Ranke: The Idea of Universal History

Reviewed by David Freer

“EVERYTHING HUMAN IS WORTH KNOWING”

Introduction:

In January 2004 I began my formal education in history. Early into the semester a

student chided me for my comment that slavery was immoral. “You aren’t supposed to

pass judgment on the past!” he said, “That’s not your duty as a historian!”

I shouldn’t comment on the morality of slavery? Yet his words made sense and the

question of objectivity became foremost in my mind when examining history. Despite

the nobility of his cause, I began to feel separating myself from my emotions and

accepting this purely objective history was only a goal and not realistic. We can thank

Leopold von Ranke for his contributions to the debate on objectivity in history.

In the nineteenth century Leopold von Ranke literally wrote the book on the modern

historical method. In the Idea of Universal History Ranke explains, “The strict

presentation of fact, contingent and unattractive though they may be, is undoubtedly the

supreme law.” In order to interpret the facts of history, one must be focused on the

‘particulars’ which must be considered with a completely unprejudiced mind. The reader

may be inclined to ask how one chooses what salient detail to include. Ranke would
include states, people and ‘power’ only when they “assumed a preeminently active or

dominant role.” Ideals of objectivity are noble and ambitious but we must examine

whether such ideals are attainable. Quite simply, Ranke explains that history exists

purely to show ‘what actually happened.’ How does a historian choose her sources?

What conscious and unconscious forces in the deep recesses of our mind determine that

which is ‘preeminently active or dominant’? Ranke gives no concrete answers but his

argument has contributed greatly to the debate over what role the historian should play in

the creation of history.

He believes history is following a divine plan but it is through dealing with the particular

details that the historian can understand “generations, and of nations, and at times the

hand of God above them.” Thus there is a progression to the infinite from the specific

and history and faith seem inseparable. Since God’s will is guiding history, there must be

a definite plan. As there is a plan, discoverable by astute historians, we can be assured of

God’s existence. The historian reveals the ‘hand of God’ but passing judgment is

reserved for God.

His faith may have influenced the positive way he viewed humanity and our purpose. He

believed all historians must have a “real affection for the human race”. (Is this why

historians are so happy and nice to everyone?) More seriously, could it be that the scale

of the killings in the twentieth century has diminished the possibility of an unconditional

affection for humanity? Ranke’s optimism was characteristic of the nineteenth century,

when ‘progress’ was leading man to the promised land. Whether such optimism can be
extended into another age is debatable. Perhaps we may view his work as a reaction

against the ideals of the Enlightenment which produced the ‘Declarations of the Rights of

Man’ and held that all people were born with certain rights. The historical method

offered by Ranke differs from the method of a chemist however; Ranke encompasses the

unquantifiable human element. Even the state, he explains, is filled with “a spiritual

substance, an original genius (italics added).” Such a spiritual component differentiates

history from other disciplines where absolute answers can be given.

The universal is the overriding, guiding force behind the infinite details of humankind

and is a part of God’s infinite wisdom. We may impute that this universal was evidence

of God’s existence for Ranke. Starting with this premise, it is not difficult to imagine a

historian feeling immensely important as he interprets the divine plan. Ranke, however,

lived before Freud, Darwin, Hitler, and Einstein turned our world upside down; his ideas

about what history is must be firmly placed in their historical setting. Yet despite the

immense changes our world has undergone, Ranke’s conception of a purely objective

history in accordance with a universal history still occupies a place in the

historiographical debate. Ranke himself recognized the idealism inherent in his

methodology but warned that without a link to the universal, the conception of universal

would “degenerate into a phantasm”. Let the debate continue!