Oy ice 3 MIcHELET: HistoricaL REALISM
AS ROMANCE
Pema
Hegel, the critic of every historian that preceded him, was the historical con.
Reece a teense TO Ce eee tae coer a
insight and depth of his inquiry into the problem of historical consciousness,
not even Groce, the philosopher who resembled him most in temperament
and breadth of interests. But, then, few historical thinkers desired to pene
trate to the interior of their own preconceptions about history and the kind
of knowledge to be derived from its study. ‘Those who studied history as a
profession were too busy writing history to inquire very closely into the
theoretical bases of their activity. ‘The justification of historical knowledge
Son eo RO et cee en ecece tage te
PUA Oana ame oe ened
Cae cR cn MN enmO mC crm tinier e nc ect |
COSMO CS ME LM Cn Coc MRO cM OMECO CUO (EMR OED CO cd oom
philosophy, and religious sensibility. And this transformation of history from
a general area of study, cultivated by amateurs, dilettantes, and antiquarians,
into a professional discipline seemed sufficient justification for the severance
of historiography from the endless speculations of the “philosophers of his-
[ros ml
cS Sar aePers
Chairs of history were founded at the University of Berlin in 1810 and at
enone eM c eee Coat eerie nm rn ecco a tae
documents were established soon after: the society for the Monumenta
Germaniae Historica in 1819, the Ecole des Chartes in 1821. Government
eee a eee men CR ee em nea ea
SO ee eR Crome Great Recnitia mm eeetc ts
national journals of historical studies were set up: the Historische Zeitschrift
in 1859, the Révue historique in 1876, the Rivista storica italiana in 1884, and
the English Historical Review in 1886, The profession became progressively
academicized. The professorate formed a clerisy for the promotion and
cultivation of a socially responsible historiography; it trained and licensed
POR ee Mena Renn ee eecee eM Re etc oe
(rotor Renu tee COOMME IG Ren scence eo ce Re eehaiCescac cient
humanistic and social scientific sectors of the universities. In this discipliniza-
tion of the ficld of history, England lagged behind the Continental nations,
Oxford established the Regius Professorship of History, first held by Stubbs,
only in 1866; Cambridge followed thereafter, in 1869. But English under-
ee ect Rae oer Con Tce coe eae eo eT
tre
Deer TR rere Re Cee eat Ro
retical basis of its disciplinization remained unclear. ‘The transformation of
historical thinking from an amateur activity into a professional one was not
attended by the sort of conceptual revolution that has accompanied such
Renn Coenen cao ac EN eo een eet Mo
Soe crt enum ea Tore Peet eu Cee Recenter Ne een certo
to use the most refined philological techniques for the criticism of historical
Clrerrarer Scr et Re a eT Me et a cat a ec
Cla eam ORE Scr ROMS MS MN CLUSTER LSS EZ
example, it soon became a cliché that history was not a branch of metaphysics
Carer em ene Rem ett rete Beaten tere ae tte
eR eMC cere eM OM ea Ceres Uo On ean
tory.” Instead, it was maintained, history was to be viewed as a combination
ascetic e CcnTe teem Rete
cron re eras od eMC nN ORS UML OR Ce Cee oR oO
SCOR McC RCC IROOM
mine “what actually happened” in the past, and that he ought to represent
the past “artistically” to his readers. But it was generally agreed that history
Ons Roe mere M Natsu -acie tate cert at Cen I)
Peng Cs Seo nt aes mom eRe Tomo Ca
Seer MEU Me eM TR CorE URE CTS ca COTO
empirical and inductivist, conception of the scientist's task, which meant that
recone CUTE oN CT OU MCc een toca
said with respect to the “artistic” component in historical representation.rae eA
TO een arcu R Rem n ee tCUPe nr ae re loc
Pia aU RRL cn Cc Le Sa LeeLee
Ce ORCL OUR Ce ECMO Re LCC ACRE Oct
TSCA Uta SMe Ue eC cnet aa
TONERS ENC Mm cota act Como
remo ee Conteee Leer TE MRS goin eae CE Co ce Come
of the first issue of the English Historical Review (EHR) put it: “So far from
holding that true history is dull, we believe that dull history is usually bad
history, and shall yalue those contributors most highly who can present their
cree eRe Re Redcat oe
Cee RCO een a ce to eRe em rere
the “rigorous” (Positivist) sciences and the “free” (Romantic) arts during
the first half of the nincteenth century, history might legitimately claim to
ert geeer eT mirc hectic ea otras mci Ns maT CRIN en ceca
Pat mCre cae MCR cm carom CONT oe ata
civilized society. As the KHR’s prefatory note put it:
Nace eT ae a eee ee Ces
Peer nace co eM onsen eet ae ea mer Sa
STE ae ete Tne nee oo
ae aoe rec ne cra eR Renton ten a gat
to be cultivated in a spirit beyond party interests and confessional allegiances.
‘This meant that historical researches and generalizations had to be kept
within the bounds of an essential modesty, skirting the dangers of narrowness
on one side and of vagueness on the other. As the EHR pointed out, two
Poe Cnet Reni eC Rte om a ecg
Pe ee Oa One RO Aen REMI em encod
rea ree ie eRe Tec CUE TK or
OMe M a ecm RCC e TRCN one com arene aes
Recenter) Reg eee et cae Ae ogee ce
Fern ror an Neem Te COTTE Nec Core Cece RCC ae
(On
In this proposal the EHR followed the line indicated by the Révue his-
ree ee EOC MS Cn cmc es Om CMa Cat eos
with the methodological rigidity and absence of partisanship which
jence demands, and not to seek arguments for or against doctrines which
ORC ae CMCC AU Tee CMU Catal
Sree OR uc eee ee ae a
Pacer ROR a omen eae naa een
as the preface to the first issue of the Historische Zeitschrift made quite clear,
to remoye historical study from the uses to which it was being put by Radicals
and Reactionaries on the political scene, and to serve~by the disciplinizationFey Co Sa
Cao Me eee enor Roa eae Rocce
Oe ee RRs Sen tem ia oO Cons a
Se reece ecm ae eens aero
odical, the aim of which was to “represent the true method of historical
fereno en Re rea cree eae een cents
its interests were not to be conceived as narrowly antiquarian nor as inti-
mately political. “It is not our aim,” the Preface to its first issue read, “to
Cee een ae eae ORO Rao)
one particular political party.” It did not seem “contradictory,” however, to
Pree Ses ee oe Tce Rta Ce Ls artaancocs
Pen eR a ett me eee eles een teri ebete cece
radicalism, which substitutes subjective arbitrariness for organic development;
SEUICCU Use ne On Stns RUT MTL yCoeM CLC ICTS CUE) Rote Letra) LeU Com Cc
PRUs Ree Unectrn conor he Mey eee SURO Mercia eta co ces
POSE noe nc Ce MC econ as Cte) MUD a Lee
CUCM Mme MRA OM
Brean aed Nem ETO CoA LCoS ee CUO cena Le
represented by Conservatives on the one hand and Liberals on the other.
‘As a matter of fact, in both France and Germany the academic fortunes
of leftwing historians and philosophers of history waxed and waned with the
fortunes of Radicalism itself. This meant that they inostly waned. In 1818,
ATA eCOmm OCS ME COU O MR CCRC MEMS LOI Lam CeCe
ing “ideas” rather than “facts” (Liard, II, 157-59). Feuerbach and D. F.
CR econo Reco MOC MCMC Laatste MAR coc
LOCO MeCORceCCRR Dernm tO
Cen acct ae ema Rte eer ee ener
POM ESTO UIte No eae CO rca rm ea eT cam Te eccrTe am Tete
fired, “dangerous books” were proscribed, and historians were specifically pro-
Pinecone ant eam eke eee mar Cami Cenc cri a
their materials (246). And this time Cousin and Thiers, themselves formerly
RTO ae Ne ste RC en unio a ence CS Scone CEO LY
STI MCnC Cea ee cara Cnr smn Cinco nas mee ters
Om OCIS C MORE Te MUO Leh eC ec Con LLU
SUR ee Che emer eee Te Gl
POR ean Cn ee aaa estan tae
ce eae oR ee cares erm ee cae eee
scholarship which would be continued by Marx and Nietzsche, from the Left
PEC RUA econeetco men hy een Retin eee Tee esc ea
century in a fullscale revolt among both artists and social scientists against
the burden of historical consciousness in general
Pa AN te eco
Ich will mich zum deutschen Professor begeben.
Spear Ce Raretrots ES)
Re Reece oS Ted
Mit seinen Nachtmiitzen und Schlafrockfetzen
Stopft cr dic Liicken des Weltenbaus. [Stdssinger ed., 116]
‘The philosophers of history, the philosophers of nature, the Goethe aesthetes,
and the “wiscacres” of the Historical School were all engaged, Heine main-
epee rete CN en eee eee ere ace
(eI cp MMW SC ness ec eos ee Meta ac
Cen cme OC) Ra een ec econ rc a
ism” as an antidote to political concern. Not even the Romantic poets were
exempted from the charge. While the historians deflected consciousness to a
consideration of the past, the poets projected it into an indefinite future,
nae core nee RMSE er CMS
might have been or might yet be, but in cither case suggesting that living
men were not ends in themselves but rather only the means for attaining a
Sa cece RE eae a te CO cs
poetry, Heine said,
hannonizes fully with our own vivid sense of life. On the one hand, we do not
wish to be inspired usclessly and stake the best we possess on a futile past. On the
Pie er ee oC ence acne eRe resem]
not merely serve as means to some distant end, As a matter of fact, we consider
ourselves more important than merely means to an end. We believe that means
or eT arco senso CMR se ee CD
Pen ce Ce mere cee eRe mC
Perera in are Me Raves rcntr etce earn torte Me Meee ge Teme RTOS
world itself—is here, in its own right, [Ewen ed., 810]
Pm ker ERS reser Re ones em
Cn ete a ee ROO Nor Coe Ue Ce Coo ec
philosophy of the Romantic poets on the other:
ce ee ae eee eRe TCM
against the claims of petrifying death, against the past. This justification of life is
Revolution, The clegaic indifference of historians and poets must not paral
energies when we are engaged in this enterprise. Nor must the romantic visions of
those who promise us happiness in the future seduce us into sacrificing the inter-
Peers see ec ee ee ene om aN rene
itself. [809-10]
SOON eC a a Rg oe nae Ra Cs
and the future yet unborn, Heine anticipated Nietzsche's attack, in the
18708, on all forms of academic historiography, an attack which threatened to
ecm Gan ee eet tat a eet m Ue Me CECI Cer os
Mann), and the early 1900s (Valéry, Proust, Joyce, D. H. Lawrence).SPMD
Pa UT Le era grea en pw ee)
Yet the period between 1821 (the year of Wilhelm von Humboldt’s “On
the Historian’s Task”) and 1868 (the year of Droysen’s Historik) produced
CREM Oe Mca OM TCO MO ENCE Ce VME Leen) oT
ment, for professionals and amateurs alike. A simple chronological listing of
the works of four undisputed masters of ninetcenth-century historiography
will suffice to indicate both the scope and the profundity of this effort to com-
Peo ete nae ST eral eee en eee a
Dee CCTs RUM et rca amen emer: raed
the Romantic School of historiography; Leopold von Ranke (1795-1886),
ROR Mme icone leo TCM Oe a ae ae
paradigm of academic historiography; Alexis de Tocqueville (1806-59), the
Sere crete One MRO UN EOC Me ee eelceay ee ae OR oe CO sTerl
Pee e sem Omen R Cement er has cee Bice ts
ters Meares mer Moreen Nr meme ie tatte to es
toriography and exponent of the Impressionistic style of historical representa
tion. ‘The works in question are:
1824, Ranke, Histories of the Latin and Germanic Peoples
1827, Michelet, translation of Vico's The New Science
1828, Michelet, Précis of Modern History
ee enw EIN Cnn a ear ne Carat
1831, Michelet, Introduction to Universal History
1833-44, Michelet, History of France, 6 volumes on the Middle Ages
Treen MUM Ein Cnet eae
1835-40, Tocqueville, Democracy in America
1839-47, Ranke, German History in the Age of the Reformation
1846, Michelet, The People
1847, Ranke, Nine Books of Prussian History
TP meV econ ma ee ieee Ca
1852-61, Ranke, History of France in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth
Leas
1853, Burckhardt, The Age of Constantine the Great
1856, Tocqneville, The Old Regime and the Revolution
Sem LC om CL Cg a OMe eae Orn
Bro I ek OL cae ML ae
Sy reeeeSee Sta eR ae ace Raat Tipe
‘The works of a host of other historians, almost as distinguished, might be
Eee Cees ere eee Ol TCIM I COTE eee ems concn
Be Orne UME TIT Me OL CoM COR XU cc mR oY Cocca)
land; of the nationalists Sybel and Treitschke; of the so-called doctrinaires
Thierry and Guizot; or of the philosophers of history, Comte, Spencer,icra TEES
Buckle, Gobineau, Hegel, Feuerbach, Marx and Engels, Nietzsche, and
See Rea oes ea ec Cae ears
of history, can claim the authority and prestige of the four masters, Michelet,
fence Coc TerT oe Ut te ete a Coe To eRe ee acer ta
Pe ROMe Men Ren eee eee Ceca eee Tech Cnn
teenth-century historical thinking, only these fout—Michelet, Ranke, Tocque-
Sime CTSA ek ere ence aa nr anne Mee CTS ce me
historical conscionsness. Michelet, Ranke, ‘Tocqueville, and Burckhardt
Doar MO aT Ree eee er Rae ate Te Cm ae cy
ET eon e eomt Rete teen Tacs Ne
«ej Historiography against Philosophy of History
In his Philosophy of History, Hegel attempted to provide theoretical justifica-
Tone COMER Oy ROM ner ce een ea eacecc tC Coc Om Tem OS CRE
re em MT er ccm One nC onae Ee ecee Rieon mentee Teo ma
Grecks. Euch of the four species of Reflective history that had appeared in the
development of historical thinking since the Grecks, had represented a
higher form of historical self-consciousness. Philosophy of history itself, as
Leer Oech eee ROMO Lm cea Coe ecco CCM TCS OO Ca
nea eo ecnees i Omaen tn een ono Sen mCN nn anid
writing universal history in a higher, more self-consciously “Reflective” man-
ner. He did not suggest that historians themselves attempt to write such
universal history, but insisted that they leave its composition to the philoso-
Peete ce non tern Oem eee CMM nc tert nm nts
RTE etme TMU Tee Te econo Remeron GMs TCO een en ea
stemological, aesthetic, and cthical principles to consciousness, and then
Coe Omen R tI Ie) LMC CR Cosme a LUC
remem aC er ae Cer Nae ncn Nace Ts
OMe acetal mtr on Crema ernest Coe arcane
eee Teen een Se Mero CL Coo
SCS Mme Ree etm RS ora OTC CCLRC ITO He
Pccerec nC Cn Te Mere (ruct me omen ran me emer ets oi eaers Rony
arrived at by a prioristic reasoning. The “historical method”—as the classic
Sree OM MCMC Ce CCUM SME Coe MLA CeO ee cd
Ce TUR e emt Caner Oe Nm Cceoce MCT Te ce
Oma Cit een ecm Cnr Cee Cage otiann
OCCT ecm Nm eR Cater Te Cae COU LLR CSE
the explanation of “what had happened” in the past. ‘The idea was to let the
Cee re ener er ome ame Onn Cea Ca STU CeO ee ME en
rete ea acneSVEM Utes
‘The notion that the historian himself emplotted the events found in the
Fenn ROTA Tena ce ieee eC Cen cc
Perea Macnee Carnie cea ror omen me Me coro em
Droysen, for example, and by philosophers like Hegel and Nietzsche, but by
ee cee Rae ern
have offended most nineteenth-century historians. That different “points of
Sn ae cota ete RR ere mace
Sco a roam ner Rt se area on iecrte Ate ee erat
Pe ne RIC a eee Reece ee Rea y
“tell the story” about “what had happened” without significant conceptual
residue or ideological proformation of the materials, If the story were rightly
told, the explanation of what had happened would figure itself forth from
the narrative, in the same way that the structure of a landscape would
be figured by a properly drawn map.
ee eee smear a ee Ca Cea
‘map, but this component had to be relegated to a place on the periphery of
PORE Ur en ce RICO TUR Vm UCC ecu Re mecca Cc eae WT
See Te om RO eR ero emer t
the “general remarks” with which one prefaced one’s histories or concluded
CM Mates en NR eo ade cos CO cc
SO Crea Ren oe Cee Tne TU ac ecco Rice
Se ects Rim CCM MCT ato me ened
eo an ee ea nme ce nC en eats
Cer CMO RCS ME MR ogee eer cca ac a CTC
understood that the choice of a mode of emplotment itself reflected commit-
eM COD OMSL RUS Ceo Mtoe ra Tao
in his discussion of history as a form of literary art in his Aesthetics.
Sen eT a oreo ces mae TC REO nce Naeem tm
lc rnaea Ue COU COMIN Mec t Mccain meaner
answers to this question, but all agreed that a true history should be written
SSS ieee Ce esheets
eee ena Oe On co merce
into a formal system. Yet, the most striking attribute of the histories written
by these masters was their formal coherence, their conceptual domination of
Eira cote ects OY Ce eR oS ce et aOR
ee Raa ORS a ecm Seach eons
the conceptual principles of his narratives most completely buried in the
POM RO ME AOMORI eNOS MCE
oR eeneRS ees Oc Rae a RCC TCly
Cre erence tema N Ce
Ae Rocco Oa Ren er a CC Cee La ao
Me Rage Oe ec Mom eh moe
has to extract the principles being appealed to by drawing implications fromvite ee EY
See Cam CC om TU
OrcAm UT Tn MVS aR aes re COS ee COs me Ten COMM OM oC
emplotment. And, in fact, that “historism” of which Michelet, Ranke, ‘Toc
nT MeN Mccain eee aeeeeelercsec eco Mee Sees Tr hmece rere
Peron ome Rete Ceercces UMTS MER nme rTM orn De
PT OU eee eee DCm tce sm ee Re Cc
scence ome on ct CO OTE RCO) aR Sa ba ete Dae
Meo nT a ome IRS me eC Aaa Corey ee
CO ereUteas eMeeec Lae DET ECO mee ee tone am CeCe
Pret g OPO Ree DMen Ce emo CMR craT an
of story—Romance, Comedy, Tragedy, or Satire—or at least presupposed one
or another of these story forms as the general framework for the segment of
history that he was depicting in detail. The “philosophies of history” that
Reece Rac cree Cea mem ce rear
a Cem men Cc ar Cea a ar ag
emplotment they chose for framing or informing the story they told.
PROTO ROEM UM eer Ce Ren ete ELCs cn
the form to the stories they told is the mode of consciousness in which they
prefigured the historical field as a domain, the posture they assumed before
CU ccc MU CMEC Cee DUO Mo mont e Caccst co LL
ROC eee RUM een cen Meet Seco ecco CCoceRTeR OT
to the problem of how to write history, having chosen the modes of Romance,
eerrec pa Mecca STL CCL Do aOR meee
logical postures before the historical ficll—Anarchist, Conservative, Liberal,
and Reactionary respectively. None of them was a Radical. The linguistic
Poet RU TSEC Ce cc eC CeCcRSTOLICUaN eS None Co
phorical, Synecdochic, Metonymical, and Tronic,
Des ere ee eo a La Coe
In the introduction to my chapter on eighteenth-century historical thought,
Sets oem TC ome en ana Tes een: ee stm es eS
CCM RRR CN Cm eae ee eC RO CTT
SSCs RON meC TOMY Ne Ne: Towers amet econ
Fee ea crs Na OR ee cece ee COC
phorical mode for the characterization of the historical field and its processes,
but without the adoption of the Oxganicist explanatory strategy with which
Herder had burdened it. The Romantics repudiated all formal systems of
ey ECM eT cn ne sme cel mts Cina an Vcc
phorical mode to describe the historical field and the mythos of Romance to
Roath eiccncnPe yU anata
Poi Waste BU ee Ae) Oko Bae
Suma Nena Coen one MOaecsy net CoMeS Co steam coy
ace erent eaten mmr cmece ecm mona’
DSS ng ee Code eee LLCO OM TE CeCe OCCU COOL
Carlyle called a “Chaos of Being,” with respect to which the historian could
PO eet cern rca armel}
OE eRe CN Cr IMEC enh MORE ee ieee Ome
ores cur amre moa OnmO Mc Rica eetennmera nied
ST Me ey ete tI eee ans Ca Te em OCC eC
GUC on aE OCMC UC ULM em COLO SOLAR alco LLG
late cightcenth century, but made more Nihilistic by the color of his response
COR OCCUR aU OCLC Le ccs OLRM SCLC
tions of the historical world may be taken as representative of the fecling of
Pee eon Teme ea Cerone ne oe
PEN eRe ey ee ec One CL TO emacs
Man, victor of the fights he has engaged in, looks at a world depopulated by
protective powers, and is astonished at his victory. . . . His imagination, idle now
DOr Re eS ae ECAC oS Ge Me Re MRS
Ered ae TS Oy MC Re eee Ce ce eee TT
oO Testa Ge Sc Co ona sae Roa a ae Cad
that are no more is prolonged into the life of the races still living, and the voice
Caan aoe Sen at eRe eR a
Rae Cs eee ee aS ESCO TN
and the future which is closed before him? His invocations are no longer heard,
eco eee CORO ce CM MS ere MT ecm RT TT
Peet eee CTS cS LE TOR cs ORCI cee sC
One eT aE
Buon ee OCT rs ae COTM Meret eT MN CC yams Teo Nan TC
Cuero cae Re Ne Reena eco Oem Cotes
Penree One MDA eR Uc Tn ens aceon a CREO eta eNs
Aree tc MM TCC ecm ce me ToaR Tt
URS Om Ne Ce MMe ag
may swallow him up.” The threat to which men now stand exposed is identi-
fied by Constant as arising from the discovery of the meaninglessness of
OSA aoa ren terme Coma eet aT Tt
ron aree Meson nt Como cc ome erm eae Coe
they die.” Nothing consoling can be adduced from reflection on the rela-
Crore cn eer Cee Roe a eee Coo ora
Pet Re Rona! Cena N CR Ce rea ina Ecoe me cma toma
OMe Cem cee Men Moa en eaten RT orcas
eee eee eae eer coe eenSic aaa
BUS CTU cca ae Nee oc oe oe ROR TU eo Sa
Ca ONE acon me amo Ree Co Co
and man is rednced “to his own forces”; but these forces, the passage clearly
implics, are inadequate to the prosccution of the tasks which all previous
societies and civilizations set for themselves. Human consciousness is thus
depicted as inadequate to both the comprehension of reality and the exercise
Cane Cone tO ee eV CT eMC ce metics
Tire rere MIR Te TET RTC Na res cee eer Contes et
their ignorance and debility at the dawn of human time.
eae ae nme CeCe LTT
ae enn nea Reman cent ests a er ete nT
Cenrh Py nae eee ee cent tec Rencon tte and
ties to control his own destiny and to give meaning and direction to
history. The metaphysical tendencies of the age, reflected in the great sys-
Tenet ROS EMT Ne te ate ea ie co eee a co
PaO CuCa nC Mince kOorscn en mE cy Tm me) cmc
Rie ee CRIMI ace ume RCM L CR ee Cero nae Com
Te on eee oR ORCS
PUT hae ee eM ee ec come Oc eS y
Ror One eM ee con eon omens
Pa On ene CST
Sere ee Ne eee ECC Come tene e
nature of the historical process itself, For the dogmatism of the utter skeptic,
NO See een um cee cee terr Ona
Cem RE ccna ee Senco cco esc
Pee ome eee Ae a ONO E
Potente
Pee MCMC emer CCT ORS eT coc ae SS
toppling era. . . . All yout ptops are too weak if your state retains its tendeney
Cree ete Uae SMe emer ener as a tech
eer ise nec enh ne eco eras ae
rotnne Recs oneei ce esce aercrcea E
Novalis hoped for a new form of Christianity, neither Catholic nor Protes
Cea cones CMe C Rano meee Weer a nae metre tne
his hope was to be found in the study of history. “I refer you to history,” he
PIC mme Ce EUG Tae CeRen eccrom Cs rc om neni Momo
erence Genre Ch cn Rarn sma Cama Ente nC en Trae mrttd
CeO ea en Dn eR Tec OC Rei mo On mean Com iTy
tion of one “letter” for another. “Shall the letter make way for the letter?”
TOE com Coca mI Cc com este nen RoR emer od
too, in the old spirit? And do you imagine yourselves on a better tack toward
Son enn eens ORD C2 NLS ec CRCCTs
neither in a sentimental return to the old order nor in a doctrinaire adher-
Cen eee em eee eae TCS CO ES
Doomed ecg oe etc
O would that the spirit of spirits filled you and you would desist from this foolish
cffort to mold history and mankind and to give it your direction! Is it not inde-
pendent, not self-empowered, as well as infinitely lovable and prophetic? To study
it, to follow after it, to lean from it, to keep step with it, to follow in faith its
promises and hints—of these no one thinks. [Ibid.]
Novalis's ideas are as “mythical” as those of Constant, which is to say that
Doe edie Rot Aen ene coor ad eet f
a truth, The historical mysticism of the one stands in direct contrast to the
ee era a ee ema a ome eee (nar Cent os Ue trey
Pee Re eo eng cel ae eta eet n a
Oe eee cet ns a ee eee Rene Nene
from uncritical faith in history's power to provide its own meaning and the
oem eee ae osm RS Rom ce ee
past, followed religion. The same condition that Constant experienced as a
Sree ee et eee ern eee ae tec
Te Ree ema ee oe ean ee Cece
generate the same kind of historiography. In both cases the individual event
would take on a value which it could not claim in a historiography governed
by some critical standard in which the historian was asked to distinguish
Pee Renter eran Tener eS en ose ceo a
Constant, every event was equally insignificant as a contribution to man’s
quest for meaning; for Novalis, all events were equally significant as contri-
rr URS Sa ee reckons asad
Foe
See eee ete ee en aC
cism appeared in Carlyle’s essay on Boswell’s Life of Johnson, Here Carlyle
defined the purpose of history as the attempt to revoke “the Edict of Destiny,
PO Mba erates Cenc gare meen trem entity
over us.” The historian’s purpose, in Carlyle’s view, was to transmute the
Re ee ae Ce Nee Crea Ru Cone on
the living. In great historical writing, he said, “they who are gone are still
here; though hidden they are revealed; though dead they yet speak.” Here the
historian’s task is conceived as palingenesis, the pious reconstruction of the
past in its integrity, the spirit of which has continued to dominate nostalgic
Dress ec Ra e Reece ECR eC orn rem
Pier eg cere er WO CRRED Waco OC LER tS Meo
ness—to restore forgotten and overlooked greatness to a position where it
can be recognized. He to whom fortune grants this enters into a relation of
the heart with spirits long departed, and he feels himself blessed, whenRor ee od
renee gee er cere mT CTT MsrCe oo rea aor Co
A RU eee CRM CuN CTR NCA Rag
Canty
But Carlyle’s conception of history, like his conception of philosophy, was
more activist than contemplative, ethically more vigorous and assertive, and,
RT ean OCT Moe ance an ete eco
philosophies of the carly Romantics. In the essay “On History” he argued
nies
Sees CR ORT Cree aren eee
Poe RRO eee en os esa are ae ae
Pate SUT SC Se ee ereren oa ara cance CR
tum combine with others to give birth to new: it is an everliving, ever-working
Coen steno eee COM aco eee
ere me eco)
This “Chaos of Being”—Carlyle said in his essay “On Biography’—must be
faced by the historian in a spirit which he characterized as both scientific and
pera roe
ntific: because every mortal has a Problem of Existence set before him, which,
Cece c ana a Ce se eae sen aeeT eag
together, must be to a certain extent original, unlike every other; and yet, at the
same time, s0 like every other; like our own therefore; instructive, moreover, since
we also are indentured to live. A Poetic interest still more: for precisely this same
struggle of human Free-will against material Necessity, which every man’s Life,
Dg eee enero eT ee eee URE eae Sa
POTN Ree OTe CRN SNe ere Ne eee CS nce aes a
Sympathy of mortal hearts into action; and whether as acted, or as presented and
written of, not only is Poetry, but is the sole Poetry possible. [52-53]
COT Noe CS CR Conroe TY ees one teT Na oe
Ren unteMieMccectone ser hare cores hem Center tas warn ed
outside humanity itself. Human life in its individual incarnations was a
supreme value for him; and the task of the historian, therefore, was not
simply to celebrate the historical process itself, 4 Ja Novalis, but rather to
give human life an awareness of its potentially heroic nature.
bakes hy ees (et ea Smee ate a oT TACO
phorical) insight that every life is both “like every other” and at the same
ERR eam eo CRS CoG CUR ecto Tig ae my EORTC ce
Pe EOS REC aT Oe MTS eS CcE
Ca eye ae ete eae MC OOMCUn Cone cet et
the historical field is a “Chaos of Being, wherein shape after shape bodies
Fee en oe ee soon ae eer eee
any way of reducing this “Chaos” to order. In Carlyle’s view, however, theMCC Sg
Cone eC g ee TN Crete ORM mcr cm aE mnrS COCR tarenen a
teen enr sn CoM aaes cue nT mnie cma ont tte neta
Pro ence nites erm OM omen erat eer orecien in sia
Pernt Me icc mOrn ema Lier mem
COO RAR SCRE eee eS eC OU eam eC
eC mee ee CR ech ROC acne eS
Pete ecu cmm Reco MMC ete ne Romer ett tea
Teste etic Ee One Me SuAme ce MIC im ee racer
simply position himself before that field in a posture of waiting and of
Se eee Ra cee ne COCO cL ad
Soca Cg mer NCC OT MMe amt Ce OR COO cocoa
and is, therefore, immediately present to consciousness in both its integrity
POUR oe tenet eekacest tits
This notion of history, however, differs from Herder’s, to which it bears
many resemblances, by virtue of the fact that the field is regarded literally
as a Chaos; it is not viewed as an apparent chaos which is presumed to be
Rtn erm ee Msc TRneseOm nC cme et
ponents. As a matter of fact, Carlyle, like most of the later Romantics, saw
Cicer chee ean MC RCC acu mn en tcmd
ONE ort mete en eae mene coronene tem
Recents eon Ce oes een ece ec cn Re eer riser ced
Seam cee eae ene emt cl Meme et aetna
eer RUM ce oe QUer MD OMI corte eta ee orem thie
STN OM CRG Oe onan Cmc ncn any
points at which certain exceptional individuals appeared and imposed their
will upon an indolent and recalcitrant mob. The appearance of a hero repre-
sents a “victory” of “human Free-will over Necessity.” The historian’s task, at
Pr RC enn ontemes ae ec sae Cre
sing a hymn of praise to “history-in-general.”
Carlyle, in short, possessed a critical principle, one that singled out the
individual hero, the man who accomplishes something against history, as the
Pema eas ee tae mee oslo ere Crete yas WC Occ Sea saad
which Constant apprehended as a horrifying void and which Novalis viewed
EMM eC mar nC Km Cem mene nS
the situation the heroic individual faces as a field to be dominated, if only
eee een tensa mn Ram Tac ela
See CeO COR an nama shame Ont iy
ete Net RT Neeser eer ee aC geen RY
Cee cy ce een ace eM CO eee ne nt ee ean
Paces ecko STC NCCC CMC CMS Toran)
impose form upon this “Chaos,” to give to history the mark of man’s own
Peete CRO nmi teeta Ein ceke cam
‘The “Chaos of Being” notion of history, however, at least had the advan-
tage of releasing historical consciousness from the kind of determinism whichRien hn)
eM Coe CO aR eens CO TCO Cg
and Satire; it made of the historical field and the historical process a panorama
Caer Ro eee Renee Rents ee Ue cay
on the achieved and inherited, aspects of cultural life. It made of history an
Eee ts Meena rte er Cee ey ete oat en COT Te
old clements simply rearrange themselyes endlessly in a finite set of possible
CeO ns Le acatee MTOR Va Sam HoT eM HTT een tet es
appearing in the field can be brought together in such a way as to encourage
Ren ec ae ce er eT a
simply constituted the historical field as a “revel of forms” to which the poet
may go for inspiration, to test his capacities for sympathy, for understanding,
Roe acest
eR Cee can ee een cry eat
De tam et
eC U ANT Me er CeCe Muha Co a oe
and their reflections on history turned upon their apprehension of the his-
torical field as a “Chaos of Being” which they then proceeded to comprehend
respectively as simply a chaos, a plenum of creative force, and a field of
Rare ea erm ooo NR Cos Ss AU errno Tee Co
ever, were not so much earned as meroly asserted as truths, to be accepted
STM Co ee eeerone ta erat eon ae cece Oo ere
historian and philosopher of history Jules Michelet represented a different
Pee Tee CR CCE Tt ame meres TRS aC
historical process. In the first place, Michelet purported to have discovered
en a CO CMe con mR
the status of a scientific insight. For him, a poetic sensibility, critically self
conscious, provided the accesses to a specifically “realistic” apprchension of
coun
Michelet specifically denied that he was a Romantic, ‘The “Romantic
eae REO RU Cm cee MART serch
ea CR ecm eee ers come Tene hee creo eeen TN Tetons
together into a new historical method, of which Vico’s The New Science
Ce ere SE cay mc COUT TM aaa
Pio eee ct eC Mere ert an OW RT eee CTT
“a flame sufficiently intense to melt down all the apparent diversities, to
OREN em Te Om ROT a sm Re coe Cero Coe
ever, this new method was nothing but a working out of the implications of
Pe Caer Tomes e eT eco em Co Teeny
actually to identify with, resurrect, and relive the life of the past in its
oripOmECIS DNC Sg
Michelet began the effort to escape Irony by abandoning the tactics of
NOON CRS TCC oe an mnt mmc irae Caen eect on meres
RUE ceo mem ioc ee Rata mm ot el Trot
POCO ecco Mm TS eee enrcec Met Coat oN Coa eUrtastoa Cette yD tse em
tions and to Formalist (typological) integrations of the historical field. The
Metaphorical apprehension of the essential sameness of things overrides every
Cemene ccc ene mT een MC nen ea tee intcmmstet
ori een net ea Conran cater ee me mnt rete ms Reem et incor
ROMO actuate MOS Maric ne te om em ca cage Re uc ta cert
TOMO a Osment Om Reet
Oe eter aera ecg Teeter a el ese a ag
Do an ree oe ee MO RT occ ens te Mereet Sct Te
historical field, rather than for a means for characterizing them as individual
Sool CME TLC aromMU TC Meno Cece MICS ec Ce ANY OO
Ua mL SSAC OMT RL Te eR E MC Res teen? oR
SURUR OR Ur Imm Ca TMC met erecer sad eran te ceatelor ce)
COU Cine Ran aCe ome TO Cea Tyee Ome)
ee ree eae
ba Rec L ce anRRee e a
Pore oR Nececra occ eee Re Meer eC re oeM eri et ECC
PRs Ct ee mn old ee On ROMER ae CCM
See Ce Ra ROn ome ttm cmtniog
Praca TU eC ua OCC OM Me me U@cvoott thr
appearing in history must be assessed finally in terms of the contribution it
eMC Mme oT Cama tear Remimec ere noe sete aes)
Bre AN OMY Oe Ce Cele Cenc oc CO) Ce SCO ACL MOLL Oe
the Romance as the narrative form to be used to make sense out of the
historical process conceived as a struggle of essential virtue against a virulent,
Pat cnm ecu pana
Asa narrator, Michelet used the tactics of the dualist. For him, there were
Proer Nae Nae Cornet Om as emeT aCe eer teCsCee EUs
historical field could be put. And, as in all dualistic systems of thought, there
was no way in his historiographical theory for conceiving of the historical
process as a dialectical or even incremental progress toward the desired goal.
Sueno acne Cc Me mrecnt Retcoated
Sen RCo CCR om cet on eats)
Cee eS ee i aac Co cee CO eT
his faith that a final unity of man with man, with nature, and with God is
pens PRC SCCM LCR ML URE SELLE Ley Ceo coe
Ceores RO RUCRU ECL NCE amNY ey MUS ee
precritically apprehended as Nature, God, History, the Individual, or Man
anes
BS CRUE (oe aU CM Cee
Michelet’s historiography can be seen in his History of the French Revolu-vic ETE
tion, His description of the spirit of France in the first year of the Revolution
Recon CeTT Ce om eenocem concoct toccre
zation as the emergence of light from darkness, to description of it as the
CDI MU CSRS coon cee errr Oa CSR te a Cone
SUMO EN Wn eee er Meer OM Cre eer Memeo eee ae
a symbol of pure symbolization, France, he wrote, “advances courageously
Perec Lat coal OMT COC eT ace Cae ARC
promises a new light to the world.” But, Michelet asked, what is this “light”?
It is no longer, he answered, that of “the vague love of liberty,” but rather
that of “the unity of the native land.” (440) The people, “like children
gone astray, .. . have at length found a mother” (441). With the breakup of
De emer Rete oO oon eG OM aE corre Meee ne
man and man, man and woman, parent and child, rich and poor, aristocrat
and commoner, are broken down. And what remains? “Fratemity has removed
CONROE ME LC Coie Cane Cater cence emment
union tends to unity.—No more federations! They are useless, only one now
Po ccs ts es Buen Bae emer TAC eS Om me hae
on
Meena ee eae ere EO mT
was “Yes, and the greatest and most simple of miracles, a return [of man] to
nature.” For, since “the fundamental basis of human nature is sociability,”
Pee ne MC SRS CM aCe merece Ceara s
Prerm ou rt aco cc ea Pe) ee ea
rn ame ee OT CETTE cae
‘The whole burdensome structure of customs, duties, tolls, laws, regulations,
era Ce Me eo RU Oe eect emer tactt
aged and maintained” rivalries between “cities, countries, and corporations—
Ee eee Cece ctu eect eu cgVeTe aC1
OT er omen Dm Oo ee oe Ree oe eke co gL
Dee eee eto ccc Cn CONC Arete ate aes
another, regret the senseless animosity which had separated them for so
many centuries, and expiate it by advancing to meet and embrace one
another with a mutual effusion of the heart” (ibid.). There is nothing,
Michelet said,
PS Se CRO co occ aM
ECS Nea Cac ce ccc
power of love... . Time and space, those material conditions to which life is
ea ee Ue ee ae eee eS
her whole Revolution a sort of dream, at one time delightful, at another terrible,
is now beginning for France, It knew neither time nor space. . . . All the old em-
Den cm I MU Rn Meee ee ester tenon Yc
Pee UC RC cece eC ae RTL cd
the cold image of abstract liberty, the true symbol is elsewhere.CUD td
Te es ee aero ee TO Ce
Ome ence tos
This symbol for man is man. [444-45]
And then, switching to a voice which was at once his own and that of the
Peo eR CRS RE ears Cr ROM SANs omnia
We, worshippers of the fnture, who put our faith in hope, and look towards the
Ce ROR ara ee Re eee Beer ceo eee TD
Ree ac Rm Ce oar ene aco
Roe cote ee eee
Ee ee Re Ne NES ete Ce Ceveme eT CORON CCrTT
church, but the universal church; from the Vosges to the Cévennes, and from the
Alps to the Pyrenees.
Neca oan ON ae Te cee
It was all, he said, “the greatest diversity . . . in the most perfect unity”
(cron
Michelet emplotted his histories as dramas of disclosure, of the liberation
of a spiritual power fighting to free itself from the forces of darkness, a
redemption, And his conception of his task as a historian was to serve as the
preserver of what is redeemed. In his book The People, written in 1846, he
said of his conception of historical representation: “Let it be my part in the
TRO ena ese arte a ae Tg TORO eee
MUR ane COM here a Mt ene ec cece
See ae MLE ACR Ce Me Te ee TE
(quoted in Stern, Varieties, 117). This conception of history as “resurrec-
oe oe mn Ceca tm TOM CRC ent ma
Ayan CC ne ees Ur eosmenen coat)
MS CAR Coa LOH CMe Coon MB Ca to Cee SMe
ieee ne Ree een en ence Reece emacs
Pre Tomy ro CoCca Cole ce UTC Oe Co Ca
moment when, during the Revolution, perfect freedom and perfect unity
are attained by “the people,” through the dissolution of all the inhibiting
forces ranged against it, the tone of his historical work was bound to grow
more melancholic, more elegiac, as the ideals of the Revolution in its heroic
eee mm aoc Certoa anc Rore eto
eR erm CRenaa nN nce et
BY Tro CaCO Lc UNTO Teo a Ce Nae CLL LeT Mee a LN
Monarchy; his Précis @histoire moderne (1827) was the standard survey of
Do ee NMS ete Re Siem Le TCO
Reaction swept Liberalism into its own Conservative phase and destroyed
A Oo ence me REMIT CCC SMe T ECMO CMR (CN 6 Cpe Me Le ce
Revolution (in seven volumes, published in the heat of passions which theSven acy
ORL ewer en aie ee ome cca
Pee STM ete eee ect Vo ono
death of his father, which occurred while he was painfully watching the slow
death of the ideals of the Revolution. His historical reflections, he wrote, had
been carried ont in “the most awful circumstances, that can attend human
life, between death and the grave,—when the survivor, himself partly dead,
ee come a Cees cnc ecm emer
NV Ea te ee Corte Ren enna el Congo a ent CO Ue
tion was thus set within a larger ‘Tragic awareness of its subsequent dissipa-
POUT eer Oa eM iets Cn Rom mer ROY on lcs
another reason to claim the title of a realist. He conceived this condition to
be precisely the same as that which had existed in France in the 1780s.
‘The Précis ends on the eve of the Revolution, with a characterization of
ae eae Reon eo OR SM OR a cents Reroste Na ca
by that time. As Michelet described it:
All the world was interested in the people, loved the people, wrote for the people;
ea eee ee a ee a eC
LET
STR UIT Ll etc sms ecC Ne eee a ea
Gaeta one en aT CRN arson te Tecate ECR co ea
transform everything.
ee Cee es ee re ees eo tad
PO ere ee Mc Roe TOR cee
Parlement, nobility, all staggered from weakness; the world was drunken [comme
ee
Pao ao mec ee aa OL ele
“No one believed any longer in cither religion or irreligion; everyone, how
ever, would have liked to believe; the hardier spirits went incognito to seck
belief in the illusions of Cagliostro and the tub of Mesmer.” However,
France, like the rest of Europe, was caught up in “the endless dialogue of
rational skepticism: against the nihilism of Hume arose the apparent cogma-
tism of Kant; and everywhere one heard the great poetic voice of Goethe,
Tone Mn cere ae ee ureemet eevee Unmet
understood nothing of this. Germany played out the epic of science; France
riers e see ey MRR eae oOg
Ce a Semcon Rc Oa Cece
POTS RETR LCRCO ny eC ecomomy eC Renreaaa ANT ot
sance est le trait commun de tous les ministéres d’alors. ‘Tous promettent, et
Parenter rua
MVOC Teme) TEC MET OnME cece ct MEL MC Cn tmentpEMECEeC od
LOTTO OL aw RCo om TO coco Mote Oconee emer’
as a struggle “between two principles, two spirits—the old and the new”
(icra Come MCR: Cas ma iat atc emote nn
nT Oe On Nt stems cc
ee Mae Snag ae ec tc eae
Ne NCS Se eae cos ees ts ere Ta ea cos
tion in a single phrase: “The Revolution is nothing but the tardy reaction of
Crete aroun eee CoaeC Cm Cee tease ae
UTR COU Ce ere MEM teem ce cca tec come ace Ud
Caer Rectan trae eco NeCecta oe mt ast
terized as such. It was the “redemption” of the people in whose history
Michelet had been vicariously participating all along.
Pes ene NaN ee ecard
Pec a ee en orc CeCe cre nmin cls
During his travels, he wrote, he went for a walk in the mountains, Reflecting
CORT Re) ate CRe Teton Maren) ke ae ata ts
fechas MAY CeCe MRR hoo Tet
What were then the subterraneous revolutions of the earth, what incalculable
powers combated in its bosom, for that mass, disturbing mountains, piercing
through rocks, shattering beds of marble, to burst forth to the surface? What con-
Se ee ee ee om eee aaa te ees Coes
Ca
Be Om RCT cn ac eee TU
Narre eC cos cc creas cme UT RE Tamme My
en ea came rT Cee TT a sead
Cera
‘That justice should have bome for a thousand years that mountain of [Christian]
dogma upon her heart, and, crushed beneath its weight, have counted the hours,
Cee eee ee eee oars
er Rte kn Roem etn g recone eno ce Tach
torture, will never entirely recover from it; whatever may happen he will be sad;
the sun, the joy of the world, will never more afford him comfort; he has lived too
eae RUM eeu TNCs mcm etm con cay elie Ten ont
Pe eee eee RE nce aU me ora
Beacham ce uceneis Rater Mticests Toe sre tents acm)
An essential difference between Herder's and Michelet’s approach to his:
ROS Mace ct i ecom eS CV ole aes tia Te tg
refuse to judge the various figures which he discemed in the historical land-
Re eee Mae ec Ce Torte cee Umer}
harmony which manifests its goodness and beneficence to mankind in all its
Serr aT eC mam Sees eeenC Men Cac Commeicc eT
POMC ee esa Me et cocoa eC et oan
eae eee nee ene eee utt
a set of events which were progressively being shorn of their status as ideal
incarnations of human community—that is to say, in the Revolution in its
popular (and, to him, Anarchist) phase—Michelet's essentially Romantic
apprehension of the historical process was progressively colored by a doleful
Ra ee cee eee eT eT
history-in-general can be organized. He continued to assert his belief in the
ideals of the Revolution and in the social vision which justified both the
elif and the ideal, but his tone became increasingly desperate as the events
Cayce mints
The historical situation from which he looked back upon the period of the
ero SN aoe as ene etc tte
ferno Reg neon SR eet te ae ee tere
ingly Ironic apprehension of the historical process, a sense of the eternal
Petre ser ence Tecoma ecco menor cece ES
eternal retum of evil and division as a temporary condition for mankind
over the long run. The doubt which the recognition of his own condition
inspired within him was transformed by an act of will into the precondition
Oe eR eee Oe
Ve aa CMR oo) MS COCO CACO TLS ULC ICA
Ped eee era nan
Be not alanmed by thy doubt. That doubt is already faith. Believe, hope! Right,
thongh postponed, will have its advent; it will come to sit in judgment, on the
Penne RTC Ut ea omg eaten a een ee Secon
ES}
‘Thus, the Romantic plot structure of the whole historical process remained
intact. The conditions of Tragedy and Irony could be set within it as phases
of the total process, to be annulled in the fire of Revolution which his own
histories were meant to keep alive.
OTe ec ent een TC ne ee Memes Onn g
humanity from one unique set of particulars to another, Michelet conceived
it as a series of cataclysmic reversals caused by long growing tensions which
force humanity into opposed camps. In these reversals, false justice is replaced
ee oon ne ee ee eR Taos
of love, Christianity, the tyrant which “covered the world with [a] sea of
blood,” by its true antithesis, the spirit of the Revolution (31). And his
PS OCMC Me OMe Ree eT a eee een etd
and priests, “to drown false history and the hired flatterers of murder, to fill
rere aren a ery
Pieen ene a TO Ro enCe Ne Vo ore ecco ean omer TI
it was the symbol of the Ironic condition in which a “government of grace”