Rusen Ranke

7/27/2019 Rusen Ranke

1/16

Wesleyan University

Rhetoric and Aesthetics of History: Leopold von RankeAuthor(s): Jrn RsenSource: History and Theory, Vol. 29, No. 2 (May, 1990), pp. 190-204Published by: Blackwell Publishing for Wesleyan UniversityStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2505225

Accessed: 20/07/2010 21:44

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

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

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

access toHistory and Theory.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2505225?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2505225?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/16

RHETORIC AND AESTHETICS OF HISTORY:LEOPOLD VON RANKE

JORN RUSEN"Let'sdo the time warp again!"-Rocky HorrorPictureShow

I. THE QUESTIONHistoriansnormallydo not look at the outputof theirwork as literaturebutas a resultof academicskill and endeavor.In remarkable ppositionto thisopinion,recent rends n thetheoryof historystress hepoeticaland rhetoricalcharacter f historiographyprecisely thecharacter enerally verlookedntheself-awarenessndself-understandingf most professionalhistorians.There sagooddealof postmodernismn thequestfor rhetoric ndaestheticsof histori-ography, ecausehemodernityf historiographys definedby ts academic r ina broader ense of the word by its scientificcharacter.And it is a widespreadanddeep-rooted pinionof academichistorians, nd of postmodernistheoreti-cians of historyas well,thatthis scientific haracters the oppositeof rhetoricandaesthetics. nthefollowingargument would ike to show that thiscontrastbetween he postmodernistunderstandingf historiographys rhetoricalandthe modernist cientificapproach o historicalknowledgeeadsus onlyto one-sided viewsof historiography.IRanke'swork s a good exampleof the factthat rhetoricandaestheticscanbe mediatedwithrationality,which defines he academicor scientific haracterof historicaltudies.Rankes known orbothaspectsof historiography:is workrepresentshe newacademic tandard,wonbya processof scientificationnthehumanities ince the late eighteenth entury,andat the same time it representsa newliteraryqualityof historywriting,whichmakes t an integralpartof theproseliterature f the nineteenthcentury.We can look at it as a documentofa scientifiedhistoriographynd at the sametime as an importantpartof theso-callednarrative ealism.So it seems to be worthwhileo confrontRanke'shistoriographyith hepostmodern uestion f therhetoricalrinciplesf histori-ography n the onehand,andnotto overlook hemodernity f historicalhoughton the other,which historicalstudies realizesby its methodicalrationality.

1. Cf. Jorn Rusen, "New Directions in Historical Studies,"in MiedzyHistoriaa Teoria: efieksjenadProblematyka ziejow WiedzyHistorycznej,d. MarianDrozdowski(Warsaw,1988),340-355;and Rusen, "Historische Aufkldrung in Angesicht der Post-Moderne: Geschichte im Zeitalter der'neuen Uniibersichtlichkeit,"' n Streitfall eutscheGeschichte:Geschichts- ndGegenwartsbewuJflt-sein n den80erJahren, d. Landeszentrale ur politische BildungNordrhein-WestfalenEssen, 1988),17-38. (A shortened English version appears in Historyand Memory1 [19891.)


3/16

RHETORIC AND AESTHETICS OF HISTORY 1911I. THE ANTI-RHETORICAL TURN OF HISTORY TOWARD SCIENCE

Seenhistorically,modernhistorical tudies aidclaimto methodological ation-alityby anemphasis n anti-rhetoricalrguments,husconstitutingtsacademicor scientific haracter ndmolding ts statusas anautonomousdisciplinenthehumanities.A famousandinfluentaldocumentof thisclaimfora newstandardof historical tudiesandof its anti-rhetoricalurn s Ranke'sirstbook, hisHis-toriesof theLatinand GermanicNations1494to 1514, irstpublishedn 1824.2Here he wrotehis famousdeclarationhat historyneed not judgethe past inorder o teachthepresent or the sakeof its future;his book, Ranke aid,"onlywants o showhow it reallyhad been."3 his claimof objectivity eflectshenewself-understandingf historical tudiesasan empirical ciencewitha specialsetof methodological ules, constitutinghistoricalknowledgeas a processof re-search.4Rankegot his chairin Berlinwhenhe publishedhis book;one of themain reasonsfor this advancementwasits appendix,a criticalanalysisof thehistoriographyf the timein question.5HereRankepresentsa methodto getfromthe sourcesvalidknowledgeof the pasthewroteabout:by goingthroughthe documents nd reports f the pasttogainan insightof whatreallyhadbeen.In order o emphasize hisnewscientificapproachof historiography, ankecontrastedhewayhe thoughthistory houldbewrittenwiththetraditional he-toricalattitudeof historiography.Rankegaveas an exampleof this rhetoricalattitudeGuicciardini'sistoriography, here he actors n the historicaleventsexplain heir ntentionsbyspeeches.These speecheshavea rational unction nthe text: heyexplain hehistoricallymportant ctionsbyexplicatingheleadingintentions f the actors. Themodelof explanation sedhere s thatof explainingactionsbytheir ntentions.6)Rankedoesnotargueagainst his explanation,butagainsthe fictional haracterf the speeches;heyarenotdocumented ysources.Theysaywhatwouldhavebeensaidif theactorshad beenaskedfor thereasonsfor their actions.ForRanke t is the fictionalcharacter f the speecheswhichmakes t impossible o insert theminto the courseof events,despitetheir ex-planatory unction(whichhe did not discuss).Fictional peechesnanhistoriographicalext,whichpretendo saywhatreallyhadbeenin thepast-that is what the intellectuals f thattimemeantbyrhet-oric.Theyunderstoodby rhetorica strategyof speakingor writing,character-

2. Leopold von Ranke,Geschichtenerromanischenndgermanischen olker on1494bis1514,2nd ed. (Samtliche Werke,vol. 33/34) (Leipzig, 1874).

3. "zeigen, wie es eigentlich gewesen," ibid.,vii.4. Cf. Jorn Rusen, "Vonder Aufklarung zum Historismus: IdealtypischePerspektiveneines Struk-

turwandels,"n Von erAufklarungumHistorismus:umStrukturwandeles historischenenkens,ed. H. W. Blanke and J. Rusen (Paderborn, 1984), 15-57.

5. ZurKritikneuererGeschichtsschreiberSamtliche Werke,vol. 33/34) (Leipzig, 1874).Cf. ErnstSchulin, "RankesErstlingswerkoder Der Beginn der kritischenGeschichtsschreibungfiberdie Neu-zeit,"in his TraditionskritikndRekonstruktionsversuch:tudien urEntwicklungonGeschichts-wissenschaft nd historischemDenken(Gottingen, 1979), 44-64.

6. The logic of this mode of explanation is discussed in Jorn Risen, Rekonstruktioner Vergan-genheit:GrundztigeinerHistorikI:Die PrinzipienerhistorischenorschungGottingen,1986),30ff.


4/16

192 JORN RUSENized bythe meansof persuasionand by an absenceof truthclaims;one couldsay byusing language-tricks,nsteadof convincingarguments.Rhetoric s theuse of languageorstrategic urposes,whereas cientifichistoriographyses an-guageto articulatehe resultsof empiricalresearch.Toput it simply: ruth n-steadof tricks.In Ranke'sownwords,directedagainstGuicciardini's resenta-tionof fictional peeches: We n oursidehaveanother onceptof history.Nakedtruthwithoutanyembellishment; ainstaking esearchnto the particular;herest lies in the hands of God;rejectingany fiction,evenin the smallestmatter,rejectingany fantasywhatsoever."'Rankeconfrontsfantasywith truth.For him rhetoric n historiographyn-dangersruth;tcrosses he borderwhichseparates oth.Opposed o thisdangerstandsresearch,hat is,the expositionof empiricalvidencegivenbythesources,ruledby method.Research uaranteesruth; t enableshistorians o say whatreallyhad beenand lets themrespect he borderbetween mpirical videnceortruthonthe one side and fantasyor fictionon theother.Thisoppositionbelongsto the basic argumentsby whichprofessionalhistorianshave gainedand aredefendingheir mageas experts,whoseknowledges indispensableoranycon-vincingand respectable epresentationf the past.Ranke'swork marks a turningpoint in the developmentof historiography:it changed rom iteratureo science.Traditionallyhe skillof historianswastheirabilityto reach he mind of their audiencebythe persuasiveorce of theirlin-guistic orms, nwhich he pastbecomesalive, peakinghelanguage f commonsense,teachingpractical ompetencen masteringopicalproblemsof present-daylife.8Historiographywasoriented o the practicalneedsof its audience. twasguidedbythe principleof addressing n audience,byspeakingo someone;it was ndeedrhetorical.Nowhistoriography ecameoriented owards esearch;it gaineda newqualityof empiricalevidence.It claimedto speakthe truthir-respective f allexpectations nd prejudices f its audience. t no longer aughtpractical ompetence,butgaveempiricalknowledge. t simplysaidhow it reallyhad been.After thisturningpoint,whenhistorywas done in the formof an academicdiscipline,mosthistorians resented nd stillpresentheirvisionof whathistori-ographysand hasto beina remarkablyarrow-minded ay: orthem,the mainworkof historianss research; istoriographys basicallynothingbuta compre-hensive ummary f researchesults.The literaryormof presentingheseresultsis of no deepconcern; t is of secondary mportance, eingfunctionallydepen-denton the methodologicalprinciplesof gainingsolid knowledgeof the pastfromthe sources.

111.THE UNENLIGHTENED SYNTHESIS OF ART AND SCIENCERankedid not share his narrow-mindedness.n the contrary,besideshis em-

7. "WirunsersOrtshaben einen andernBegriffvon Geschichte.Nackte Wahrheit hne allenSchmuck;rundliche rforschung esEinzelnen; asubrigeGottbefohlen; urkeinErdichten,uchnicht im Kleinsten,nurkein Hirngespinst."ZurKritikneuererGeschichtsschreiber,4.)8. This is clearlyworkedout by EckardKessler: Geschichte:Menschliche raxisoder kritische


5/16

RHETORIC AND AESTHETICS OF HISTORY 193phasis on research as the basis of historiography, he neverthelessacknowledgedthe fact that writing history, that is, shaping researchresults into an acceptablestory, is based on other principles besides research. Whereas the principles ofresearchare scientific in theirnature and belong to the realmof modern methodo-logical rationality, the principles of writing history are artistic or poetic in theirnature and belong to the realm of literature. In Ranke's own words:History sdistinguishedromall othersciencesnthat t is also an art.Historysascienceincollecting, inding,penetrating;t is an art becauset recreates nd portrayshatwhichit hasfoundandrecognized.Othersciencesaresatisfied implywithrecordingwhathasbeen found;historyrequires he ability to recreate.9What does Rankemean by saying that history as a science is "also" an art? Whatis the relationship between scientific and poetic principles? Is it characterizedby a hierarchicalorder or is it mediated? Ranke does not give a clear and theo-reticallyexplicatedanswer. He explicatesthe scientificcharacterof historiographyby pointing to philosophy, which representsthe decisive element, namely "dis-coveringcausality and conceptualizing the core of existence.""0History, he says,does this discovering and conceptualizing by working with the sources, whichgive the empirical evidence of what really had happened in the past. The modeof "discoveringcausality and conceptualizing the core of existence"as it appearsin the temporal course of human affairs in the past, is the historical method,the set of ruleswhich guide historical research as a processof knowledge. Rankedescribed it briefly but very precisely as "collecting, finding, penetrating,"thusindicating the three main operations of historical research:heuristics, critique,and interpretation." Besides that, he quite simply states the artistic or poeticcharacterof historiography,describing it as "reproducingthe appeared life."12Rankesays that this reproduction is done by activatingthe "abilityto recreate."'3How does this abilityworkin historiography,and how is it relatedto the methodo-logical principles of historical research?

Wissenschaft?" in Kessler, Theoretiker humanistischer Geschichtsschreibung (Munich, 1971);cf.Kessler,"DasrhetorischeModell der Historiographie,"n Formen der Geschichtsschreibung, d. Rein-hartKoselleck, Heinrich Lutz, and Jorn Rusen(Beitragezur Historik, Bd. 4) (Munich, 1982),37-85.9. "Onthe Characterof Historical Science (A Manuscript of the 1830s)," n Leopold von Ranke:The Theory and Practice of History, ed. Georg G. Iggers and Konrad von Moltke (Indianapolis,1973), 33. ("Die Historie unterscheidet sich dadurch von anderen Wissenschaften, daB sie zugleichKunst ist. Wissenschaft ist sie: indem sie sammelt, findet, durchdringt;Kunst, indem sie das Gefun-dene, Erkanntewiedergestaltet,darstellt.AndreWissenschaftenbegnugensich,das Gefundeneschlech-thin als solches aufzuzeichnen: bei der Historie gehbrt das Vermogen der Wiederhervorbringungdazu." ["Ideeder Universalgeschichte," n Leopold von Ranke: Vorlesungseinleitungen,ed. VolkerDotterweich and Walter Peter Fuchs (Aus Werk und NachlaB, vol. IV) (Munich, 1975), 72.])10. "On the Characterof Historical Science," in Iggers and Moltke, eds., 33 ("die Kausalitat zuergrunden, den Kern des Daseins in dem Begriff zu fassen." [Dotterweich and Fuchs, eds., 721).11. It was Droysen who first (1857) explicated the main operations of the historical method inthis way. Cf. Johann Gustav Droysen, Historik, ed. P. Leyh (Stuttgart), 1, 67ff.12. Iggersand Moltke, eds., 34 ("das erschienene Leben wieder zu reproduzieren," Dotterweichand Fuchs, eds., 721).13. Iggersand Moltke, eds., 33 ("Vermogender Wiederhervorbringung," Dotterweichand Fuchs,eds., 72]).


6/16

194 JORN ROSENThesequestionsarenotclearlyanswered yRanke;hejustsays hatinhistorytherearetwoforcesof themindworking, heintellectualorce,whosemostrep-resentativectivity s philosophy, ndthepoetical orce,whosemostrepresenta-

tiveactivity s art. In historythey aremediated."Historybringsboth togetherin a thirdelementpeculiaronly to itself."1'4What is this "thirdelement," on-stituting he peculiarityof historical tudies,combiningand mediatinghistor-ical research ndhistoriographyo make a whole called"history"?This is thedecisivequestion. It is decisive(at least for my argument)because t is relatedto the modernist haracter f historyas a scienceas well as to theactual post-modern ook at history as a rhetoricalanguagegame.Rankehimself refutesthedichotomybetween cientific ndaestheticeatures f historybyemphasizingthe mediationof scienceandartin history.So I think t is worthwile o find outwhathe pointed o byspeakingof thethirdelement,whichmediates heconcep-tualizingforcesof the human mindwith the reproducing nes.Unfortunatelyhis descriptions not veryclear. He said that this element sa direction f thehumanmindandits forcesof historical onsciousnessowardsthe real, which is commonto the intellectualas well as to the artisticforce ofhistory.This approach o realitydistinguishesboth of them fromphilosophyand art,whichare directed owards he ideal. Thisargument eadsus backtoRanke's amoussayingthat he only wantedto show how it really had been.Ourquestion herefore houldbe,what leads to thisobjectivityof what had"reallybeen"?For Ranke he answer s clear: t is research. f that is true,thenthe basic roleof art in historyescapesour attention,becauseresearch annotmediatebetweentself andart nhistory.ToquoteRankeagain:"Historys neverthe one withoutthe other."1So the questionremainsopen:whatis the medi-atingthirdelement?Whatrealizes he peculiarhistorical ealism ombiningartand science?

Rankedid not deal with this questiontheoretically.Forhimthe simple actof writinghistoryusingthe resultsof empirical esearch roves ufficientlyhatthere s a synthesisof scienceand art in historiography. rtjust takesplaceinthe act of historywriting.Art is different romscience,whichneedsconceptualand methodologicalclarity n the procedures f gainingknowledge.Art doesnot need rulesor reflectedprinciples."Artrestson itself:its existenceprovestsvalidity.Ontheotherhand,sciencemustbe totallyworkedout to its verycon-ceptand must be clearto its core."16 pparentlyRankedoes not think that theartificial r poeticside of historyrequireshistorianso havea professional killcomparableo theirabilityas researchers. Therest lies in the handsof god":wecan read hiswordashintinganon-rational, rbetter,a super-rationalroce-dure,generatedn a realmof the humanmind,wherecognitiveprinciplesandmethodologicaluleshavenoplace.Itis theplacewhichhadformerly een akenby rhetoric.

14. Iggers ndMoltke,eds.,34 ("Sieverbindet iebeide n einemdritten,nur hreigentumlichenElement,"Dotterweichnd Fuchs,eds., 72]).15. Idem.16. Idem. ("DieKunst eruht uf sich elber:hrDasein eweisthreGultigkeit, agegen ollkommen


7/16

RHETORIC AND AESTHETICS OF HISTORY 195Whathappenedo rhetoricwhen t got placed ntoGod'shands?I would iketo play a little bit furtherwhich thesewords.If youtake themliterally,he an-swer s: Rhetoricmusthavebeenspiritualized.And that was indeedthe case:

it gotan aestheticalubstance rat leastelements f an aesthetics,whichchangeditscharacter ccordingo the modernizing ationalization f historiographyyscientificresearch.The anti-rhetoricalurn of historiography id not simplyabolishrhetoric n it, but changed t, gaveit a new character, new formofspeaking o its audience.Rankerepresentshisnoveltyon boththepracticaland theoreticalevels:Onthelevelof praxisRanke'smainworkshaveanundeniable estheticquality; heybelong o thegreatprose iteraturef realism.Thisaestheticqualitys notsimplytheresult f Ranke's niquegiftas awriter;t is representativef European istori-ography f the nineteenth enturyngeneral. thinkof Macaulay,Michelet,andmainlyof theNobelPrize orLiteratureor TheodorMommsen's omanHistory.Onthelevelof theory,Ranke peaksof artin history n a waythat caneasilybe understood sinaccordwithclassicalaesthetics.17ereart s seenas a precog-nitiveproceduref producing nimageof lifewithoutbeingsubmittedo rules;the proceduretself generatests rules,andthe more originaltheyare,that is,the lesstheyarealreadyormulated,he betterandthemoreeffectivehe artifactsare.This deaof art s fundamentallynti-rhetorical,ecauserhetoric ivesrulesfor linguisticprocedures, nd the rules stand for theirsuccessand effect.Thisanti-rhetoricaldeaof artis the reasonRanke etsart "reston itself" n historyand concentrates is efforts n historicalknowledgeon research nd not on itslinguistic orm.Untilnow I havenot onlynot answeredhequestionaboutthe peculiarhistor-icalelement n the humanmind mediatingbetweenscienceandart, but I havecomplicatedhisquestionevenmoreby pointingto the aesthetical ffectof theanti-rhetoricalurn of history n Ranke's ime. However,hiscomplications awayof answeringhe question.ForRanke,rhetoric s negatedby scientificre-search,and thereis only a residueof rhetoricremainingn a fundamentallychanged orm: heaestheticsof historiography.hemediating lement n ques-tion nowcomesintoview,whenwe askwhetherRanke'sassertion hat rhetoriccompletelyvanishedn aestheticss convincing. thinkthatthisis not the case.So I will ask about the hidden rhetoric n Ranke'shistoriographyn ordertofindan answer o thequestion:what combines he conceptualizingorcesof thehumanmindwiththeimagining orcesandgivesthemboththeirspecifichistor-ical character?

IV. BACK TO RHETORICFromrecent heoryof historywe canlearnthattheconceptof rhetoric,under-durchgearbeitetsein bis zu ihrem Begriff und uber ihr Eigenstes klar mud die Wissenschaft sein."[Dotterweich and Fuchs, eds., 73])17. Cf.JoMn usen,AsthetikundGeschichte: eschichtstheoretischentersuchungenumBegran-dungszusammenhangon Kunst,Geselischaftund WissenschaftStuttgart,1976),14ff.


8/16

196 JORN ROSENlyingtheanti-rhetoricalurnof history nto historical tudiesasscienceandstillvivid in the mindof professionalhistorians,s too narrow.'8tswidermeaningcomesinto viewwhen we look at Ranke'sarguments n scienceandart in his-tory.As "activeorcesof thehumanmind"tatigeGeisteskrafte)oth aredealingwith the samematter,calledby RankeLeben(life-in the senseof human ife)or Existenz.9Historyas asubjectmatter s theappearancef lifeintime.Scienceas historicaltudiesrecognizest byconceptualizingheinformation f thesourcematerial.Art as historiographyeproducest by imagining he past as a vivid,temporalhappeningn humanaffairs.Bothoperationsof historical onscious-nessareguidedby underlying atterns f significancewhichgiveeventsandtheirtemporal onnection hecharacter f life or existence or in Ranke'swords, hecharacterof being somethingwhich"reallyhad been."What ells he historianwhat"really adbeen"nthe temporalourseof humanaffairsn thepast?Althoughmanyhistorians and maybeevenRanke thoughtand think that this reality s an objectivelygivenfact, told by the sources, t issomethingelse,somethingeven more"objective"n the senseof alive,effective,constitutinghumanexistencerather han a dead fact,a positivedatumof whatis or was he case.History epresentshis fundamentalivelinessnlinguisticorm,it is the livelinessof languageas a form of human existence.

The life of history presentedby historiographyives in the languageof thehistorian,bywhich he placeshis recollectingpresentation f the past into thepresentife of theaudiencensuchaway hat itgains he liveliness f thispresentlife. Where s historyalivein this fundamental, xistentialway?Where s it apartof "real,"hatis, practicalife?Thisplacein life is theculturalorientationof humanactivityandsufferingn socialrelations.History s an essentialpartof world-and self-interpretationithoutwhichhumanactivity annot akeplace.Whathas this generalargument o do withrhetoric? n fact I have alreadyspokenof rhetoric,becauserhetoricn history s nothingbuta set of linguisticformswithinwhichhistoricalknowledgegainsits elementaryandbasicliveli-ness in practicalhumanlife. The patternsof significancewhich givethe factsof the pasttheir sense andmeaning or present-dayife are linguistic orms ofhistoricalnarrativeswhichcan be furtherdescribedas topoi of the histori-ographicaldiscourse.2The rhetoric f historyconsistsof a set of topoi,basicpatterns f significance,whichare usedwhen, by narrative resentation,he pastis to playa vividrolein actual ife.Presentedn thesetopicalpatterns,historicalknowledgebecomes

18. HaydenWhite,Metahistory: heHistorical maginationnNineteenthCenturyEurope Bal-timore,1973);White,Tropics f Discourse:Essays n CulturalCriticismBaltimore, 978);White,TheContent f theForm:Narrative iscourse ndHistoricalRepresentationBaltimore,987);Domi-nick LaCapra,Historyand CriticismIthaca, 1985);JornRtisen,"Geschichtsschreibungls The-orieproblem erGeschichtswissenschaft:kizzezumhistorischenHintergrund er gegenwartigenDiskussion,"n Koselleck,Lutz,and Rdsen,eds., 14-36.19. Iggersand Moltke,eds., 33ff. (Dotterweich nd Fuchs,eds., 72).20. Cf.JdrnRusen,LebendigeGeschichte.Grundzige inerHistorikII:FormenundFunktionendes historischenWissensGdttingen,1989).


9/16

RHETORIC AND AESTHETICS OF HISTORY 197a partof practicalife,of effectiveorientationof humanactivityandsufferinginthe courseof time.Rhetoric urnisheshistoricalknowledgewithideas of thecourseof timecomprisingpast,present,and future nto a thoroughgoing nitof sense,significance,rmeaning ortheaction-guidingnterpretationf worldand humanity n human life.Thisconceptof rhetoricof course ncludesmuchmorethanmerely he inser-tion of fictionalelements n narratives f factualoccurrences;t includesmuchmorethanmerelya set of linguistic ricksto be used in the strategyof persua-sion. It has to be seen as a necessary ondition for an historicalunderstandingof thepastbyplacing t with hevitality f languagen theactual ourseof present-day life.

How is this done by Ranke?It is not my intentionto describehis networkof rhetoricalorms, which frompastoccurrences, s he has found them byre-search,createsa vividhistoricalnarration. canonlyhintat someof themostimportant hetoricaltructureswhichare nherenthapingprinciples f Ranke'shistoriography.Beforedoingso Iwould ike to distinguish etweendifferentevelsandaspectsof rhetoricaltructuresnhistoriography.hebasicrhetoricaltructure f everyhistorical ext is constitutedby a mixtureof the fourtypes of fundamental ndelementary opoi of historicalnarration:hetraditional, heexemplary,hecrit-ical,andthe geneticmodeof making enseout of theempirical actsof thepast.2"Thisbasicstructureannow befilled nand madeconcretewithpoliticalaspira-tions towardshe intendedorientation f practicalife initstemporaldimensionby historicalknowledge.Here we can easilydistinguishbetween eft andright,moderateandradical, eministor patriarchalntentions,and so on-in short,it is possible to find everypoliticalpositionshapingthe designof the past inhistoriography.esides hepoliticalrhetoricwecan findother ntentional actorsof practical ife constituting he livelinessof historiography y rhetoricalpat-terns, orexample, thics,religion,world-views,deologies.Wecan describe ndanalyzethesefactorsby means of typologies,and we can transform veryty-pologyinto a set of rhetorical opoi in historiography.Goingbackto Ranke, would ike todesribehe rhetoric f hishistoriographybypointingo twolevelsoraspects:hebasicallyhistorical ndthe political opoi.Both arewellknownascharacterizinghepeculiarity f Ranke'smodeof historywriting:hepresentshistorypredominantlyn themeaning-constitutiveoposofgeneticalnarration,andhis politicalattitude s historiographicallyisible as amoderateconservatism.The geneticaltopos is present n the often usedcategoryof "development"(Entwickelung) nd in a multitudeof metaphorsof movement, xpressinghethoroughgoing istorical enseof thepresented ccurrences f thepast.Thefol-lowingquotation rom theHistoryof thePopesis typicalof this rhetoricof the

21. Cf. JoMnRfisen, "Die vier Typen des historischen Erzdhlens," n Koselleck, Lutz, and Rfisen,eds., 514-605; Rfisen, "Historical Narration: Foundations, Types, Reason," in History and Theory,Beiheft 26 (1987), 87-97; Riisen, Lebendige Geschichte.


10/16

198 JORN ROSENgenetic type of historical orientation in time: "We are forced irresistibly to theconviction that all the purposes and efforts of humanity are subjected to the si-lent and often imperceptible, but invincible and ceaseless march of events." 22Ranke presents this "march of events" as an historical process, leading to thepolitical constellation of modern states in Europe, which Ranke thought to bepredominant in his time. In the context of our quotation, Ranke expresses thisleading genetic perspective of modern history as "a spirit of community in themodern world which has always been regarded as the basis of its entire develop-ment, whether in religion, politics, manners, social life, or literature."23

Ranke shapes this perspective politically mainly by presenting interactions ofleading personalities, thus underlining the fundamental importance and compe-tence of governments for the essential decisions without relating too much tothe governed people and their normal life. Ranke's political ideas and his stand-point in political life are well known,24as well as their manifestationin his histori-ography.But it is less known how he transforms them into rhetorical modes andstrategies of history writing.

We can describethese modes and strategies by referringto perspectiveswithinwhich acts of governments appear, and to attributes which characterize politicalactions and actors. Such a perspectiveoften implies a view from above, favoringstate-politics as the main force of historical development, and such attributescan be found in Ranke's characterizationof mass-movements like the peasant'swar during the Reformation in Germany as driven by blind natural forces ratherthan by reflected and culturally legitimized intentions.25

All these rhetorical strategies are at work in Ranke's historiography, as wellas in historiographyin general. So what about the anti-rhetorical turn of histori-ography towards its modern, scientific form? Recognizing the unbroken forceof rhetoric in historiography, one could easily come to the opinion that all theanti-rhetoricalsayings of research-basedhistoriographyare nothing more thanrhetoric itself. It seems simply to hide the rhetorical characterof historiographyin order to takepart in the cultural prestigeof science and to legitimatethe profes-sional skill of historians, now cultivatingan image of academic seriousness. Thispostmodern view of modernity which historiography has gained by historicalstudies and its scientific methods is seductive. It seriously takes into considera-tion the literary characterof historiographyand lifts the veil of ignorance which

22. Iggers and Moltke, eds., 185 ("Es ist nicht anders, als daB alles menschliche Tun und Treibendem leisen und der Bemerkung oft entzogenen, aber gewaltigen und unaufhaltsamen Gange derDinge unterworfen ist.") (Ranke, Die romischen Pdpste in den letzten vier Jahrhunderten[SamtlicheWerke, vol. 37] [Leipzig, 1874], 23.)

23. Ranke, Die romischen Pdpste, 185 ("Es gibt eine Gemeinschaftlichkeit der modernen Welt,welche immer als eine Hauptgrundlage der gesamten Ausbildung derselben in Staat und Kirche,Sitte,Leben und Literatur betrachtet worden ist.")

24. Cf. Helmut Berding, "Leopold von Ranke," n Deutsche Historiker, ed. Hans-Ulrich Wehler(Gottingen, 1971), 1, 7-24.

25. Ranke'swords:"Unaufh6rlichvernimmtman dies dumpfe BrauseneinesunbandigenElementesin dem Innern des Bodens, auf dem man steht."Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalterder Reformation(Samtliche Werke, vol. 1) (Leipzig, 1867), 1, 143.


11/16

RHETORIC AND AESTHETICS OF HISTORY 199the academic self-understanding of historians has spread on history writing asthe main task of historians. But unfortunately the new awarenessof historiog-raphy as a working process of writing produces a new veil over what historiansdo, now concealing the research-processas an important part of the work ofhistorians.

I think it worthwhile, therefore,to ask, what are the consequences of the anti-rhetorical input of research nto historiography? Is there any effect of it signallinga new, a specifically "modern" quality in the art of history writing? Looking atRanke's work gives us an answer: it is aesthetics.

V. FORWARD TOWARDS AESTHETICSWhat is the difference between rhetoric and aesthetics?26By its rhetoric histori-ography realizes its practical function of orienting the practical life of its au-dience in the course of time. It transforms the necessity of action into the lin-guistic forms of its temporal orientation by historical memory. By doing so itfollows the logic of practical needs in human world-interpretation and self-understanding. Aesthetics introduces the element of freedom into this constraintof practical needs shaping historiography; t unburdens action-leading historicalmemories from the dominance of practical interests and opens up a space forfree self-reflection in the temporal orientation of human activity. It is the attrac-tiveness of freely dealing with historical knowledge while using it rhetoricallyin the cultural struggle for life.

We are aware of this appearance of freedom and acknowledge it when we ap-preciateandenjoy Ranke'shistoriographyas verywellwritten,or of a high literarystandard,without accepting its standpoint in social and political life. Historiog-raphyhas this aesthetical quality in common with literature such as poetry. Soit seems to be a quality which has nothing to do with the anti-rhetorical turnwhich Ranke and all academic historians are so eager to emphasize.

I think that this is not true.For me the aesthetic appeal of the classical histori-ography of the nineteenth century is more than just a consequence of the per-sonal abilitiesof historians;it is a reflectionof an innerrationalizationof histori-ography by historical studies. It is the gleam of reason in the artistic or poeticdimension of historiography.Forus the linguistic articulation of scholarly skillsin historiography appears in footnotes.27The more footnotes, the deeper the ac-ademic concern. Ranke's works do not have many footnotes. Their academicor scientific concern is much more internalized. It becomes visible in the waythe claim for objectivity founded in historical research is a principle of shapingor linguistic presentation of historical knowledge.

It is often said that Ranke indicated historicalobjectivity by avoiding speakingof himself in his historiography.That he wanted to "extinguish my self and only

26. For a more detailed argument see Rusen, Lebendige Geschichte.27. Cf. Peter Rief3,Footnotoly: Towardsa Theory of the Footnote (Berlin, 1985).


12/16

200 JORN ROSENlet speakthe matter,make apparent he powerful orces,"28s wellknownandseems o underlinehisattitudeof authoritative arration.He speaks,neverthe-less,of himself.I foundthe word"I" n the firstvolumeof hisHistoryof thePopesthirteenimeswithina hundredpages.This "I" s thehistorian,wonderinghow he shouldunderstand n eventor an action,29 xplicatinghis sourcefor acertainoccurrence,30omplaining bouttheimpossibility f describinghemul-titudeof Renaissance rt,and so on. This"I" n factneverreflectshis conceptof thewhole nterpretation,hecomprehensiveerspective ithinwhich hegreatmarchof events s presented. t dealswithsingularities nd not withthewhole.Thiswhole,the internalandsubstantialemporalconnectionof events,occur-rences,and actions,whichformsthe whole story, s implicatedn thistemporalconnection;t appearsn the modeof its narrative resentation. t is the lusterof a universal rder n the temporalchangeof the humanworld.Here lies thereasonfor the aestheticqualityof Ranke'shistoriography:t is his conceptionof temporalwholesand its narrativepresentationn the form of temporal e-quencesof occurrencesmainlyevents).Rankeavoids peaking f himselfwhilepresenting isconception,whichcom-prisesan integrativeemporalwholethatformsthe basicsenseof his historiog-raphy.He is convinced hatthis wholeis essentiallymorethanonlya subjectiveconstructof the historian,generatedn his poeticalmind.It is a realtemporalchainof humanaffairs,definingheirhistorical rder.Thisgreat emporal hainof humanaffairss pregivenn the sourcematerial.It can be foundthere,butit has to be workedout by historicalresearch.

Thisbasicconceptof objectivelypregiven,emporalwholesin the courseofpasteventsdestroys hetoric;t is themainargument gainst herhetoricalradi-tion of historiography.n rhetorict is thelinguisticproceduref historywritingwhichpresents he past in sucha way that the knowledgeof it playsan activerolein solvingorientation-problemsn presentpracticalife. In Ranke's iewitis the temporalwholeof history tself, whichcombines he pastso tightlywithpresentimethat itsmemory anworkasanintegralpart n present-dayctivity.Historiographyoes not rhetoricallymediatebetweenpresent-day racticalifeandknowledge f thepast,butitexplicates cientificallynobjectivelypregiveninternalconnectionbetweenpastand present.The temporalwholes bringingaboutthis connectionare constitutedby themoving orcesof temporalhangenthehumanworld.Rankeandclassical istori-cismof the nineteenth enturysaw theseforcesworking n the action-guidingand-moving ntentionsof the humanmind,called"idea"Idee).For him it wasthe spiritof mankind,present n everyword and deedof anymemberof thehumanrace,which hapes hetemporalwhole,givinghistoricalense oitscourse

28. "Ich wunschte mein Selbst gleichsam auszuloschen, und nur die Dinge reden, die machtigenKrafteerscheinenzu lassen."(EnglischeGeschichtevornehmlich m 17. Jahrhundert[SamtlicheWerke,vol. 151[Leipzig, 18771, II, 103.)29. Ranke, Die romischen Papste, 37.

30. Ibid., 39.


13/16

RHETORIC AND AESTHETICS OF HISTORY 201of events in the past, and combinesthis coursewiththe actual changeof thehuman world,happening n presentactionsand sufferings.For Ranke, herefore, hetoric s replacedby an idealisticphilosophyof his-tory.31Thisphilosophy ets historians indby research n underlying tructureof temporal hangeshapedbythe mentalforcesof human ife, andthis under-lying structure omprises heactualoccurrences f present-dayife. In thiswayhistoricalknowledge f whatreallyhappenednthe past expresseswhat s reallyhappening oday.Past andpresent recombinedbytheactuality f mental orces("ideas"),which placethem into an intelligibleorderof time.The knowledgeof this order s objectiveand theoretical in the senseof intelligible),becauseit is empirically videntin the events of the past and can be discernedn thesourcesbyresearch.At the same timeit is subjective ndpractical inthe senseof orientingpracticalife or actionswithan ideaof a temporaldirectionof thechangeto be effectedby practice),because t enlightens he intentional orcesof present-day ctivity and suffering.The scientificmode of thinking n historical nterpretations, therefore,al-ready n principle sufficient onditionorthe implementationf historical nowl-edge intothe coreof practicalife. Rhetorics no longernecessary s a strategyof such an implementation.

Relating o thisphilosophical roundof historicisthistoriography, e can un-derstandhe anti-rhetoricalurnof historical tudiesas a theoretization f rhet-oric, as an inputof essentialprinciplesof reasoningconcerning he temporalchainof humanaffairsntolingusticprocedures, ywhichhistoricalknowledgeof the pastbecomes mportant or practical ife.It is this reasonwhichgivesRanke'shistoriographyts remarkable estheticcharacter.Rankedid not conceptualizehis basicphilosophyof historybecausein his time philosophyof historywas a formof historicalknowledge ompetingwithhistoricaltudiesand notcompatiblewith ts strategies f empirical esearch.So he kepthisconceptionof history n a pretheoreticaltatus,which he calledAhndung(presentiment),ndwhich can be describedas a preconceptualon-templation. n thisstatushis philosophyof historycouldworkas an aestheticelementof historiography. he aesthetic uster of Ranke'shistoriographys agloomof reason. t isreasonwhichmakes tpossibleo recognizeemporalwholesin the underlying tructureof eventsin the past, and whichat the sametimeconstituteshistoricalresearch s a rationalprocedure:o find out thesewholesby "collecting, inding,and penetrating"he sourcematerial.Characterizingestheticsand its differenceromrhetoric, havesaid thataes-theticsbreaks he constraintsof practicalnecessities n historiographyn favorof a freerelationship f its audience o historicalexperience ndits rolein thetemporalorientationn practical ife.By its aesthetics,historiographyightenstheburdenof history nthe determinationf humanactivity. t introducesntothe historicalpredeterminationf practicalife.a chancefor autonomy.Howis

31. Cf. Michael-Joachimemlin,Geschichte wischenTheorie ndTheoria:UntersuchungenurGeschichtsphilosophieankes Wirzburg,1988).


14/16

202 JORN RUSENthis doneby Ranke?His pretheoreticalheoryof historyguideshistorians'ightthrough he empirical videnceof the sourcesto the movingmental forcesoftemporal hange n thehumanworld,andit makes heseforcesunderstandableas movingforces n the depthsof historians'and their audience's ubjectivity,where heyconstitute hehistoricaldentity, he "self' of them.So lookingintothe past, theyfind theirself, the spiritof theirlife, in the formof a temporalwhole.InRanke's wnwords:he historian xplicateswiththe experience f thepast"theplansof Godin hisgovernment f the world"and "theforces hatarein actionfor theeducationof the humanrace."32Historiography,herefore,byits aesthetics, ddressests audiencena way hat makesvisible hemental orceswhichconstitute he identityof the addressedpeoplein the temporal ourseoftheir ife. This comingto oneselfis the freedom naugurated y historiographyinto the temporalorientationof practical ife.So farI haveonlycharacterized anke'saesthetics heoretically.t is stillun-clearwhatit means n respect o thepolitical ntentionsandstandpointswovenrhetoricallynto the textureof historiography,nd it is still unclearas well howthedeliberatingnd aestheticizingonceptor vision of temporalwholes is pre-sentedhistoriographically.Howdoesone breakhistoriographicallyheconstraint f one'spointof view,founded n one's standpoint n politicaland social life? It would be wrongtosaythattheobjectivity f historicalnsight nto themovingmental orcesof tem-poralchangeneutralizesointsof viewor standpoints.Neutralitysnotfreedom;neutralityimplydepriveshistoriographyf the significance ndimportance fhistoricalknowledgeor practicalife. Ranke's laimforobjectivism houldbeunderstoodquitedifferently:t does not avoidpointsof viewor politicalandsocial standpoints,but offersa modeof dealingwith themusinga deeperandlarger emporalperspective f actual practical ife. It offerscomprising,medi-ating, reconciling istoricalperspectiveswhichcan break heconstraint f one-sided,exclusivepointsof view,withoutnegating he practicalneedsfor histor-icalorientation.Wecan signifythishistoriographicalntroduction f temporalwholesintothe dependenceof practicalife on standpoints,n Ranke'swords,asguidedbythe intention"to etthepeoplesharedivine iberty"33n theirprac-tical life.How is this done in the practiceof historywriting?This question eads usto Ranke's echniqueof historiographicalomposition.Its mainprinciples anarrativeynthesisof general endenciesand structures nd particular vents.Rankepresentsemporalequences f eventsas manifestationsf thefundamentalforcesof temporal hange n the humanworld.He writes,so to speak,a struc-turalhistoryof the humanmind in the form of a historyof mainlypolitical

32. Iggersand Moltke, eds., 184 ("den Planen der gdttlichen Weltregierung,den Momenten derErziehung des Menschengeschlechtes nachzuforschen" [Ranke, Die r6mischen Papste, 221).

33. Ranke,De historiae et politices cognatione atque discrimine [On the Relationship and Differ-ence between History and Politics, inaugurallecture,1836](SdmtlicheWerke,vol. 24) (Leipzig, 1877),290.


15/16

RHETORIC AND AESTHETICS OF HISTORY 203events.34 his is done in a very artisticwayby fittingdifferentevels of occur-rences nto eachother.35The deepest evelis thatof the principleof historical imein general.Rankecallsit the"greatworld-governingecessities"36r the"invincible ndceaselessmarchof events."37t appearshistoriographicallynly in very short passagessurroundingmportantoccurrences, ridgingdifferentectorsof the text.Itap-pearsnot at all in the form of a theoreticaldigressionor explanation,but inthe form of a rathercasual,accidental,and arbitrary emark.The next levelis that of an abstractappearance f this principlen the formof modes of temporalmovements.Rankespeaksof tendenciesof universaliza-tion andof tendenciesof particularization,oth fightingwitheachotherandconstitutinga complexityof directionsof temporalchange.This levelappearsin thetext n theformof summarizing assages,which ndicate he placeof par-ticulardevelopmentshat comprise he temporalwhole.The nextlevelis that of actionsof individuals,mainlyof thosepersonswhorepresent politicalsystem,suchas kings,popes,ministers.Their activityap-pearsas thesurfaceof historicaloccurrences;t fills the mainstreamof the nar-rative.Events husarethefleshof empirical videnceon the bonesof principles.By narratinghem,thementalunderlyingtructure f temporalwholesappearsat the surfaceof whathappenedas reportedn thesurvivingdocuments.Rankenarrateshe temporal equenceof events n sucha way hat t appears san ema-nationof non-eventfulut aswecallthem structural rocesses,uchasnation-building, onstituting oliticalrelationshipsetween tates,emerging f politicalcultures,and so on. The eventshold the placeand actualizeunderlying truc-turesof temporalwholes n theircomprisingendencies. hissignificancef eventsis an outspokenormativelementof Ranke's istoriography.espeaksof "greatmoments"38n which thegeneralcourseof history s concentrated, ndhe usesthe denominationand descriptionof those momentsas a dramatizingactor.He enlarges hedescription f thosemomentswithconsiderationsf alternativedevelopments,f conflictingorces, f flashbacksndprojections,huselucidatingthe historicalroleof events as emanationsof the temporalwholes, whichgivethe courseof eventsan historicalmeaning.Finally, hey point to the temporalchange n present-dayife.Rankepresents ventsas symbols; hey appear n their narrative onnection

34. Cf. Hans Schleier,"Narrativeund Strukturgeschichte m Historismus";Georg Iggers,"Histori-cism (A Comment)";and Jorn Ruisen,"Narrativeund Strukturgeschichte m Historismus,"in Storiadella Storiografia 10 (1986), 112-152.

35. In the following remarksI agree with a good deal of Hermann von der Dunk's observationsin "Die historische Darstellungbei Ranke:Literaturund Wissenschaft," in Leopold von Ranke unddie moderne Geschichtswissenschaft, ed. Wolfgang J. Mommsen (Stuttgart, 1988), 131-165,mainly151ff.

36. "groJ3eweltbeherrschende Notwendigkeiten," (Ranke, Die romischen Pdpste, 64); in Iggersand Moltke, eds., 203: "coercive circumstances with universal implications."

37. Iggers and Moltke, eds., 185 (der "gewaltige und unaufhaltsame Gang der Dinge," [Ranke,Die romischen Papste, 23]).

38. For example, Die Romischen Pdpste, 57, 129.


16/16

204 JORN RUSENasunitsof singular ccurrencendgeneral ignificance,s temporally appeningmediationsof factsandmeanings.This is howreasonas theknowledge f tem-poralwholesappearshistoriographicallys an aesthetic parkleon the surfaceof a historyof events.In his historiographyRanke eemsto follow Hegel'sphi-losophyof art,whichdefinesbeauty,the essentialaestheticqualityof humanproducts,as "the sensualshiningof the idea."39

VI. OUTLOOK OF THE PRESENT DISCUSSIONItis notmy ntentiono praiseRanke'sHegelianismrto givehismodeof histori-ography nobligatory elevanceorpresent-dayistorywriting. wanted implyto remindus of an historicallymportantntroduction f reason ntohistoriog-raphy,whichgave t a certainaestheticquality.Historical tudieshas forgottenthis aestheticqualityof modernhistory. t fell outof the self-awarenessf profes-sional historians,becominganextradisciplinaryift andlosingits internal ela-tionshipwiththemethodologicalationality f historical esearch.t stillremainsforgottenn the postmodernurnof theoryof history,rediscoveringherhetor-icalprinciples ndprocedures f historiography.Here t is forgottenas long aswe do not distinguishbetweenrhetoricand aesthetics,and ask ourselveshowwe canintroducehedeliberatingorcesof reason nto therestraints f practicalneedseffectiven historicalnarration as its rhetoric).We knowthatwecannotdo it in the wayof Rankeand his contemporary istoriographers,ecausewehave ost their confidencen an idealisticphilosophyof history.Thatis not atall anargument gainstreason n history,but ratheran argumento strengthenourquest orit.Thepost-modernecognitionf rhetoricnhistoriographyhouldnot lead us backto premodern hetoricbut forward o a rhetoricof historiog-raphywhichpreserveshe necessityof liberating eason n historiographyndwhichreflectshisreasonnotsimplyasa techniqueof research, ut withamuchwideranddeeperapproach o historical tudiesas a questionof the aestheticsof historiography.UniversitdtBielefeld

39. G. W. F. Hegel, Asthetik, ed. Friedrich Bassenge (Berlin, 1955), 146.

Documents

Rusen Ranke