur="0.3"/> by talking a bit about the dangers <pause dur="0.2"/> with # the methods that Ranke <pause dur="0.3"/> wanted to put forward <pause dur="0.9"/> so that's the # <pause dur="0.2"/> plan for today and <pause dur="0.4"/> if you look at the back of the lecture sheet you can see how we'll <pause dur="0.3"/> map through that <pause dur="2.4"/> Ranke was probably the most prolific and most influential professor of history <pause dur="0.7"/> anywhere in Europe in the

nineteenth century <pause dur="1.3"/> his ideas lived on into into of the # works of a lot of twentieth century historians <pause dur="0.3"/> including Geoffrey Elton who you may have come across in your reading before <pause dur="0.3"/> relatively conservative British historian <pause dur="0.6"/> although others of his ideas <pause dur="0.2"/> already were beginning to look <pause dur="0.3"/> old hat <pause dur="0.3"/> during the nineteenth century <pause dur="1.0"/> he wrote <pause dur="0.3"/> a lot <pause dur="0.4"/> he lived for ninety years admittedly but <pause dur="0.2"/> even during that time <pause dur="0.4"/> he still managed to publish sixty-three very large volumes of history which is # <pause dur="0.2"/> pretty good going <pause dur="0.6"/> and # <pause dur="0.3"/> in this century <pause dur="0.4"/> six more volumes were published after his death <pause dur="0.3"/> of his lectures <pause dur="0.2"/> diaries <pause dur="0.3"/> and correspondence <pause dur="0.2"/> so there's a great deal of Ranke's writing <pause dur="0.3"/> out there <pause dur="0.4"/> all of which you'll be expected to read of course by the end of next week for the seminar <pause dur="1.7"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="1" n="ss"/> he # for the last fifteen years of his life <pause dur="0.3"/> was blind <pause dur="0.2"/> and he relied on # <pause dur="0.2"/> dictating to <pause dur="0.2"/> scribes who would write down <pause dur="0.3"/> what he was saying <pause dur="0.4"/> including # his nine volumes of Ranke's world history <pause dur="0.3"/> which # <pause dur="0.3"/> oddly enough

was actually unfinished by his death <pause dur="0.3"/> and only reached the early modern period <pause dur="1.2"/> all of his life <pause dur="0.3"/> he wanted to write <pause dur="0.2"/> world history <pause dur="0.3"/> and here you have this whole kind of stream of thinking which you know about from previous courses <pause dur="0.3"/> the Enlightenment and so on very much influencing <pause dur="0.3"/> people like Ranke <pause dur="0.4"/> everyone trying to find <pause dur="0.3"/> the ultimate knowledge that would let you solve anything the whole sort of <pause dur="0.3"/> # legacy of the # <pause dur="0.2"/> the age of reason there <pause dur="1.2"/> however on his way towards this world history in the previous sort of <pause dur="0.2"/> sixty-odd years <pause dur="0.4"/> Ranke was diverted <pause dur="0.3"/> into writing numerous national histories <pause dur="0.2"/> which were going to be the sort of building blocks for this ultimate universal history <pause dur="0.3"/> that he was planning to write <pause dur="1.2"/> his quality has to be judged <pause dur="0.2"/> by the multivolume works of his mature period <pause dur="0.4"/> and these are the histories of the papacy <pause dur="0.7"/> of Germany in the age of Reformation <pause dur="0.5"/> and also of England and France <pause dur="0.2"/> in early modern times <pause dur="1.5"/> his motto for what he was doing was <pause dur="0.3"/> <distinct lang="la">labor ipse voluptas</distinct> <pause dur="0.4"/> meaning work

itself <pause dur="0.2"/> is pleasure <pause dur="0.5"/> with the kind of hint that word <distinct lang="la">voluptas</distinct> if any of you sort of done Latin <pause dur="0.4"/> will know that it means sort of kind of <pause dur="0.2"/> pleasure of an almost sort of erotic and sexual kind <pause dur="0.8"/> you may or may not wish to relate that to the fact that he didn't actually get married till he was forty-eight <pause dur="0.5"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="1" n="ss"/> and he used to write letters to his brother <pause dur="0.8"/> about caressing documents in the archives <pause dur="0.3"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="1" n="ss"/> as if they were loved ones <pause dur="0.3"/> now one critic Krieger <pause dur="0.5"/> # put a Freudian kind of spin on this and # other statements he made trying to show that this showed that Ranke was sort of you know <pause dur="0.5"/> # you know getting off with these documents instead of off # with # with his wife <pause dur="0.4"/> but # it is entirely possible of course that he may be making a joke this is something that Freudian critics don't always # <pause dur="0.4"/> take on board <pause dur="1.3"/> and # the critic # Nicholas # i think it's Nicholas Kenyon <pause dur="0.3"/> pointed out in a review of Krieger that <pause dur="0.5"/> quotes <reading>just as Ranke needed to write history for

self-fulfillment <pause dur="0.3"/> so he needed also to torment himself <pause dur="0.2"/> on his motives <pause dur="0.2"/> for doing so</reading> <pause dur="0.2"/> so a very kind of you know Freudian thing there you know kind of the pleasure and the pain all together <pause dur="0.4"/> and certainly although there must have been pleasure there must have been an awful lot of pain in writing sixty-three <pause dur="0.3"/> fat volumes of history <pause dur="0.4"/> as well <pause dur="1.2"/> the one thing he didn't write a whole volume on ever which is a bit ironic from the point of view of this course <pause dur="0.4"/> is on what he thought he was doing <pause dur="0.3"/> on the nature of history <pause dur="0.5"/> he only wrote fragments about this subject in the prefaces to his main works <pause dur="0.3"/> in some in the lectures he sometimes gave <pause dur="0.3"/> and in occasional essays <pause dur="0.4"/> so we're basically putting together all these other bits of evidence <pause dur="0.2"/> to try and produce a picture <pause dur="0.3"/> of what Ranke actually thought <pause dur="0.3"/> about the way you should write <pause dur="0.2"/> history <pause dur="1.5"/> in that picture <pause dur="0.3"/> there are two main ideas <pause dur="0.2"/> that you need to keep in mind <pause dur="0.7"/> first of all <pause dur="0.6"/> Ranke was not <pause dur="0.2"/> just a <pause dur="0.3"/> fact man he wasn't just

sitting there writing down you know kind of a narrative of <pause dur="0.3"/> this happened in sixteen-eighty-four and then this happened in sixteen-eighty-five <pause dur="0.3"/> and all that sort of thing <pause dur="0.6"/> he was not <pause dur="0.3"/> just <pause dur="0.2"/> doing that # he was not just doing a sort of political narrative <pause dur="0.9"/> the second point to keep in mind which is <pause dur="0.3"/> related to that <pause dur="0.5"/> is that <pause dur="0.9"/> rather like Karl Marx <pause dur="0.6"/> Ranke <pause dur="0.3"/> had <pause dur="0.3"/> stages as a thinker <pause dur="0.3"/> so there's an early Ranke <pause dur="0.3"/> a middle Ranke <pause dur="0.3"/> and a late Ranke just as people talk about late Marx or <pause dur="0.2"/> early Marx <pause dur="0.8"/> early Ranke is probably up till about eighteen-thirty <pause dur="0.6"/> the mature Ranke is about eighteen-thirty to the early eighteen-sixties <pause dur="0.5"/> and the late Ranke <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> as interpreted by <pause dur="0.3"/> the later Rankeans in other words his pupils <pause dur="0.5"/> was # <pause dur="0.7"/> after the eighteen-sixties until his death <pause dur="1.4"/> now obviously the people who came last people like his students were trying to later suggest that what he believed late in his life <pause dur="0.3"/> was what he believed all of his life sort of airbrushing over the past <pause dur="0.3"/> but we need to actually get

back and look at what he was saying throughout his life <pause dur="0.3"/> to understand how his thought <pause dur="0.3"/> developed <pause dur="0.7"/> and of course the one thing you cannot expect <pause dur="0.8"/> i'm sure you wouldn't expect <pause dur="0.3"/> is that the man's going to be completely consistent for the entire sixty-odd years <pause dur="0.3"/> that he was writing history <pause dur="0.5"/> 'cause he was constantly rethinking <pause dur="0.2"/> his approach and so you will find <pause dur="0.3"/> contradictions <pause dur="0.3"/> in what he said about history <pause dur="1.4"/> what we can do today <pause dur="0.3"/> is to draw attention <pause dur="0.2"/> to certain themes that preoccupied Ranke <pause dur="0.3"/> throughout his career <pause dur="0.6"/> and occasional glances at the way in which that <pause dur="0.2"/> that changed <pause dur="1.3"/> so we're going to look at the way in which he was a product of his time <pause dur="0.7"/> the nature <pause dur="0.2"/> degree of originality of his contribution <pause dur="0.3"/> to the development of historical studies <pause dur="0.8"/> the philosophical underpinning of his method <pause dur="0.5"/> and the dangers and shortcoming <pause dur="0.3"/> # presented <pause dur="2.7"/> okay <pause dur="0.3"/> let's talk now a bit a ben then about <pause dur="0.3"/> Ranke's life particularly his background <pause dur="1.5"/> he was very largely influenced by his religious upbringing <pause dur="0.3"/> and

that's important to know <pause dur="0.9"/> as well as that the political events of a century <pause dur="0.5"/> # most of which he experienced 'cause he lived throughout <pause dur="0.7"/> most of the nineteenth century <pause dur="0.6"/> and of course his educational training was important too <pause dur="1.6"/> so first <pause dur="0.4"/> his forefathers in the male line were all Lutheran pastors <pause dur="0.4"/> with the exception of his father <pause dur="0.2"/> who was a lawyer <pause dur="1.0"/> but Ranke himself <pause dur="0.2"/> was not an orthodox Lutheran <pause dur="0.7"/> he disliked the institutions of the contemporary church <pause dur="0.3"/> and its doctrine <pause dur="0.3"/> which at that time was supported by highly <pause dur="0.2"/> rationalist <pause dur="0.2"/> arguments <pause dur="0.2"/> and again this is the legacy of the Enlightenment and so on <pause dur="1.3"/> Ranke was not <pause dur="0.2"/> rationalist in that very strict sense <pause dur="0.2"/> he was more in the sort of mystical tradition pietist you might say <pause dur="0.4"/> saying that you couldn't know God <pause dur="0.2"/> through doctrine <pause dur="0.3"/> you had to know him through history <pause dur="0.7"/> in other words <pause dur="0.4"/> Ranke saw the hand of God <pause dur="0.3"/> at work <pause dur="0.2"/> in <pause dur="0.3"/> history <pause dur="0.3"/> in <gap reason="name" extent="2 words"/>'s notes say <pause dur="0.3"/> rather like Maradona <pause dur="0.2"/> so # so that's the comparison that came to <pause dur="0.2"/> his mind <pause dur="1.5"/> therefore for

Ranke <pause dur="0.8"/> history was a holy hieroglyph <pause dur="0.4"/> whose deciphering was in effect a sacred priestly type of calling <pause dur="0.6"/> <reading>historical writing</reading> wrote Ranke <pause dur="0.3"/> <reading>is an office which can only be compared to that of the priest</reading> <pause dur="0.8"/> and it was his # <pause dur="0.3"/> in a sense his religious calling really rather more than any of the supposed sexual urges <pause dur="0.3"/> that were sublimated <pause dur="0.2"/> in his work <pause dur="0.2"/> as a historian in other words he wasn't going to become a priest <pause dur="0.3"/> so he but he did decide <pause dur="0.2"/> to become a historian there's two aspects of <trunc>th</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> of the same part of his character <pause dur="1.8"/> okay what was going on around Ranke then well his early life <trunc>cons</trunc> coincided <pause dur="0.3"/> with <pause dur="0.2"/> the French Revolution <pause dur="0.7"/> followed of course by Napoleon's invasion of the German states <pause dur="0.3"/> including Saxony <pause dur="0.3"/> where Ranke was born <pause dur="0.8"/> and then of course <pause dur="0.2"/> the Restoration <pause dur="0.3"/> of eighteen-fifteen <pause dur="0.5"/> now all of these events war turmoil revolution and

so on <pause dur="0.4"/> actually turned him <pause dur="0.4"/> into a very conservative <pause dur="0.2"/> character <pause dur="0.5"/> he had a big <trunc>s</trunc> a great suspicion <pause dur="0.3"/> of <pause dur="0.3"/> Enlightenment ideas which we may think are all about rationality and so on <pause dur="0.3"/> but Ranke saw the result of <pause dur="0.4"/> and he held them responsible <pause dur="0.3"/> for political chaos <pause dur="1.4"/> so <pause dur="0.4"/> he believed therefore in an allegiance to the monarchy <pause dur="0.6"/> and the principle <pause dur="0.2"/> of the balance of power <pause dur="0.4"/> which was of course famously <pause dur="0.3"/> the result <pause dur="0.2"/> of the eighteen-fifteen <pause dur="0.2"/> political settlement and <pause dur="0.2"/> you know the famous <pause dur="0.3"/> thing supposedly is that it kept <pause dur="0.4"/> the broad peace in Europe <pause dur="0.2"/> for ninety-nine years <pause dur="0.2"/> until the outbreak <pause dur="0.2"/> of <pause dur="0.2"/> the First World War <pause dur="0.6"/> and that was fine as far as Ranke went <pause dur="1.7"/> the career of Napoleon <pause dur="0.2"/> who again obviously Ranke had looked at with some interest <pause dur="0.5"/> gave pause for thought <pause dur="0.4"/> that great men could influence <pause dur="0.2"/> the cause <pause dur="0.2"/> # the course <pause dur="0.2"/> of <pause dur="0.3"/> history <pause dur="0.6"/> because Napoleon's defeat <pause dur="0.2"/> showed that forces of continuity <pause dur="0.3"/> were at work in the states and the nations <pause dur="0.3"/> that were able to resist Napoleon's attack <pause dur="0.5"/> but that also history could

sometimes at least temporarily <pause dur="0.3"/> be diverted from its course <pause dur="0.4"/> by an individual <pause dur="0.2"/> who had sufficient greatness <pause dur="0.3"/> in other words <pause dur="0.2"/> history's always kind of going in a straight line <pause dur="0.3"/> in effect <pause dur="0.4"/> but someone like Napoleon can briefly wrench it to the side <pause dur="0.4"/> and the other forces of order have to sort of work quite hard <pause dur="0.3"/> to bring it back <pause dur="1.7"/> Ranke's drift towards this <pause dur="0.2"/> conservative position was reinforced by the threats posed <pause dur="0.3"/> by the July revolution of eighteen-thirty <pause dur="0.5"/> and the revolutionary outbreaks <pause dur="0.2"/> of eighteen-forty-eight <pause dur="0.5"/> and then of course by the unification of Germany <pause dur="0.3"/> in eighteen-seventy-one <pause dur="0.7"/> at first he had not been in favour of this <pause dur="0.2"/> because it excluded Austria which he thought <pause dur="0.3"/> ought to have been <pause dur="0.2"/> included <pause dur="1.6"/> now because Ranke served the Prussian monarchy in various capacities <pause dur="0.4"/> and had regular correspondence with the king of Bavaria <pause dur="0.3"/> and the foreign ministers of Prussia <pause dur="0.3"/> and Austria <pause dur="0.4"/> and later even with Bismarck <pause dur="0.5"/> Karl Marx <pause dur="0.3"/> once rather contemptuously called him <kinesic desc="makes quotation mark gesture" iterated="n"/> quotes <pause dur="0.3"/> a born

palace servant <pause dur="0.2"/> in other words kind of a <pause dur="0.2"/> a <trunc>li</trunc> # a lickspittle <pause dur="0.8"/> there's an element of truth <pause dur="0.3"/> in this accusation <pause dur="0.5"/> although it's true <pause dur="0.2"/> also <pause dur="0.2"/> that Ranke <pause dur="0.3"/> turned to the Prussian government <pause dur="0.3"/> mainly because it was willing to give him <pause dur="0.2"/> financial support <pause dur="0.3"/> for his research abroad <pause dur="0.4"/> which his institution <pause dur="0.2"/> the University of Berlin which he was a professor at <pause dur="0.3"/> refused to do <pause dur="0.5"/> nothing much changes if you ever try and get research money out of this university you'd find it # equally hard <pause dur="0.5"/> not that i've yet been # <pause dur="0.4"/> asked to go and # <pause dur="0.4"/> # play lickspittle to Tony Blair and get money in return for it but one can always live in hope <pause dur="0.8"/> so Ranke's loyalty to the Prussian state <pause dur="0.3"/> was not <pause dur="0.2"/> therefore <pause dur="0.2"/> unqualified <pause dur="0.3"/> it was partly to do <pause dur="0.2"/> with their <pause dur="0.2"/> sponsorship of him <pause dur="1.8"/> okay let's think then about <pause dur="0.2"/> what it was that Ranke was studying <pause dur="0.2"/> at university <pause dur="0.6"/> now he had trained as a philologist <pause dur="0.5"/> he applied <pause dur="0.3"/> textual criticism <pause dur="0.3"/> which was something that had been developing since the Renaissance <pause dur="0.4"/> he applied it to the

study of literature <pause dur="0.4"/> and then <pause dur="0.5"/> moved from literature to taking a textual analysis <pause dur="0.2"/> of the ancient historian <pause dur="0.3"/> Thucydides <pause dur="0.3"/> and then later <pause dur="0.3"/> the works of Martin Luther <pause dur="1.1"/> he only became a historian of the more modern era <pause dur="0.4"/> later on <pause dur="0.6"/> he first of all became a school teacher <pause dur="0.3"/> applying the skills he had learned earlier <pause dur="0.3"/> to modern <pause dur="0.2"/> historical sources <pause dur="0.7"/> he also reacted at this point <pause dur="0.8"/> against <pause dur="0.3"/> what you might call the philosophical school <pause dur="0.3"/> of historians <pause dur="0.3"/> and we'll say a bit more about that later on <pause dur="0.7"/> and also against the Romantic historians <pause dur="0.3"/> of whom the most foremost <pause dur="0.3"/> was <pause dur="0.2"/> the British # writer <pause dur="0.2"/> Sir Walter Scott <pause dur="1.2"/> between about eighteen-ten and eighteen-twenty-three <pause dur="0.4"/> Sir Walter Scott's works swept across Europe <pause dur="0.8"/> and # Ranke disliked intensely <pause dur="0.3"/> the ways in which he saw <pause dur="0.5"/> correctly <pause dur="0.3"/> that Scott <pause dur="0.2"/> had either distorted his sources <pause dur="0.4"/> or relied on them <pause dur="0.2"/> so slavishly <pause dur="0.3"/> that he refused to criticize them and suggest that maybe they weren't telling the absolute truth <pause dur="0.5"/> but <pause dur="0.4"/> were biased in their own way <pause dur="0.4"/> so Ranke was

attempting to react <pause dur="0.2"/> against that <pause dur="1.8"/> and that brings us to the next section which is to think about what Ranke himself contributed to <pause dur="0.3"/> the historical field <pause dur="1.4"/> well first <pause dur="0.8"/> Ranke insisted on using sources <pause dur="0.3"/> close to the events described <pause dur="0.7"/> and this may obviously you know seem obvious to us now <pause dur="0.3"/> but at the time <pause dur="0.2"/> it really was something <pause dur="0.2"/> of a breakthrough <pause dur="0.8"/> he also insisted on subjecting all sources of whatever period <pause dur="0.3"/> to critical analysis <pause dur="0.5"/> so this in practice meant that he searched very hard to find out if something was a forgery and sometimes you know it was <pause dur="0.6"/> he compared sources with one another so that you'd get a sort of # <pause dur="0.8"/> wider view <pause dur="0.3"/> of one particular period <pause dur="0.5"/> and he also placed his sources in their historical context <pause dur="0.8"/> his first book <pause dur="0.3"/> which was the History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations <pause dur="0.4"/> which only dealt with twenty years from fourteen-ninety-four <pause dur="0.3"/> up to # <pause dur="0.3"/> fifteen-fourteen <pause dur="1.6"/> used <pause dur="0.2"/> mainly <pause dur="0.3"/> contemporary Italian historians of the time <pause dur="0.3"/> including people like <pause dur="0.4"/> Giovio <pause dur="6.4"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="4"/> but at

the same time as using these <pause dur="0.2"/> contemporary Italian sources <pause dur="0.6"/> he also put out another <pause dur="0.2"/> companion volume <pause dur="0.2"/> which criticized their reliability and pointed out things that he could see were loopholes in what they were saying <pause dur="0.4"/> even at the time <pause dur="0.6"/> and most of Ranke's major books <pause dur="0.2"/> had a similar kind of appendix volume <pause dur="0.3"/> of source criticism <pause dur="0.3"/> critiquing <pause dur="0.3"/> the <pause dur="0.3"/> # materials which he used <pause dur="0.3"/> to actually write the book itself <pause dur="1.7"/> after the first book however <pause dur="0.4"/> Ranke discovered <pause dur="0.3"/> manuscript sources <pause dur="0.4"/> especially the reports of the Venetian ambassadors <pause dur="0.2"/> from all around Europe <pause dur="0.8"/> and he spent years in auction houses and at archives in Germany <pause dur="0.3"/> Venice <pause dur="0.2"/> Rome and elsewhere <pause dur="0.3"/> ferreting out these <pause dur="0.4"/> more immediate sources <pause dur="0.3"/> which had not <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>pre</trunc> # which had not passed <pause dur="0.3"/> through the prism <pause dur="0.2"/> of a contemporary <pause dur="0.3"/> chronicler's <pause dur="0.2"/> mind <pause dur="0.3"/> in other words <pause dur="0.2"/> people like Giovio <pause dur="0.2"/> were still one step away from <pause dur="0.3"/> you know the ideal in a sense because <pause dur="0.3"/> they were taking contemporary sources but they were putting their own spin on it <pause dur="0.3"/> whereas these <pause dur="0.2"/> original

documents from the ambassadors <pause dur="0.3"/> were <pause dur="0.2"/> the real thing written at the time without retrospective knowledge <pause dur="0.4"/> and therefore in a sense the purest kind of source <pause dur="0.3"/> to use <pause dur="0.3"/> and we <trunc>d</trunc> operate many very similar assumptions today <pause dur="0.3"/> when writing history <pause dur="1.5"/> so after about eighteen-thirty <pause dur="0.5"/> a lot of archives which had been closed unto that point # up to that point in Europe <pause dur="0.4"/> began very slowly to open up <pause dur="0.3"/> to <pause dur="0.2"/> historians <pause dur="0.4"/> and Ranke was often able to consult <pause dur="0.3"/> material <pause dur="0.3"/> which had not previously been <pause dur="0.3"/> available <pause dur="0.3"/> to <pause dur="0.2"/> historians <pause dur="1.7"/> he at one point said <pause dur="0.4"/> <reading>God must have an archive <pause dur="0.2"/> in heaven</reading> <pause dur="1.7"/> now he tended to # not be so keen on the more mundane bureaucratic sources <pause dur="0.6"/> # for <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> the # for the for the kind of histories he was writing <pause dur="0.4"/> he was keener on the sort of considered and contrived <pause dur="0.2"/> diplomatic reports <pause dur="0.3"/> the reason being that he thought that foreign observers <pause dur="0.2"/> were actually more qualified than people from a country itself <pause dur="0.4"/> to talk about what was happening there because they had a more sort

of outside <pause dur="0.4"/> eye <pause dur="0.7"/> he also believed on the same principle <pause dur="0.3"/> that historians should always try <pause dur="0.3"/> and study countries other than their own <pause dur="0.3"/> because they were <pause dur="0.3"/> you know too involved with # the culture of their own place whereas they could look <pause dur="0.4"/> at somewhere else <pause dur="0.2"/> with a much fresher eye <pause dur="2.1"/> what else did he do <pause dur="0.7"/> he developed the methods and the tools of professional <pause dur="0.2"/> history <pause dur="0.8"/> now some of those had been available before <pause dur="0.3"/> such as the editing of texts in other words taking some <pause dur="0.3"/> manuscript source or whatever <pause dur="0.2"/> and publishing edition in which you put sort of side notes and things explaining <pause dur="0.4"/> where it came from who these people were and <pause dur="0.3"/> how to use it <pause dur="0.8"/> also the use of footnotes which i mentioned at the beginning <pause dur="0.4"/> now again he didn't invent these <pause dur="0.3"/> these had been used especially in the previous century the # eighteenth century <pause dur="0.3"/> amongst historians <pause dur="0.3"/> in <pause dur="0.2"/> Göttingen <pause dur="0.3"/> in # <pause dur="0.9"/> in Germany <pause dur="0.5"/> and also by <pause dur="0.2"/> ancient historians <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="9"/> historians of <pause dur="0.5"/> the classical world <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> in # <pause dur="1.4"/> in Germany <pause dur="1.1"/> <trunc>b</trunc> <pause dur="2.2"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/> but Ranke <pause dur="0.4"/>

was taking a new step by applying these methods <pause dur="0.2"/> for the first time <pause dur="0.3"/> to modern history in other words history since fifteen-hundred <pause dur="0.5"/> and also used them much more systematically <pause dur="0.2"/> than they'd been used before <pause dur="2.1"/> then he also came on to the idea of the research seminar in other words the small group of people <pause dur="0.3"/> swapping <pause dur="0.3"/> great historical thoughts which you know <pause dur="0.2"/> obviously from your own experience <pause dur="0.3"/> here <pause dur="0.7"/> now this kind of seminar again he didn't invent it <pause dur="0.4"/> but it had previously been used mainly for teaching philology in small study groups <pause dur="0.7"/> and it was now used <pause dur="0.2"/> after Ranke <pause dur="0.2"/> for historical studies <pause dur="0.4"/> beginning with meetings which Ranke held <pause dur="0.3"/> in his own house <pause dur="1.2"/> during the course of the century <pause dur="1.0"/> others picked up the baton <pause dur="0.2"/> from <pause dur="0.2"/> Ranke <pause dur="0.5"/> and developed seminars in other universities so the idea that he pioneered <pause dur="0.2"/> then spread out elsewhere <pause dur="0.3"/> throughout the intellectual community <pause dur="0.4"/> of Europe <pause dur="1.0"/> learned journals devoted to history <pause dur="0.2"/> also emerged <pause dur="0.6"/> series of critical editions of documents and texts <pause dur="0.4"/>

special chairs professorships in history at university <pause dur="0.8"/> the beginning of an academic bookmarket in history <pause dur="0.7"/> and also conferences at which people get together <pause dur="0.4"/> and swap ideas <pause dur="0.4"/> and papers <pause dur="0.2"/> about history <pause dur="0.7"/> these are all developments of the nineteenth century <pause dur="0.3"/> and they # # <trunc>w</trunc> which still underpin professional history today <pause dur="0.3"/> and they all owe a great deal <pause dur="0.3"/> to <pause dur="0.3"/> Ranke <pause dur="1.4"/> in a century when all professionals were beginning to develop their own # <pause dur="0.3"/> expertise <pause dur="0.3"/> Ranke <pause dur="0.3"/> set <pause dur="0.3"/> the standards <pause dur="0.4"/> and this approach <pause dur="0.2"/> had a profound impression on historians <pause dur="0.3"/> in England and America <pause dur="0.4"/> as well <pause dur="2.7"/> now <pause dur="0.4"/> this emphasis on sources and their proper handling <pause dur="0.4"/> is sometimes known by the term <pause dur="0.2"/> scientific history you'll find that <pause dur="0.2"/> in some of your books <pause dur="1.2"/> when you see that though you have to remember <pause dur="0.4"/> that's actually a translation <pause dur="0.4"/> of <pause dur="0.2"/> the German word <pause dur="0.4"/> <distinct lang="de">wissenschaft</distinct> <pause dur="0.4"/> which means <pause dur="0.2"/> not the natural sciences in the sense of physics <pause dur="0.3"/> or chemistry and so on <pause dur="0.4"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="8"/> but means <pause dur="0.5"/> any academic discipline <pause dur="0.6"/> which <pause dur="0.3"/> has its

own <pause dur="0.4"/> methodology <pause dur="0.4"/> so science is used in a much broader sense <pause dur="0.5"/> # to translate <distinct lang="de">wissenchaft</distinct> <pause dur="0.3"/> than you might expect from its normal use <pause dur="0.4"/> in <pause dur="0.2"/> English <pause dur="3.1"/> Ranke believed in the need for objectivity <pause dur="0.2"/> in two related senses <pause dur="0.5"/> the historian's conclusions <pause dur="0.2"/> had to be of the kind that could be checked against the evidence <pause dur="0.6"/> he also had to preserve his distance from the past <pause dur="0.4"/> and not seek to impose modern standards on it <pause dur="0.8"/> Ranke once wrote <pause dur="0.6"/> <reading>every epoch is directly under God <pause dur="0.5"/> and its value <pause dur="0.3"/> depends not on what comes from it <pause dur="0.4"/> but <trunc>f</trunc> but in its existence itself <pause dur="0.6"/> all generations of mankind <pause dur="0.3"/> are equally justified <pause dur="0.3"/> in the sight <pause dur="0.4"/> of God</reading> <pause dur="0.9"/> therefore <pause dur="0.5"/> what is meant objectivity in practice for instance in his own history <pause dur="0.3"/> was that as a Protestant historian <pause dur="0.3"/> he tried to teach the he tried to treat the popes and the papacy <pause dur="0.3"/> dispassionately <pause dur="0.6"/> although <pause dur="0.2"/> it's still possible when you actually read his history <pause dur="0.3"/> to see

his prejudices <pause dur="0.2"/> against the Catholic church <pause dur="0.4"/> coming through <pause dur="2.5"/> Ranke was certainly concerned to get the facts right <pause dur="0.4"/> but he was also very much concerned <pause dur="0.2"/> with how you interpret those facts <pause dur="0.6"/> and he insisted on combining accuracy <pause dur="0.4"/> with <pause dur="0.2"/> art <pause dur="0.9"/> he disliked Walter Scott's inaccuracies <pause dur="0.2"/> but he liked his literary style <pause dur="0.7"/> Ranke <pause dur="0.3"/> wanted the big bucks he wanted to write bestsellers for the general public <pause dur="0.3"/> but to have them based <pause dur="0.3"/> on historical veracity <pause dur="0.4"/> and many historians will again tell you today that that's the kind of ideal they'd like to reach whether they <pause dur="0.3"/> do is another matter <pause dur="1.4"/> at the height of his powers Ranke wrote history as drama <pause dur="0.5"/> using all sorts of literary devices such as flashbacks <pause dur="0.3"/> to heighten the sense of excitement <pause dur="1.1"/> when relating political history he didn't try and do a complete narrative A to Z <pause dur="0.3"/> but would take episodes and little stories to illustrate the point <pause dur="0.2"/> he wanted to make <pause dur="0.9"/> he concentrated on what he considered to be <pause dur="0.2"/> significant <pause dur="0.4"/> and his prose operated <pause dur="0.3"/> at three levels <pause dur="0.4"/> the

events of political history <pause dur="0.4"/> the <trunc>b</trunc> sort of big thread <pause dur="0.5"/> the colourful sort of pen portraits <pause dur="0.2"/> of various characters <pause dur="0.5"/> and then <pause dur="0.2"/> the philosophical reflections <pause dur="0.2"/> that went with it <pause dur="1.0"/> he was much given to writing in terms of the conflict between contrasting trends <pause dur="0.3"/> and their influence <pause dur="0.2"/> on <pause dur="0.2"/> one another <pause dur="0.3"/> in other words continuity versus change <pause dur="0.3"/> the individual versus the community <pause dur="0.4"/> political versus church interests <pause dur="1.2"/> not everyone <pause dur="0.2"/> was an admirer of his style <pause dur="0.6"/> the poet Heinrich Heine <pause dur="0.3"/> called it <pause dur="0.3"/> well cooked mutton with plenty of carrots <pause dur="0.5"/> but Ranke <pause dur="0.4"/> was rarely <pause dur="0.2"/> a dry as a dry as dust historian <pause dur="0.3"/> in other words <pause dur="0.2"/> his concern with scientific accuracy <pause dur="0.3"/> did not mean that he thought he had to write <pause dur="0.2"/> in a boring style <pause dur="2.8"/> the philosophy which underlay Ranke's work was partly a reaction against what he called <pause dur="0.2"/> philosophical history <pause dur="0.5"/> but he also shared <pause dur="0.2"/> some of the assumptions <pause dur="0.2"/> of those <pause dur="0.2"/> he attacked <pause dur="0.9"/> at the same time <pause dur="0.3"/> his historical viewpoint was also shaped <pause dur="0.3"/> by his political <pause dur="0.3"/> and religious <pause dur="0.2"/> outlooks <pause dur="0.9"/> so <pause dur="0.5"/> what was

he reacting against <pause dur="0.6"/> first of all <pause dur="0.2"/> he was reacting against the mainstream approach <pause dur="0.3"/> of historians <pause dur="0.3"/> who <pause dur="0.3"/> were <pause dur="0.2"/> influenced by <pause dur="0.2"/> the Enlightenment <pause dur="1.4"/> that kind of thinking believed that history <pause dur="0.3"/> was the in effect the working out of certain universal truths <pause dur="0.3"/> about humanity <pause dur="0.3"/> which were the same everywhere <pause dur="0.7"/> and they would believe that the task of the historian was to recognize these universal truths <pause dur="0.3"/> by means of reason <pause dur="0.5"/> and demonstrate their presence in history <pause dur="0.3"/> through selective deployment of the facts <pause dur="0.3"/> in other words <pause dur="0.3"/> you have your basic idea and thesis first and then you <pause dur="0.4"/> cherry pick little facts <pause dur="0.3"/> to try and back this up <pause dur="1.0"/> this was a sort of philosophy of natural law <pause dur="0.3"/> which believed in the idea of progress <pause dur="0.4"/> and saw the past <pause dur="0.3"/> as being mainly important to teach you lessons <pause dur="0.2"/> for the presence <pause dur="0.7"/> and many of its # practitioners emphasized economic <pause dur="0.3"/> and social history <pause dur="1.3"/> now conservatives like Ranke <pause dur="0.3"/> thought all these ideas of progress and everything were terribly dangerous <pause dur="0.3"/> and had given rise to the

French Revolution <pause dur="0.5"/> and he blamed especially <pause dur="0.3"/> the # <pause dur="0.3"/> the great Enlightenment thinkers we know of <pause dur="0.2"/> Voltaire <pause dur="0.2"/> Montesquieu <pause dur="0.3"/> Diderot <pause dur="0.3"/> and so on <pause dur="0.3"/> the <distinct lang="fr">philosophes</distinct> <pause dur="1.4"/> already in eighteen-twenty-four <pause dur="0.4"/> quite young <pause dur="0.3"/> Ranke had written his famous counterblast <pause dur="0.6"/> he said <pause dur="1.4"/> <reading>history has had assigned to it the office of judging the past <pause dur="0.3"/> and of instructing the present <pause dur="0.3"/> for the benefit <pause dur="0.2"/> of <pause dur="0.2"/> the future <pause dur="0.3"/> ages <pause dur="0.7"/> to such high offices this present work</reading> the book he's writing <pause dur="0.4"/> <reading>does not presume <pause dur="0.4"/> it seeks only to show <pause dur="0.4"/> what <pause dur="0.4"/> actually <pause dur="0.4"/> happened</reading> and this is a key phrase which is # <pause dur="0.7"/> yup <pause dur="0.2"/> down there at the top of your sheet <pause dur="0.3"/> in German <distinct lang="de">wie</distinct> <trunc>ens</trunc> <distinct lang="de">wie es</distinct> <pause dur="0.2"/> <distinct lang="de">eigentlich gewesen</distinct> <pause dur="1.5"/> Ranke wanted to start <pause dur="0.2"/> from the particular <pause dur="0.6"/> in other words specific cases <pause dur="0.3"/> and then from that draw out <pause dur="0.2"/> an idea of the universal <pause dur="0.4"/> not start from some kind of universal view <pause dur="0.3"/> and then go down to it <pause dur="0.2"/> in <trunc>orver</trunc> in order to discover <pause dur="0.3"/> the particular <pause dur="2.0"/> so in this aim <pause dur="0.2"/> Ranke was part of

a wider movement <pause dur="0.8"/> it didn't just concern history <pause dur="0.2"/> but this anti-movement was known <pause dur="0.3"/> as historicism <pause dur="0.4"/> or # German historian <trunc>j</trunc> # historians just called it historism <pause dur="0.7"/> some critics have said that this word <pause dur="0.2"/> historicism <pause dur="0.4"/> has had so many different meanings in the last century <pause dur="0.4"/> that it's probably best to leave it out because actually a confusing term <pause dur="0.4"/> but it still appears in an awful lot of your books <pause dur="0.3"/> and it has a clear meaning <pause dur="0.3"/> for a particular set of ideas <pause dur="0.3"/> that were prevalent <pause dur="0.3"/> during most of the nineteenth century <pause dur="1.3"/> it has its antecedents <pause dur="0.3"/> in the late Enlightenment <pause dur="0.4"/> as a critique by some Enlightenment thinkers of others <pause dur="0.5"/> in other words Vico's <pause dur="0.3"/> The New Science in seventeen-twenty-three <pause dur="0.4"/> which has the idea that a nation or a society <pause dur="0.3"/> develops through time this idea of progress again <pause dur="0.6"/> or Herder's <pause dur="0.4"/> Also a Philosophy of History <pause dur="0.3"/> seventeen-seventy-four <pause dur="0.5"/> in which he believes that <pause dur="0.3"/> human progress is not a science <pause dur="0.2"/> but an endeavour <pause dur="0.5"/> historical texts can only be understood in context <pause dur="0.3"/> and

all values <pause dur="0.2"/> are historically <pause dur="0.4"/> conditioned <pause dur="0.5"/> <reading>history may only be understood</reading> <pause dur="0.5"/> he says <pause dur="0.3"/> <reading>through empathy <pause dur="0.3"/> not <pause dur="0.2"/> through <pause dur="0.3"/> reason</reading> <pause dur="2.0"/> now this idea of historicism <pause dur="0.2"/> was practised in the universities <pause dur="0.2"/> at the turn of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth century <pause dur="0.4"/> by philologists <pause dur="0.3"/> legal historians <pause dur="0.4"/> and Roman historians <pause dur="0.6"/> and it was expressed as being the nature of the historical discipline <pause dur="0.3"/> shortly before Ranke came on the scene <pause dur="0.4"/> in essays <pause dur="0.3"/> by <pause dur="0.2"/> Wilhelm von Humboldt <pause dur="1.1"/> so what were the chief tenets what were the ideas behind this idea of historicism how do we define it <pause dur="0.8"/> well <pause dur="0.2"/> there are # <pause dur="0.3"/> five or six key points <pause dur="0.9"/> first <pause dur="0.9"/> historicism believed that history <pause dur="0.2"/> differs from the natural sciences <pause dur="0.4"/> in that it studies <pause dur="0.2"/> human actions <pause dur="0.2"/> which display <pause dur="0.2"/> great variety <pause dur="0.5"/> not a pattern <pause dur="0.2"/> which can be established by research <pause dur="0.4"/> because <pause dur="0.2"/> the human will <pause dur="0.2"/> is unpredictable in other words it doesn't work like a scientific experiment <pause dur="1.5"/> two <pause dur="0.5"/> because the human world is in constant flux <pause dur="0.3"/> it cannot be explained by reason <pause dur="0.5"/> only

by the study <pause dur="0.3"/> of its historical <pause dur="0.2"/> development <pause dur="0.3"/> it's a very clear <pause dur="0.2"/> reaction against the Enlightenment there <pause dur="1.0"/> three <pause dur="0.8"/> states <pause dur="0.6"/> historicism believed <pause dur="0.2"/> states are ends in themselves <pause dur="0.4"/> they are not utilitarian in other word they're not there just to serve the interests of the population of the # the state <pause dur="0.5"/> the aim of the state is to achieve <pause dur="0.2"/> strength and independence <pause dur="0.3"/> in competition <pause dur="0.3"/> with <pause dur="0.3"/> other states <pause dur="1.4"/> all domestic affairs and domestic politics <pause dur="0.3"/> have to be subordinate <pause dur="0.3"/> to foreign policy <pause dur="0.3"/> foreign policy comes first <pause dur="0.8"/> reasons of state have to override everything else <pause dur="0.2"/> as only a strong state can guarantee freedom <pause dur="0.3"/> culture <pause dur="0.3"/> and the rule of law <pause dur="1.5"/> next <pause dur="0.6"/> ethical and moral values are norms for a society <pause dur="0.3"/> but they arise within a particular <pause dur="0.2"/> historical tradition <pause dur="0.5"/> human values are not universal <pause dur="0.4"/> not based on reason <pause dur="0.3"/> but bound by any particular <pause dur="0.4"/> culture <pause dur="0.7"/> therefore <pause dur="0.3"/> political institutions <pause dur="0.3"/> aren't transferable because they're culturally different <pause dur="0.3"/> so you can't transfer for instance French <pause dur="0.3"/> political institutions <pause dur="0.3"/> to

Germany <pause dur="0.3"/> and again that's a very clear counterblast against people like Napoleon attempting to <pause dur="0.3"/> spread a universal code <pause dur="0.3"/> all over Europe <pause dur="1.5"/> next <pause dur="0.4"/> historicism rejects conceptual thinking <pause dur="0.4"/> in favour of reaching understanding by contemplation <pause dur="0.6"/> intuition <pause dur="0.4"/> and empathy <pause dur="1.9"/> so these views <pause dur="0.2"/> were not limited <pause dur="0.3"/> to the discipline of history by the middle of the nineteenth century <pause dur="0.3"/> the belief was all over Europe <pause dur="0.2"/> that every institution <pause dur="0.3"/> and every human and cultural activity had a history <pause dur="0.4"/> and could only be understood <pause dur="0.3"/> by examination of that history <pause dur="0.4"/> especially in its specific <pause dur="0.3"/> national <pause dur="0.4"/> manifestations <pause dur="0.4"/> so this is obviously part of the big rise in nationalism <pause dur="0.3"/> during the nineteenth century people trying to find their own culture <pause dur="0.4"/> making that history part of it <pause dur="0.3"/> and then examining that <pause dur="1.1"/> as part of that kind of national <pause dur="0.5"/> # national development <pause dur="1.3"/> thereafter <pause dur="0.2"/> there was a revolt against this outlook in disciplines like law <pause dur="0.4"/> and literature <pause dur="0.4"/> which only this revolt only came later <pause dur="0.3"/> to <pause dur="0.3"/> history <pause dur="2.7"/> Ranke <pause dur="0.5"/> and

other historicists <pause dur="0.3"/> were partly in revolt against <pause dur="0.5"/> idealism <pause dur="0.9"/> this was a set of ideas <pause dur="0.2"/> propounded most systematically <pause dur="0.3"/> by the philosopher <pause dur="0.3"/> Hegel <pause dur="0.6"/> but they also shared <pause dur="0.2"/> some of his assumptions <pause dur="0.5"/> now idealism had nothing to do with being idealistic about the future or whatever <pause dur="0.4"/> it was about <pause dur="0.2"/> ideas <pause dur="0.3"/> not about ideals <pause dur="1.8"/> this Hegelian philosophy <pause dur="0.3"/> was dominant <pause dur="0.3"/> at the University of Berlin again Ranke's own institution <pause dur="0.3"/> in the eighteen-twenties <pause dur="0.8"/> and what Hegel did <pause dur="0.3"/> was to apply <pause dur="0.3"/> dialectical reason <pause dur="0.3"/> later used of course by Marx in a different way <pause dur="0.6"/> applied dialectical reason <pause dur="0.2"/> to deciding what was important in history <pause dur="0.5"/> and insisted on seeing the past <pause dur="0.3"/> through the present <pause dur="0.8"/> for Hegel <pause dur="0.3"/> individuals <pause dur="0.2"/> states and nations <pause dur="0.3"/> were manifestations of abstract ideas <pause dur="0.3"/> which were the only <pause dur="0.2"/> reality <pause dur="0.4"/> and that of course makes him the heir of Emmanuel Kant <pause dur="0.2"/> who was coming up <pause dur="0.3"/> with many of these sort of similar ideas <pause dur="0.2"/> in the late Enlightenment <pause dur="0.2"/> at the end <pause dur="0.2"/> of the eighteenth century <pause dur="1.8"/> now Ranke <pause dur="0.2"/> saw individuals <pause dur="0.3"/> and institutions <pause dur="0.3"/>

as manifestations of the human spirit <pause dur="0.6"/> but this was an idea <pause dur="0.4"/> that was <pause dur="0.8"/> basically very similar <pause dur="0.3"/> to <pause dur="0.4"/> Hegel's <pause dur="0.3"/> Hegel's big # <pause dur="1.5"/> big idea in effect <pause dur="0.3"/> was # <pause dur="0.3"/> the idea of the # <pause dur="0.5"/> world spirit which <pause dur="0.8"/> supposedly controlled all human progress <pause dur="0.4"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="4"/> which in German <pause dur="0.6"/> is known as <pause dur="1.7"/> <distinct lang="de">geist</distinct> <pause dur="0.6"/> which can be translated as ghost but i think <pause dur="0.3"/> spirit is probably better here <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> and # <pause dur="0.2"/> this idea was adapted again by Marx later on in the century <pause dur="0.4"/> to say that Hegel had a lot of this right but instead of being spirit <pause dur="0.3"/> it was actually class that was the defining factor <pause dur="0.5"/> so <pause dur="0.5"/> this Hegelian idea <pause dur="0.2"/> has a big intellectual hold on many of the thinkers <pause dur="0.3"/> in the nineteenth <pause dur="0.2"/> century <pause dur="1.7"/> Hegel said that in time this spirit <distinct lang="de">geist</distinct> <pause dur="0.2"/> which ultimately derived from God <pause dur="0.4"/> became enshrined <pause dur="0.2"/> in increasingly <pause dur="0.2"/> rational <pause dur="0.2"/> institutions <pause dur="0.7"/> and Ranke <pause dur="0.2"/> in the tradition of <trunc>philo</trunc> philological critique <pause dur="0.3"/> or hermeneutics and <trunc>s</trunc> again that's on your <pause dur="0.2"/> your sheet <pause dur="0.6"/> # said that the spirit <pause dur="0.3"/> manifested

itself in individual forms <pause dur="0.6"/> individuals <pause dur="0.2"/> states <pause dur="0.3"/> nations <pause dur="0.4"/> cultures <pause dur="0.3"/> and mankind as a whole <pause dur="0.5"/> all of whom all of these could not be grasped by reason <pause dur="0.4"/> but only by studying texts <pause dur="0.3"/> and then applying your intuition <pause dur="0.8"/> ultimately <pause dur="0.3"/> Ranke thought <pause dur="0.6"/> God was the supreme idea <pause dur="0.4"/> or spirit <pause dur="2.3"/> so Ranke shared many ideas with other idealists despite the fact that he was reacting against them to some extent <pause dur="0.5"/> such as # Herder for instance <pause dur="0.4"/> some of these shared ideas with the idealists includes the idea that <pause dur="0.4"/> God is present <pause dur="0.2"/> in <pause dur="0.2"/> all of humanity <pause dur="0.5"/> as and all of history <pause dur="0.4"/> as the tutor of mankind <pause dur="1.0"/> the idea that history is organic <pause dur="0.3"/> that it in other words that it works itself out in the same way that a human life does <pause dur="0.3"/> by a process of development <pause dur="0.2"/> maturity <pause dur="0.3"/> and decline so in effect <pause dur="0.3"/> history is parallel to human lives in that sense <pause dur="0.9"/> he also believed that all states go through a similar cycle of <pause dur="0.2"/> development maturity <pause dur="0.2"/> and decline <pause dur="0.8"/> and he also believed <pause dur="0.2"/> that <pause dur="0.2"/> each historical period has its own spirit <pause dur="0.3"/> <distinct lang="de">geist</distinct> <pause dur="0.5"/> and therefore

its own <pause dur="0.3"/> value <pause dur="2.3"/> the notion that <pause dur="0.2"/> institutions had this spirit by the way <pause dur="0.2"/> may well have something to do with another <pause dur="0.3"/> idea which flourish # which flourished <pause dur="0.2"/> from the end of the eighteenth century <pause dur="0.3"/> to around <pause dur="0.2"/> eighteen-forty <pause dur="0.4"/> and then came back again <pause dur="0.3"/> at the end of the nineteenth century <pause dur="0.5"/> and this is a relatively <pause dur="0.3"/> little known idea <pause dur="0.3"/> called vitalism <pause dur="0.5"/> and this was an <pause dur="0.7"/> alternative outlook within the natural sciences <pause dur="0.3"/> which argued <pause dur="0.3"/> that a purely mechanical view a scientific <pause dur="0.5"/> rational view <pause dur="0.2"/> of the natural world <pause dur="0.4"/> failed to explain the order <pause dur="0.2"/> which existed <pause dur="0.3"/> in nature <pause dur="0.8"/> because life itself had to be explained <pause dur="0.7"/> living bodies according to vitalism <pause dur="0.2"/> were not merely elements of matter impinging on one another <pause dur="0.6"/> but there had to be some breath of life within them <pause dur="0.2"/> which set them in motion <pause dur="0.4"/> so they would believe that <pause dur="0.3"/> in the human body <pause dur="0.3"/> there's a vital energy in every part of your body <pause dur="0.3"/> which is responsible <pause dur="0.2"/> for its generation <pause dur="0.3"/> nutrition <pause dur="0.4"/> and reproduction <pause dur="0.4"/> and if you look through Ranke's writings

as you will for the seminar <pause dur="0.3"/> you will see that the adjective vital <pause dur="0.3"/> comes up <pause dur="0.3"/> over and over again <pause dur="0.3"/> in his writings <pause dur="2.4"/> also thinking about <pause dur="0.7"/> Ranke's philosophy <pause dur="0.4"/> it's important to look at that phrase that key phrase i mentioned <pause dur="0.3"/> <distinct lang="de">wie es eigentlich gewesen</distinct> <pause dur="0.3"/> as it really was <pause dur="0.5"/> 'cause it's got a hidden meaning <pause dur="0.3"/> that the English translation doesn't always manage to <pause dur="0.4"/> bring out <pause dur="1.0"/> that's this <pause dur="0.7"/> <distinct lang="de">eigentlich</distinct> <pause dur="0.2"/> in German is an adverb <pause dur="0.3"/> which can equally mean <pause dur="0.4"/> actually <pause dur="0.4"/> or essentially <pause dur="0.3"/> or <pause dur="0.4"/> really <pause dur="1.3"/> now <pause dur="0.5"/> whatever Ranke may have meant when he first used this phrase <pause dur="0.5"/> # polemically against the philosophical historians <pause dur="0.6"/> with time <pause dur="0.2"/> it became apparent that what Ranke was actually trying to do his main purpose <pause dur="0.3"/> was to go behind the mere surface facts <pause dur="0.3"/> to explain <pause dur="0.2"/> far more <pause dur="0.7"/> a grasp of the facts was the initial basis for a deeper understanding <pause dur="0.3"/> of origins <pause dur="0.3"/> causes <pause dur="0.3"/> intentions <pause dur="0.2"/> and interactions in history <pause dur="0.9"/> Ranke held that the ultimate truth <pause dur="0.3"/> can never <pause dur="0.3"/> fully be known in history <pause dur="0.3"/> but only <pause dur="0.3"/> divined <pause dur="1.0"/> history <pause dur="0.2"/> he felt <pause dur="0.2"/> was the

product of God's purposes <pause dur="0.5"/> Ranke often writes in terms of the hand of God <pause dur="0.2"/> the finger of God <pause dur="0.3"/> or the breath of God <pause dur="0.7"/> these purposes he believed could not be discovered by reason <pause dur="0.4"/> but only intuitively <pause dur="0.2"/> and by empathy <pause dur="1.5"/> he was able to do this or he was able to suggest that this could be done <pause dur="0.5"/> because the spark of God <pause dur="0.3"/> was in every person <pause dur="0.4"/> who can then hope by a process of intuitive understanding <pause dur="0.4"/> to penetrate <pause dur="0.3"/> that divine <pause dur="0.3"/> purpose <pause dur="0.6"/> now this approach <pause dur="0.3"/> doesn't really sound all that scientific i mean not in the terms that we're talking about <pause dur="0.8"/> it's more romantic in a sense <pause dur="0.2"/> it's more subjective than objective <pause dur="0.3"/> and indeed it does have a very mystical <pause dur="0.2"/> type of quality <pause dur="0.5"/> as it <pause dur="0.2"/> equates scholarship in effect with worship <pause dur="0.3"/> remember what we said at the beginning about or what i said at the beginning <pause dur="0.3"/> about <pause dur="0.3"/> Ranke in effect thinking that history was a sort of priestly <pause dur="0.3"/> vocation <pause dur="0.8"/> so in those senses Ranke was not scientific he was not an empiricist <pause dur="0.3"/> in the sense that he believed that <pause dur="0.3"/> only what you

can see with your own eyes <pause dur="0.2"/> has reality <pause dur="0.5"/> for him <pause dur="0.2"/> all phenomena <pause dur="0.4"/> all historical <pause dur="0.6"/> phenomena <pause dur="0.4"/> were the expression <pause dur="0.3"/> of metaphysical <pause dur="0.3"/> intangible <pause dur="0.3"/> forces <pause dur="2.3"/> okay the last element <pause dur="0.2"/> which shapes Ranke's view <pause dur="0.2"/> of <pause dur="0.2"/> the course of history <pause dur="0.4"/> were his own <pause dur="0.4"/> political views <pause dur="0.9"/> when he was employed between eighteen-thirty-two <pause dur="0.2"/> and eighteen-thirty-six <pause dur="0.3"/> to edit a semi-official journal in Prussia <pause dur="0.3"/> which aimed at supporting the monarchy in Prussia <pause dur="0.6"/> he declared <pause dur="0.4"/> like <pause dur="0.2"/> again sort of # our great leader today <pause dur="0.3"/> that he was advocating a quote third way <pause dur="0.6"/> and his third way <pause dur="0.5"/> was claimed to be between the revolution <pause dur="0.4"/> and reaction <pause dur="0.6"/> something in between <pause dur="0.5"/> he wanted a state that was controlled <pause dur="0.3"/> neither by the great landowning aristocracy of Germany the <distinct lang="de">junkers</distinct> <pause dur="0.4"/> nor by the kind of the ordinary populace <pause dur="0.5"/> but by <pause dur="0.3"/> something in between <pause dur="0.3"/> a bureaucracy <pause dur="0.2"/> which would be loyal to the state <pause dur="0.4"/> and not pursuing their own interests <pause dur="0.2"/> but working for the greater good of the state <pause dur="1.5"/> # Ranke claimed that he wanted to adopt

new ideas <pause dur="0.4"/> only in so far <pause dur="0.2"/> as they corresponded <pause dur="0.3"/> to the interests of the state <pause dur="0.8"/> in fact he spent most of his period as a journalist attacking # liberals <pause dur="0.5"/> and later on <pause dur="0.3"/> he became even more conservative <pause dur="0.4"/> and only accepted change for instance after the unification of Germany <pause dur="0.2"/> in eighteen-seventy-one <pause dur="0.3"/> when it was obvious that it was a fait accompli anyway <pause dur="0.2"/> and anything he said <pause dur="0.3"/> wasn't going to change it <pause dur="0.4"/> so he became a bit more of a last ditcher by the end you know resisting all change <pause dur="0.2"/> until he absolutely had to accept it <pause dur="2.0"/> as a result <pause dur="0.4"/> his secret of world history <pause dur="0.4"/> the pattern he discerned in modern times <pause dur="0.4"/> was <pause dur="0.5"/> the rise <pause dur="0.2"/> and decline of states <pause dur="0.3"/> with creative forces <pause dur="0.3"/> to advance <pause dur="0.2"/> civilization <pause dur="0.6"/> this was this great <pause dur="0.2"/> underlying pattern through all of history that he saw <pause dur="0.3"/> and which he was pushing <pause dur="0.3"/> in the later part of his work <pause dur="0.3"/> in these great fat books <pause dur="0.9"/> so for instance whereas in medieval times <pause dur="0.2"/> the <trunc>univer</trunc> # the # sorry the unity of Christendom <pause dur="0.3"/> had been preserved by the papacy <pause dur="0.7"/> when the papacy

declined again this pattern that happened everywhere <pause dur="0.3"/> rise maturity decline <pause dur="0.3"/> so when the papacy declined <pause dur="0.5"/> it was replaced in its turn <pause dur="0.3"/> by nation states <pause dur="0.3"/> which were aided and abetted by the forces of <pause dur="0.2"/> the Reformation <pause dur="1.0"/> a special constructive role <pause dur="0.2"/> in Ranke's history <pause dur="0.3"/> was given <pause dur="0.3"/> to the Latin and Germanic nations in other words generally the western <pause dur="0.2"/> and northern Europeans <pause dur="0.4"/> Ranke was not going to suggest <pause dur="0.2"/> the Slavs <pause dur="0.3"/> and certainly not the non-European peoples <pause dur="0.3"/> had anything to do <pause dur="0.2"/> with this progressive <pause dur="0.2"/> civilizational <pause dur="0.3"/> advance <pause dur="1.3"/> he stated that states developed through external struggle <pause dur="0.5"/> and were harmed by internal conflict <pause dur="0.3"/> so war with other countries in effect is worthwhile <pause dur="0.3"/> but civil wars <pause dur="0.2"/> are harmful <pause dur="1.2"/> states he felt <pause dur="0.2"/> expressed the spirit of nations <pause dur="0.3"/> and in different eras <pause dur="0.3"/> different states had the greater energy <pause dur="0.3"/> and the vital spiritual forces <pause dur="0.4"/> which would enable them <pause dur="0.2"/> to triumph <pause dur="0.2"/> over <pause dur="0.3"/> their rivals <pause dur="1.4"/> at the same time <pause dur="0.3"/> the states of Europe acted in concert <pause dur="0.4"/> to prevent any individual

state <pause dur="0.3"/> obtaining <pause dur="0.3"/> power <pause dur="0.2"/> which was hegemonic over the others in other words <pause dur="0.3"/> dominant power <pause dur="0.6"/> by the operation of a principle which again is still used today <pause dur="0.4"/> of balance of power <pause dur="0.9"/> the statesman in charge of each state <pause dur="0.2"/> thought Ranke <pause dur="1.6"/> had # a duty <pause dur="0.2"/> to fulfill that state's particular mission <pause dur="0.4"/> which the historian can help him uncover <pause dur="0.4"/> by unravelling <pause dur="0.2"/> how it had developed <pause dur="0.8"/> so by the eighteen-fifties quite late on in his career <pause dur="0.3"/> Ranke had come to believe <pause dur="0.4"/> that the struggle of the secular and spiritual powers <pause dur="0.3"/> that had characterized the period before the French Revolution <pause dur="0.6"/> had been replaced <pause dur="0.3"/> by a new struggle <pause dur="0.3"/> between revolution <pause dur="0.3"/> and counter-revolutionary forces <pause dur="0.8"/> so having started out by rejecting the idea of progress <pause dur="0.3"/> he was really coming to some quite similar sort of idea suggesting that you have these cycles these dialectical cycles which <pause dur="0.4"/> dear old Hegel of course was # talking about before <pause dur="0.5"/> # and as these cycles sort of have thesis and antithesis and move forward <pause dur="0.3"/> eventually <pause dur="0.2"/>

you progress onwards in history <pause dur="0.4"/> so # <pause dur="0.2"/> he came round in a sense sort of contradicting <pause dur="0.3"/> his earlier thoughts there <pause dur="2.6"/> let's now for # one of the last sections talk about <pause dur="0.3"/> the dangers in <pause dur="0.3"/> Ranke's <pause dur="0.2"/> method the problems with the kind of history <pause dur="0.2"/> that he put forward <pause dur="1.1"/> these dangers which Ranke himself sometimes realized <pause dur="0.2"/> were magnified by later historians who weren't as subtle as he was <pause dur="0.3"/> and took these ideas <pause dur="0.3"/> they had their own political agendas often <pause dur="0.4"/> and they lacked Ranke's caution <pause dur="0.2"/> in historical ability <pause dur="0.3"/> so in a sense we're also criticizing Ranke's heirs here <pause dur="0.2"/> rather than necessarily just Ranke himself <pause dur="1.5"/> okay <pause dur="0.3"/> problem number one <pause dur="0.6"/> with this method of <pause dur="0.2"/> <shift feature="voice" new="mimicking American accent"/>just the facts ma'am <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> <pause dur="0.4"/> it became very easy <pause dur="0.3"/> to <pause dur="0.2"/> become totally absorbed in the records and the facts <pause dur="0.4"/> and lose sight <pause dur="0.2"/> of the wider interpretation and Ranke did that in his first book which was just you know on <pause dur="0.4"/> twenty years period but it's very very dense and thick <pause dur="0.3"/> and you can't really see the wood for the trees <pause dur="1.4"/> second danger <pause dur="0.9"/>

was Ranke's <pause dur="0.3"/> in a sense <pause dur="0.2"/> philosophical stroke political position <pause dur="0.3"/> of seeing the state itself as being an ethical good <pause dur="1.1"/> because if you believe that the state is the most important thing not the individual <pause dur="0.5"/> then <pause dur="0.5"/> this <pause dur="0.2"/> can lead you in the direction of glorifying power <pause dur="0.2"/> for its own sake <pause dur="1.0"/> now <pause dur="0.5"/> the <trunc>defi</trunc> # now Ranke had some sort of caution on this <pause dur="0.2"/> he of course had this idea of God and the divine restraint <pause dur="0.3"/> which # Ranke felt that good states would have that they would never go too far 'cause they were run <pause dur="0.2"/> for the benefit <pause dur="0.4"/> # the ultimate benefit of all <pause dur="0.9"/> and he believed also <pause dur="0.3"/> that certain moral standards <pause dur="0.3"/> were timeless and would always apply to states <pause dur="0.6"/> but later historians <pause dur="0.3"/> who had <pause dur="0.3"/> his <pause dur="0.2"/> admiration for the state <pause dur="0.3"/> but did not have his religious convictions <pause dur="0.4"/> abandoned <pause dur="0.2"/> the latter part of the idea so they glorified power <pause dur="0.3"/> without talking about the kind of religious brakes that could be put <pause dur="0.4"/> on abuses of state power <pause dur="0.8"/> so historians such as Treitschke <pause dur="0.5"/> who i think it's # yes it's

on your sheet as well <pause dur="0.3"/> Treitschke <pause dur="0.2"/> and others <pause dur="0.5"/> saw Prussia <pause dur="0.3"/> and the German state <pause dur="0.3"/> which emerged as the ultimate goal <pause dur="0.3"/> of all <pause dur="0.3"/> history in other words <pause dur="0.3"/> this new sort of Prussian and German nationalism emerging in the late nineteenth century <pause dur="0.4"/> was heavily underpinned <pause dur="0.3"/> by an idea of history <pause dur="0.3"/> which came from Ranke <pause dur="0.3"/> but wasn't exactly what he was saying <pause dur="0.3"/> and it was an idea that the German state was kind of glorious and must be glorified <pause dur="0.3"/> above <pause dur="0.3"/> the interests of individual <pause dur="0.2"/> Germans <pause dur="1.6"/> now <pause dur="0.3"/> Ranke himself <pause dur="0.2"/> did slip <pause dur="0.3"/> in his history of seventeenth century England <pause dur="0.4"/> he played down the role of Parliament <pause dur="0.5"/> and saw the struggles of that century in other words talking about the Civil War period <pause dur="0.6"/> as mainly being religious problems with the papacy <pause dur="0.8"/> and he put <pause dur="0.3"/> much more emphasis in the <pause dur="0.2"/> # the seventeenth century history <pause dur="0.4"/> on England's role in Europe <pause dur="0.3"/> rather than on the constitutional conflicts <pause dur="0.3"/> which is what we think about # the Civil War <pause dur="1.3"/> and of course <pause dur="0.3"/> in contrast to this more liberal German historians of

the period <pause dur="0.4"/> looked to the achievements of the English parliament and Oliver Cromwell and so on <pause dur="0.3"/> as being a model for their own <pause dur="0.2"/> newly emerging <pause dur="0.2"/> unified <pause dur="0.4"/> country <pause dur="0.4"/> so liberal German historians were looking at <pause dur="0.2"/> the Civil War and thinking you know this is a great example you can get rid of the king you know <pause dur="0.3"/> abuse of power and so on <pause dur="0.3"/> whereas Ranke was saying oh dear no all this civil war very bad idea don't worry about that <pause dur="0.2"/> think about England having power abroad instead and managing to throw its weight around <pause dur="0.3"/> that's a much better way <pause dur="0.3"/> for you to be thinking <pause dur="0.3"/> so there's an aspect of <pause dur="0.3"/> contemporary German politics <pause dur="0.3"/> in the way in which history <pause dur="0.3"/> is being defined <pause dur="1.6"/> a third problem <pause dur="0.3"/> Ranke's view was highly Eurocentric <pause dur="0.6"/> he dismissed the history of China and India <pause dur="0.3"/> because he claimed they had no historians or written sources <pause dur="0.3"/> which were worthy <pause dur="0.3"/> of the name <pause dur="0.8"/> he also took a very narrow view of the bits of Europe that were interesting <pause dur="0.4"/> # in other words again mainly western and northern

Europe <pause dur="0.4"/> despite <pause dur="0.3"/> the fact that he'd actually written a book <pause dur="0.2"/> on Serbia <pause dur="0.5"/> and on the Ottoman empire <pause dur="0.3"/> early on <pause dur="0.2"/> in his career <pause dur="2.4"/> another problem and Ranke believed that it was wrong to pass judgement on the political actions of the past <pause dur="0.5"/> but nonetheless <pause dur="0.3"/> he was prepared to condemn massacres and other actions <pause dur="0.3"/> which were evil <pause dur="0.3"/> by standards which he held <pause dur="0.3"/> to be <pause dur="0.3"/> universal <pause dur="1.0"/> now we may not <trunc>m</trunc> consider that to be necessarily a bad thing <pause dur="0.3"/> but it was something of a contradiction <pause dur="0.4"/> in method <pause dur="0.6"/> nevertheless <pause dur="0.3"/> by <trunc>j</trunc> # by regarding as justified all actions by states <pause dur="0.2"/> which pursued their own interests <pause dur="0.5"/> he also opened the door <pause dur="0.2"/> to the concept of relativism <pause dur="0.4"/> the view that success <pause dur="0.3"/> is the only criterion that matters that ends justify means <pause dur="0.6"/> and that <pause dur="0.5"/> therefore <pause dur="0.4"/> you cannot see men as evil <pause dur="0.3"/> you can only judge them <pause dur="0.3"/> by whether they succeed <pause dur="0.4"/> or not <pause dur="2.0"/> another problem <pause dur="0.6"/> Ranke deliberately neglected devoting much attention <pause dur="0.2"/> to social and economic trends <pause dur="0.5"/> and did not see how <trunc>overwhelum</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> overwhelmingly important <pause dur="0.3"/>

they were <pause dur="0.2"/> especially of course in the era of industrialization which was really in full <pause dur="0.2"/> swing <pause dur="0.3"/> when he was working <pause dur="0.8"/> now from his point of view these omissions of social and economic history <pause dur="0.3"/> were explicable <pause dur="0.6"/> because Ranke believed that the strength of the state <pause dur="0.5"/> was to be explained <pause dur="0.3"/> by religion and law <pause dur="0.3"/> not <pause dur="0.2"/> by <pause dur="0.2"/> money <pause dur="0.8"/> social history was in effect irrelevant for Ranke <pause dur="0.3"/> except in so far as social movements <pause dur="0.3"/> detracted <pause dur="0.3"/> from the strength #<pause dur="0.2"/> of the state <pause dur="0.4"/> so social movements in that sense could be important if they were bad and helped to sap a sate's strate's state's strength <pause dur="0.5"/> but he didn't see them <pause dur="0.3"/> as being <pause dur="0.2"/> positive <pause dur="1.8"/> you do find <pause dur="0.2"/> in Ranke's work <pause dur="0.4"/> quite full social analyses <pause dur="0.3"/> of the elite classes in papal Rome for instance <pause dur="0.3"/> all of the German peasantry <pause dur="0.2"/> on the eve of their revolt <pause dur="0.2"/> in fifteen-twenty-five <pause dur="0.6"/> but these were very much subordinated <pause dur="0.3"/> to his account of the political struggle <pause dur="0.3"/> between the papacy <pause dur="0.3"/> and the European powers <pause dur="0.5"/> or between the emperor <pause dur="0.3"/> and the princes in the empire <pause dur="0.4"/> and its

enmeshing <pause dur="0.3"/> with <pause dur="0.2"/> the Reformation <pause dur="1.4"/> certainly Ranke <pause dur="0.2"/> did not neglect culture <pause dur="0.7"/> that was a key element <pause dur="0.2"/> in the spirit of nations <pause dur="0.2"/> which was harboured <pause dur="0.3"/> by <pause dur="0.2"/> their states <pause dur="1.2"/> so Ranke used the popular pamphlets of the Reformation in Germany <pause dur="0.6"/> discussed French literature <pause dur="0.2"/> as part of Louis the Fourteenth's drive <pause dur="0.3"/> for <pause dur="0.2"/> domination of Europe <pause dur="0.5"/> and the eighteen-thirties he actually published separate histories of art and poetry <pause dur="0.3"/> in Renaissance Italy <pause dur="0.8"/> so <pause dur="0.3"/> in that sense Ranke was certainly a cultural historian <pause dur="0.5"/> as well as a historian of politics <pause dur="0.5"/> but the neglect of most economic and social factors <pause dur="0.3"/> became increasingly anachronistic <pause dur="0.3"/> as the nineteenth century advanced <pause dur="0.3"/> and that meant that some of Ranke's ideas were already outdated <pause dur="0.3"/> by <pause dur="0.3"/> the end of the century in which he lived <pause dur="1.9"/> last flaw <pause dur="2.1"/> by the time <pause dur="0.6"/> of <pause dur="1.0"/> Ranke's death really but certainly his late <pause dur="0.2"/> working period <pause dur="0.9"/> most historians considered that it was no longer adequate to rely on intuition <pause dur="0.3"/> this great idea of empathy and intuition that <pause dur="0.3"/> this sort of

almost mystical belief that he had <pause dur="0.5"/> it was no longer considered adequate to rely on that <pause dur="0.3"/> for a deeper understanding of the forces at work in history <pause dur="0.8"/> historians <pause dur="0.3"/> while accepting the need to research facts with impartiality <pause dur="0.5"/> looked for their interpretation to other ideas <pause dur="0.3"/> hypotheses <pause dur="0.3"/> concepts <pause dur="0.3"/> and the methodology of the social sciences <pause dur="0.2"/> economics <pause dur="0.3"/> sociology and so on <pause dur="0.2"/> which were beginning to emerge <pause dur="0.3"/> at this time <pause dur="1.9"/> # </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nm0087" trans="pause"> so # these are some of the # the the areas in which Ranke perhaps fell down either at the time <pause dur="0.3"/> or in retrospect <pause dur="0.2"/> they don't detract from his great contribution <pause dur="0.3"/> but they need to be understood <pause dur="0.4"/> to # <pause dur="0.2"/> see where his ideas have been adapted <pause dur="1.6"/> so to # to

finish off <pause dur="1.4"/> despite <pause dur="0.2"/> these flaws <pause dur="0.4"/> Ranke <pause dur="0.3"/> either laid the groundwork for <pause dur="0.3"/> or consolidated <pause dur="0.3"/> many of the features of history <pause dur="0.3"/> as a discipline <pause dur="0.3"/> which most historians today regard as being <pause dur="0.2"/> absolutely obvious <pause dur="0.7"/> for instance the need <pause dur="0.2"/> for impartial research and faithfulness to the sources <pause dur="0.3"/> once they've been critically <pause dur="0.4"/> appraised <pause dur="1.0"/> the need for the historian to set aside <pause dur="0.4"/> her or his subjective opinions <pause dur="0.3"/> while seeking empathy with the past <pause dur="1.1"/> an appreciation of the variety of history <pause dur="0.5"/> and an open view <pause dur="0.2"/> about historical development in the future <pause dur="1.0"/> the combination of an academic approach <pause dur="0.2"/> with literary skill <pause dur="0.5"/> so as to make history both reliable <pause dur="0.2"/> and readable <pause dur="0.8"/> and last but not least <pause dur="0.4"/> the view that history is

an important way <pause dur="0.3"/> to understand <pause dur="0.3"/> humanity <pause dur="0.5"/> now if you think about those four or five <pause dur="0.2"/> factors which are <pause dur="0.2"/> Ranke's contribution <pause dur="0.8"/> i don't think there's very much that seems all that much out of place <pause dur="0.3"/> at the end of the twentieth century <pause dur="0.3"/> and if you understand that <pause dur="0.4"/> then you'll understand quite why Ranke's so influential <pause dur="0.4"/> and why we still ask you to read this <pause dur="0.4"/> now no longer much read <pause dur="0.4"/> <trunc>nin</trunc> # # <pause dur="0.3"/> # historian <pause dur="0.3"/> from Germany <pause dur="0.2"/> of the late nineteenth century <pause dur="0.8"/> okay <pause dur="0.2"/> please do remember to put in your exam forms if you haven't done so please <gap reason="name" extent="2 words"/>'s group don't forget to go to <gap reason="name" extent="2 words"/> <pause dur="0.2"/> thanks # <pause dur="0.3"/> you can <pause dur="0.2"/> head off

</u></body>

</text></TEI.2>