Wesleyan University

Rhetoric and Aesthetics of History: Leopold von Ranke

Author(s): Jrn Rsen
Source: History and Theory, Vol. 29, No. 2 (May, 1990), pp. 190-204
Published by: Wiley for Wesleyan University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2505225
Accessed: 07-08-2015 19:52 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley and Wesleyan University are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to History and Theory.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 07 Aug 2015 19:52:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

RHETORIC AND AESTHETICS OF HISTORY:

LEOPOLD VON RANKE

JORN RUSEN
"Let's do the time warp again!"-Rocky HorrorPictureShow
I. THE QUESTION

Historiansnormallydo not look at the output of their work as literaturebut

as a resultof academicskill and endeavor.In remarkableopposition to this
opinion, recenttrendsin the theoryof historystressthe poeticaland rhetorical
-precisely the charactergenerallyoverlookedin the
characterof historiography
of most professionalhistorians.Thereis
self-awarenessand self-understanding
a good deal of postmodernismin the questfor rhetoricand aestheticsof historiis definedbyits academicor- in
ography,becausethe modernityof historiography
a broadersense of the word-by its scientificcharacter.And it is a widespread
anddeep-rootedopinionof academichistorians,and of postmodernisttheoreticians of historyas well, that this scientificcharacteris the oppositeof rhetoric
and aesthetics.In the followingargumentI wouldliketo showthat this contrast
betweenthe postmodernistunderstandingof historiographyas rhetoricaland
the modernistscientificapproachto historicalknowledgeleads us only to onesided views of historiography.I
Ranke'sworkis a good exampleof the fact that rhetoricand aestheticscan
be mediatedwith rationality,whichdefinesthe academicor scientificcharacter
his work
of historicalstudies.Rankeis knownforbothaspectsof historiography:
representsthe newacademicstandard,won by a processof scientificationin the
humanitiessincethe late eighteenthcentury,and at the same time it represents
a new literaryqualityof historywriting,whichmakesit an integralpartof the
prose literatureof the nineteenthcentury.We can look at it as a documentof
a scientifiedhistoriographyand at the same time as an importantpart of the
so-called narrativerealism.So it seems to be worthwhileto confront Ranke's
withthe postmodernquestionof therhetoricalprinciplesof historihistoriography
ographyon the one hand,andnot to overlookthe modernityof historicalthought
on the other, which historicalstudies realizesby its methodicalrationality.
1. Cf. Jorn Rusen, "New Directions in Historical Studies," in MiedzyHistoriaa Teoria:Refieksje
Dziejowi WiedzyHistorycznej,ed. Marian Drozdowski (Warsaw,1988), 340-355;
nadProblematyka
and Rusen, "Historische Aufkldrung in Angesicht der Post-Moderne: Geschichte im Zeitalter der
Geschichts-undGegenwartsbewuJflt'neuen Uniibersichtlichkeit,"'in StreitfalldeutscheGeschichte:
seinin den80erJahren,ed. Landeszentralefur politische Bildung Nordrhein-Westfalen(Essen, 1988),
17-38. (A shortened English version appears in Historyand Memory1 [19891.)

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 07 Aug 2015 19:52:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

RHETORIC AND AESTHETICS OF HISTORY

191

1I. THE ANTI-RHETORICAL TURN OF HISTORY TOWARD SCIENCE

Seenhistorically,modernhistoricalstudieslaid claimto methodologicalrationarguments,thusconstitutingits academic

alityby an emphasison anti-rhetorical
or scientificcharacterand moldingits statusas an autonomousdisciplinein the
humanities.A famousand influentaldocumentof this claim for a newstandard
of historicalstudiesand of its anti-rhetoricalturnis Ranke'sfirstbook, his Historiesof the Latinand GermanicNations 1494to 1514,firstpublishedin 1824.2
Here he wrotehis famous declarationthat historyneed not judge the past in
orderto teachthe presentfor the sakeof its future;his book, Rankesaid, "only
wantsto showhowit reallyhadbeen."3Thisclaimof objectivityreflectsthe new
of historicalstudiesas an empiricalsciencewitha specialset
self-understanding
of methodologicalrules, constitutinghistoricalknowledgeas a processof research.4Rankegot his chair in Berlinwhen he publishedhis book; one of the
main reasonsfor this advancementwas its appendix,a criticalanalysisof the
historiographyof the time in question.5Here Rankepresentsa methodto get
fromthe sourcesvalid knowledgeof the past he wroteabout:by going through
the documentsandreportsof the pastto gainan insightof whatreallyhadbeen.
In orderto emphasizethis new scientificapproachof historiography,Ranke
contrastedthe wayhe thoughthistoryshouldbe writtenwiththe traditionalrhetoricalattitudeof historiography.Rankegave as an exampleof this rhetorical
attitudeGuicciardini'shistoriography,wherethe actorsin the historicalevents
explaintheirintentionsby speeches.These speecheshavea rationalfunctionin
the text:theyexplainthe historicallyimportantactionsby explicatingthe leading
intentionsof the actors.(Themodelof explanationusedhereis thatof explaining
actionsby theirintentions.6)Rankedoes not argueagainstthis explanation,but
againstthefictionalcharacterof thespeeches;theyarenot documentedbysources.
Theysaywhatwouldhavebeensaid if the actorshadbeenaskedfor the reasons
for their actions. For Rankeit is the fictionalcharacterof the speecheswhich
makesit impossibleto insertthem into the courseof events,despitetheir explanatoryfunction (which he did not discuss).
text,whichpretendto saywhatreally
Fictionalspeechesin an historiographical
had been in the past-that is what the intellectualsof that time meantby rhetoric. Theyunderstoodby rhetorica strategyof speakingor writing,characterundgermanischenVolkervon 1494bis 1514,
derromanischen
2. Leopold von Ranke, Geschichten
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: Idealtypische Perspektiveneines StrukDenkens,
des historischen
ZumStrukturwandel
zumHistorismus:
turwandels,"in VonderAufklarung
ed. H. W. Blanke and J. Rusen (Paderborn, 1984), 15-57.
(Samtliche Werke,vol. 33/34) (Leipzig, 1874). Cf. Ernst
5. Zur KritikneuererGeschichtsschreiber
Schulin, "Rankes Erstlingswerkoder Der Beginn der kritischen Geschichtsschreibung fiber die NeuStudienzurEntwicklungvonGeschichtsundRekonstruktionsversuch:
zeit," in his Traditionskritik
wissenschaftund historischemDenken(Gottingen, 1979), 44-64.
der Vergan6. The logic of this mode of explanation is discussed in Jorn Risen, Rekonstruktion
Forschung(Gottingen, 1986),30ff.
derhistorischen
einerHistorikII:Die Prinzipien
genheit:Grundztige

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 07 Aug 2015 19:52:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

192

JORN RUSEN

ized by the meansof persuasionand by an absenceof truthclaims;one could

say by using language-tricks,insteadof convincingarguments.Rhetoricis the
useslanuseof languagefor strategicpurposes,whereasscientifichistoriography
guageto articulatethe resultsof empiricalresearch.To put it simply:truthinsteadof tricks.In Ranke'sown words,directedagainstGuicciardini'spresentation of fictionalspeeches:"Weon oursidehaveanotherconceptof history.Naked
truthwithoutany embellishment;painstakingresearchinto the particular;the
restlies in the handsof God; rejectingany fiction,even in the smallestmatter,
rejectingany fantasywhatsoever."'
Rankeconfrontsfantasywith truth. For him rhetoricin historiographyendangerstruth;it crossesthe borderwhichseparatesboth. Opposedto this danger
standsresearch,thatis, the expositionof empiricalevidencegivenbythe sources,
ruledby method. Researchguaranteestruth;it enableshistoriansto say what
reallyhad been and lets them respectthe borderbetweenempiricalevidenceor
truthon the one sideand fantasyor fictionon the other.Thisoppositionbelongs
to the basic argumentsby which professionalhistorianshave gained and are
defendingtheirimageas experts,whoseknowledgeis indispensablefor anyconvincingand respectablerepresentationof the past.
Ranke'swork marksa turningpoint in the developmentof historiography:
the skillof historianswastheir
it changedfromliteratureto science.Traditionally
abilityto reachthe mind of their audienceby the persuasiveforceof their linguisticforms,in whichthe pastbecomesalive,speakingthe languageof common
sense,teachingpracticalcompetencein masteringtopicalproblemsof presentday life.8Historiographywas orientedto the practicalneeds of its audience.It
wasguidedby the principleof addressingan audience,by speakingto someone;
it wasindeedrhetorical.Now historiographybecameorientedtowardsresearch;
it gaineda new qualityof empiricalevidence.It claimedto speakthe truthirrespectiveof all expectationsand prejudicesof its audience.It no longertaught
practicalcompetence,but gaveempiricalknowledge.It simplysaid how it really
had been.
After this turningpoint, when historywas done in the form of an academic
discipline,most historianspresentedandstillpresenttheirvisionof whathistoriway:forthem,the main
ographyis andhasto be in a remarkablynarrow-minded
is basicallynothingbut a compreworkof historiansis research;historiography
hensivesummaryof researchresults.Theliteraryformof presentingtheseresults
is of no deepconcern;it is of secondaryimportance,being functionallydependent on the methodologicalprinciplesof gainingsolid knowledgeof the past
from the sources.
111. THE UNENLIGHTENED SYNTHESIS OF ART AND SCIENCE

On the contrary,besideshis emdid not sharethis narrow-mindedness.

Ranked
7. "WirunsersOrts haben einen andernBegriffvon Geschichte.Nackte Wahrheitohne allen
desEinzelnen;dasubrigeGottbefohlen;nurkeinErdichten,auch
Schmuck;grundlicheErforschung
24.)
(ZurKritikneuererGeschichtsschreiber,
nicht im Kleinsten,nur kein Hirngespinst."
MenschlichePraxisoderkritische
8. This is clearlyworkedout by EckardKessler:"Geschichte:
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 07 Aug 2015 19:52:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

RHETORIC AND AESTHETICS OF HISTORY

193

phasis on researchas the basis of historiography, he nevertheless acknowledged

the fact that writing history, that is, shaping research results into an acceptable
story, is based on other principles besides research. Whereas the principles of
researchare scientificin their natureand belong to the realmof modern methodological rationality, the principles of writing history are artistic or poetic in their
nature and belong to the realm of literature. In Ranke's own words:
Historyis distinguishedfromall othersciencesin thatit is also an art. Historyis a science
in collecting,finding,penetrating;it is an artbecauseit recreatesand portraysthatwhich
it has foundand recognized.Othersciencesaresatisfiedsimplywith recordingwhathas
been found; historyrequiresthe ability to recreate.9
What does Ranke mean by saying that history as a science is "also"an art? What
is the relationship between scientific and poetic principles? Is it characterized
by a hierarchical order or is it mediated? Ranke does not give a clear and theoreticallyexplicated answer. He explicates the scientific characterof historiography
by pointing to philosophy, which represents the decisive element, namely "discovering causality and conceptualizing the core of existence.""0History, he says,
does this discovering and conceptualizing by working with the sources, which
give the empirical evidence of what really had happened in the past. The mode
of "discoveringcausality and conceptualizing the core of existence" as it appears
in the temporal course of human affairs in the past, is the historical method,
the set of rules which guide historical researchas a process of knowledge. Ranke
described it briefly but very precisely as "collecting, finding, penetrating,"thus
indicating the three main operations of historical research: heuristics, critique,
and interpretation." Besides that, he quite simply states the artistic or poetic
character of historiography, describing it as "reproducing the appeared life."12
Ranke says that this reproduction is done by activating the "ability to recreate."'3
How does this ability work in historiography,and how is it relatedto the methodological principles of historical research?

Wissenschaft?" in Kessler, Theoretiker humanistischer Geschichtsschreibung (Munich, 1971); cf.

Kessler,"Das rhetorischeModell der Historiographie,"in Formen der Geschichtsschreibung,ed. Reinhart Koselleck, Heinrich Lutz, and Jorn Rusen (Beitrage zur Historik, Bd. 4) (Munich, 1982), 37-85.
9. "On the Character of Historical Science (A Manuscript of the 1830s),"in 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 zugleich
Kunst ist. Wissenschaft ist sie: indem sie sammelt, findet, durchdringt;Kunst, indem sie das Gefundene, Erkanntewiedergestaltet,darstellt.Andre Wissenschaftenbegnugen sich, das Gefundene schlechthin als solches aufzuzeichnen: bei der Historie gehbrt das Vermogen der Wiederhervorbringung
dazu." ["Idee der Universalgeschichte,"in Leopold von Ranke: Vorlesungseinleitungen,ed. Volker
Dotterweich and Walter Peter Fuchs (Aus Werk und NachlaB, vol. IV) (Munich, 1975), 72.])
10. "On the Character of Historical Science," in Iggers and Moltke, eds., 33 ("die Kausalitat zu
ergrunden, 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 in
this way. Cf. Johann Gustav Droysen, Historik, ed. P. Leyh (Stuttgart), 1, 67ff.
12. Iggers and Moltke, eds., 34 ("das erschienene Leben wieder zu reproduzieren,"[Dotterweich
and Fuchs, eds., 721).
13. Iggers and Moltke, eds., 33 ("Vermogender Wiederhervorbringung,"[Dotterweich and Fuchs,
eds., 72]).

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 07 Aug 2015 19:52:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

194

JORN ROSEN

Thesequestionsarenot clearlyansweredby Ranke;he just saysthat in history

therearetwo forcesof the mindworking,the intellectualforce,whosemost representativeactivityis philosophy,andthe poeticalforce,whosemost representative activityis art. In historythey are mediated."Historybringsboth together
in a thirdelementpeculiaronly to itself."1'4
What is this "thirdelement,"constitutingthe peculiarityof historicalstudies,combiningand mediatinghistorical researchand historiographyto make a whole called "history"?This is the
decisivequestion. It is decisive(at least for my argument)becauseit is related
to the modernistcharacterof historyas a scienceas well as to the actualpostmodernlook at historyas a rhetoricallanguagegame. Rankehimself refutes
the dichotomybetweenscientificandaestheticfeaturesof historybyemphasizing
the mediationof scienceand art in history.So I thinkit is worthwileto findout
whathe pointedto by speakingof the thirdelement,whichmediatesthe conceptualizingforces of the humanmind with the reproducingones.
Unfortunatelyhis descriptionis not veryclear. He said that this elementis
a directionof the humanmindandits forcesof historicalconsciousnesstowards
the real, which is common to the intellectualas well as to the artisticforceof
history.This approachto realitydistinguishesboth of them from philosophy
and art, which are directedtowardsthe ideal. This argumentleads us back to
Ranke'sfamous sayingthat he only wantedto show how it reallyhad been.
Our questionthereforeshould be, what leads to this objectivityof what had
"reallybeen"?For Rankethe answeris clear:it is research.If that is true,then
the basic role of art in historyescapesour attention,becauseresearchcannot
mediatebetweenitself andartin history.ToquoteRankeagain:"Historyis never
the one withoutthe other."1So the questionremainsopen: what is the mediatingthirdelement?Whatrealizesthe peculiarhistoricalrealismcombiningart
and science?
Rankedid not deal with this questiontheoretically.For him the simple act
of writinghistoryusingthe resultsof empiricalresearchprovessufficientlythat
thereis a synthesisof scienceand art in historiography.
Art just takes place in
the act of historywriting.Art is differentfrom science,whichneedsconceptual
and methodologicalclarityin the proceduresof gaining knowledge.Art does
not need rulesor reflectedprinciples."Artrestson itself:its existenceprovesits
validity.On the other hand, sciencemust be totallyworkedout to its veryconcept and mustbe clearto its core."16
ApparentlyRankedoes not thinkthat the
artificialor poetic side of historyrequireshistoriansto havea professionalskill
comparableto their ability as researchers."Therest lies in the handsof god":
wecanreadthiswordas hintinga non-rational,or better,a super-rational
procedure,generatedin a realmof the humanmind, wherecognitiveprinciplesand
methodologicalruleshaveno place.It is the placewhichhad formerlybeentaken
by rhetoric.
14. Iggersand Moltke,eds., 34 ("Sieverbindetsie beidein einemdritten,nurihreigentumlichen
Element,"[Dotterweichand Fuchs,eds., 72]).
15. Idem.

dagegenvollkommen
16. Idem. ("DieKunstberuhtauf sichselber:ihrDaseinbeweistihreGultigkeit,

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 07 Aug 2015 19:52:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

RHETORIC AND AESTHETICS OF HISTORY

195

Whathappenedto rhetoricwhenit got placedinto God'shands?I wouldlike

to play a little bit furtherwhichthese words.If you take them literally,the answeris: Rhetoricmust havebeen spiritualized.And that was indeedthe case:
it got an aestheticalsubstanceor at leastelementsof an aesthetics,whichchanged
its characteraccordingto the modernizingrationalizationof historiographyby
scientificresearch.The anti-rhetoricalturn of historiographydid not simply
abolish rhetoricin it, but changedit, gave it a new character,a new form of
speakingto its audience.
Rankerepresentsthis noveltyon both the practicaland theoreticallevels:On
the levelof praxisRanke'smainworkshavean undeniableaestheticquality;they
belongto the greatproseliteratureof realism.Thisaestheticqualityis not simply
of Europeanhistoritheresultof Ranke'suniquegift as a writer;it is representative
ographyof the nineteenthcenturyin general.I thinkof Macaulay,Michelet,and
forTheodorMommsen'sRomanHistory.
mainlyof the NobelPrizefor Literature
On the levelof theory,Rankespeaksof art in historyin a waythat can easily
Hereartis seenas a precogbe understoodas in accordwithclassicalaesthetics.17
beingsubmittedto rules;
without
nitiveprocedureof producingan imageof life
the procedureitself generatesits rules, and the more originalthey are, that is,
the lesstheyarealreadyformulated,the betterandthe moreeffectivethe artifacts
are.Thisideaof artis fundamentallyanti-rhetorical,becauserhetoricgivesrules
for linguisticprocedures,and the rulesstand for their successand effect.This
anti-rhetoricalidea of art is the reasonRankelets art "reston itself"in history
and concentrateshis effortsin historicalknowledgeon researchand not on its
linguisticform.
UntilnowI havenot only not answeredthe questionaboutthe peculiarhistorical elementin the humanmind mediatingbetweenscienceand art, but I have
complicatedthis questionevenmoreby pointingto the aestheticaleffectof the
anti-rhetoricalturnof historyin Ranke'stime. However,this complicationis a
way of answeringthe question.For Ranke,rhetoricis negatedby scientificresearch,and there is only a residueof rhetoricremainingin a fundamentally
The mediatingelementin queschangedform:the aestheticsof historiography.
tion now comesinto view,whenwe ask whetherRanke'sassertionthat rhetoric
completelyvanishedin aestheticsis convincing.I thinkthat this is not the case.
So I will ask about the hidden rhetoricin Ranke'shistoriographyin orderto
findan answerto the question:whatcombinesthe conceptualizingforcesof the
humanmindwiththe imaginingforcesand givesthemboth theirspecifichistorical character?
IV. BACK TO RHETORIC

Fromrecenttheoryof historywe can learnthat the conceptof rhetoric,underdurchgearbeitet sein bis zu ihrem Begriff und uber ihr Eigenstes klar mud die Wissenschaft sein."
[Dotterweich and Fuchs, eds., 73])

zumBegranUntersuchungen
Geschichtstheoretische
17. Cf. JoMn
Rusen,AsthetikundGeschichte:
von Kunst,Geselischaftund Wissenschaft(Stuttgart,1976),14ff.
dungszusammenhang

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 07 Aug 2015 19:52:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

196

JORN ROSEN

lyingthe anti-rhetoricalturnof historyinto historicalstudiesas scienceand still

vivid in the mindof professionalhistorians,is too narrow.'8Its widermeaning
comes into view when we look at Ranke'sargumentson scienceand art in hisboth aredealing
tory.As "activeforcesof the humanmind"(tatigeGeisteskrafte)
with the same matter,called by RankeLeben(life-in the senseof humanlife)
or Existenz.19Historyas a subjectmatteris the appearanceof life in time.Science
the informationof the source
as historicalstudiesrecognizesit byconceptualizing
material.Art as historiographyreproducesit by imaginingthe past as a vivid,
temporalhappeningin humanaffairs.Both operationsof historicalconsciousnessareguidedbyunderlyingpatternsof significancewhichgiveeventsandtheir
temporalconnectionthe characterof life or existence- or in Ranke'swords,the
characterof being somethingwhich "reallyhad been."
Whattellsthehistorianwhat"reallyhadbeen"in thetemporalcourseof human
affairsin the past?Althoughmanyhistorians- andmaybeevenRanke- thought
and think that this realityis an objectivelygiven fact, told by the sources,it is
somethingelse, somethingevenmore"objective"in the senseof alive,effective,
constitutinghumanexistenceratherthan a dead fact, a positivedatumof what
thisfundamentallivelinessin linguisticform,
is or wasthe case.Historyrepresents
it is the livelinessof languageas a form of humanexistence.
The life of historypresentedby historiographylives in the languageof the
historian,by which he places his recollectingpresentationof the past into the
presentlife of the audiencein sucha waythat it gainsthe livelinessof thispresent
life. Whereis historyalive in this fundamental,existentialway? Whereis it a
partof "real,"that is, practicallife?This placein life is the culturalorientation
of humanactivityand sufferingin social relations.Historyis an essentialpart
withoutwhichhumanactivitycannottakeplace.
of world-andself-interpretation
What has this generalargumentto do with rhetoric?In fact I have already
spokenof rhetoric,becauserhetoricin historyis nothingbut a set of linguistic
formswithin which historicalknowledgegains its elementaryand basic liveliness in practicalhuman life. The patternsof significancewhich give the facts
of the past theirsense and meaningfor present-daylife are linguisticformsof
historicalnarrativeswhich can be furtherdescribedas topoi of the historiographicaldiscourse.2
The rhetoricof historyconsistsof a set of topoi, basicpatternsof significance,
whichare used when, by narrativepresentation,the past is to play a vivid role
in actuallife. Presentedin thesetopicalpatterns,historicalknowledgebecomes
18. HaydenWhite,Metahistory:TheHistoricalImaginationin NineteenthCenturyEurope(Baltimore,1973);White,Tropicsof Discourse:Essaysin CulturalCriticism(Baltimore,1978);White,
(Baltimore,1987);DomiTheContentof theForm:NarrativeDiscourseandHistoricalRepresentation
als Thenick LaCapra,Historyand Criticism(Ithaca,1985);Jorn Rtisen,"Geschichtsschreibung
Skizzezum historischenHintergrundder gegenwartigen
orieproblemder Geschichtswissenschaft:
Diskussion,"in Koselleck,Lutz, and Rdsen,eds., 14-36.
19. Iggersand Moltke,eds., 33ff. (Dotterweichand Fuchs,eds., 72).
20. Cf. JdrnRusen,LebendigeGeschichte.GrundzigeeinerHistorikIII:FormenundFunktionen
des historischenWissens(Gdttingen,1989).

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 07 Aug 2015 19:52:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

RHETORIC AND AESTHETICS OF HISTORY

197

a part of practicallife, of effectiveorientationof humanactivityand suffering

in the courseof time. Rhetoricfurnisheshistoricalknowledgewith ideas of the
courseof time comprisingpast, present,and futureinto a thoroughgoingunit
of sense,significance,or meaningfor the action-guidinginterpretationof world
and humanityin human life.
This conceptof rhetoricof courseincludesmuchmorethan merelythe insertion of fictionalelementsin narrativesof factualoccurrences;it includesmuch
morethan merelya set of linguistictricksto be used in the strategyof persuasion. It has to be seen as a necessaryconditionfor an historicalunderstanding
of thepastbyplacingit withthevitalityof languagein theactualcourseof presentday life.
How is this done by Ranke?It is not my intentionto describehis network
of rhetoricalforms,which from past occurrences,as he has found them by research,createsa vivid historicalnarration.I can only hint at some of the most
importantrhetoricalstructureswhichareinherentshapingprinciplesof Ranke's
historiography.
Beforedoingso I wouldliketo distinguishbetweendifferentlevelsandaspects
of rhetoricalstructuresin historiography.
The basicrhetoricalstructureof every
historicaltext is constitutedby a mixtureof the four types of fundamentaland
elementarytopoi of historicalnarration:the traditional,the exemplary,the critical,andthegeneticmodeof makingsenseout of the empiricalfactsof thepast.2"
Thisbasicstructurecan nowbe filledin andmadeconcretewithpoliticalaspirationstowardsthe intendedorientationof practicallife in its temporaldimension
by historicalknowledge.Herewe can easily distinguishbetweenleft and right,
moderateand radical,feministor patriarchalintentions,and so on -in short,
it is possibleto find everypolitical position shapingthe design of the past in
historiography.
Besidesthe politicalrhetoricwecanfindotherintentionalfactors
of practicallife constitutingthe livelinessof historiographyby rhetoricalpatterns,for example,ethics,religion,world-views,ideologies.Wecan describeand
analyzethese factorsby means of typologies,and we can transformeverytypology into a set of rhetoricaltopoi in historiography.
Goingbackto Ranke,I wouldlike to desribethe rhetoricof his historiography
bypointingto twolevelsor aspects:the basicallyhistoricalandthe politicaltopoi.
Botharewellknownas characterizing
the peculiarityof Ranke'smodeof history
writing:he presentshistorypredominantlyin the meaning-constitutive
topos of
geneticalnarration,and his politicalattitudeis historiographically
visibleas a
moderateconservatism.
The geneticaltopos is presentin the often used categoryof "development"
(Entwickelung)and in a multitudeof metaphorsof movement,expressingthe
thoroughgoinghistoricalsenseof the presentedoccurrencesof the past.The followingquotationfromthe Historyof the Popes is typicalof this rhetoricof the
21. Cf. JoMnRfisen, "Die vier Typen des historischen Erzdhlens,"in 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.

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 07 Aug 2015 19:52:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

198

JORN ROSEN

genetic type of historical orientation in time: "We are forced irresistibly to the
conviction that all the purposes and efforts of humanity are subjected to the silent and often imperceptible, but invincible and ceaseless march of events." 22
Ranke presents this "march of events" as an historical process, leading to the
political constellation of modern states in Europe, which Ranke thought to be
predominant in his time. In the context of our quotation, Ranke expresses this
leading genetic perspective of modern history as "a spirit of community in the
modern world which has always been regarded as the basis of its entire development, whether in religion, politics, manners, social life, or literature."23
Ranke shapes this perspective politically mainly by presenting interactions of
leading personalities, thus underlining the fundamental importance and competence of governments for the essential decisions without relating too much to
the governed people and their normal life. Ranke's political ideas and his standpoint in political life are well known,24as well as their manifestation in his historiography. But it is less known how he transforms them into rhetorical modes and
strategies of history writing.
We can describe these modes and strategies by referringto perspectives within
which acts of governments appear, and to attributes which characterizepolitical
actions and actors. Such a perspective often implies a view from above, favoring
state-politics as the main force of historical development, and such attributes
can be found in Ranke's characterizationof mass-movements- like the peasant's
war during the Reformation in Germany-as driven by blind naturalforces rather
than by reflected and culturally legitimized intentions.25
All these rhetorical strategies are at work in Ranke's historiography, as well
as in historiography in general. So what about the anti-rhetorical turn of historiography towards its modern, scientific form? Recognizing the unbroken force
of rhetoric in historiography, one could easily come to the opinion that all the
anti-rhetorical sayings of research-based historiography are nothing more than
rhetoric itself. It seems simply to hide the rhetorical character of historiography
in order to take part in the cultural prestigeof science and to legitimate the professional skill of historians, now cultivating an image of academic seriousness. This
postmodern view of modernity which historiography has gained by historical
studies and its scientific methods is seductive. It seriously takes into consideration the literary character of historiography and lifts the veil of ignorance which
22. Iggers and Moltke, eds., 185 ("Es ist nicht anders, als daB alles menschliche Tun und Treiben
dem leisen und der Bemerkung oft entzogenen, aber gewaltigen und unaufhaltsamen Gange der
Dinge unterworfen ist.") (Ranke, Die romischen Pdpste in den letzten vier Jahrhunderten [Samtliche
Werke, 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,"in Deutsche Historiker, ed. Hans-Ulrich Wehler
(Gottingen, 1971), 1, 7-24.
25. Ranke'swords:"Unaufh6rlichvernimmtman dies dumpfe Brauseneines unbandigenElementes
in dem Innern des Bodens, auf dem man steht." Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation
(Samtliche Werke, vol. 1) (Leipzig, 1867), 1, 143.

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 07 Aug 2015 19:52:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

RHETORIC AND AESTHETICS OF HISTORY

199

the academic self-understanding of historians has spread on history writing as

the main task of historians. But unfortunately the new awareness of historiography as a working process of writing produces a new veil over what historians
do, now concealing the research-process as an important part of the work of
historians.
I think it worthwhile, therefore, to ask, what are the consequences of the antirhetorical input of researchinto historiography? Is there any effect of it signalling
a new, a specifically "modern"quality in the art of history writing? Looking at
Ranke's work gives us an answer: it is aesthetics.
V. FORWARD TOWARDS AESTHETICS

What is the difference between rhetoric and aesthetics?26By its rhetoric historiography realizes its practical function of orienting the practical life of its audience in the course of time. It transforms the necessity of action into the linguistic forms of its temporal orientation by historical memory. By doing so it
follows the logic of practical needs in human world-interpretation and selfunderstanding. Aesthetics introduces the element of freedom into this constraint
of practical needs shaping historiography;it unburdens action-leading historical
memories from the dominance of practical interests and opens up a space for
free self-reflection in the temporal orientation of human activity. It is the attractiveness of freely dealing with historical knowledge while using it rhetorically
in the cultural struggle for life.
We are aware of this appearance of freedom and acknowledge it when we appreciateand enjoy Ranke'shistoriographyas very well written, or of a high literary
standard, without accepting its standpoint in social and political life. Historiography has this aesthetical quality in common with literature such as poetry. So
it seems to be a quality which has nothing to do with the anti-rhetorical turn
which 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 historiography of the nineteenth century is more than just a consequence of the personal abilities of historians; it is a reflection of an inner rationalization of historiography by historical studies. It is the gleam of reason in the artistic or poetic
dimension of historiography. For us the linguistic articulation of scholarly skills
in historiography appears in footnotes.27The more footnotes, the deeper the academic concern. Ranke's works do not have many footnotes. Their academic
or scientific concern is much more internalized. It becomes visible in the way
the claim for objectivity founded in historical research is a principle of shaping
or linguistic presentation of historical knowledge.
It is often said that Ranke indicated historical objectivity by avoiding speaking
of 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).

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 07 Aug 2015 19:52:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

200

JORN ROSEN

let speakthe matter,make apparentthe powerfulforces,"28is well knownand

seemsto underlinethis attitudeof authoritativenarration.He speaks,nevertheless, of himself. I found the word"I"in the firstvolumeof his History of the
Popesthirteentimeswithina hundredpages.This"I"is the historian,wondering
how he should understandan event or an action,29explicatinghis sourcefor a
complainingaboutthe impossibilityof describingthe mulcertainoccurrence,30
titudeof Renaissanceart, and so on. This "I"in fact neverreflectshis concept
perspectivewithinwhichthegreat
thecomprehensive
of thewholeinterpretation,
marchof eventsis presented.It dealswith singularitiesand not with the whole.
This whole, the internaland substantialtemporalconnectionof events,occurrences,and actions,whichformsthe whole story,is implicatedin this temporal
connection;it appearsin the mode of its narrativepresentation.It is the luster
of a universalorderin the temporalchangeof the humanworld. Herelies the
reasonfor the aestheticqualityof Ranke'shistoriography:it is his conception
of temporalwholes and its narrativepresentationin the form of temporalsequencesof occurrences(mainlyevents).
Rankeavoidsspeakingof himselfwhilepresentinghis conception,whichcomprisesan integrativetemporalwhole that formsthe basic senseof his historiography.He is convincedthat this whole is essentiallymorethanonly a subjective
constructof the historian,generatedin his poeticalmind. It is a realtemporal
chainof humanaffairs,definingtheirhistoricalorder.Thisgreattemporalchain
of humanaffairsis pregivenin the sourcematerial.It can be found there,but
it has to be workedout by historicalresearch.
This basic conceptof objectivelypregiven,temporalwholesin the courseof
pasteventsdestroysrhetoric;it is the mainargumentagainstthe rhetoricaltradiIn rhetoricit is the linguisticprocedureof historywriting
tion of historiography.
which presentsthe past in such a way that the knowledgeof it playsan active
in presentpracticallife. In Ranke'sview it
role in solvingorientation-problems
is the temporalwhole of historyitself, whichcombinesthe past so tightlywith
presenttimethatits memorycan workas an integralpartin present-dayactivity.
Historiographydoes not rhetoricallymediatebetweenpresent-daypracticallife
and knowledgeof the past, but it explicatesscientificallyan objectivelypregiven
internalconnectionbetweenpast and present.
The temporalwholes bringingabout this connectionare constitutedby the
movingforcesof temporalchangein thehumanworld.Rankeandclassicalhistoricism of the nineteenthcenturysaw these forcesworkingin the action-guiding
and -movingintentionsof the humanmind,called"idea"(Idee).Forhim it was
the spirit of mankind,presentin everyword and deed of any memberof the
humanrace,whichshapesthetemporalwhole,givinghistoricalsenseto its course
28. "Ich wunschte mein Selbst gleichsam auszuloschen, und nur die Dinge reden, die machtigen
Krafteerscheinenzu lassen."(Englische Geschichte vornehmlichim 17. Jahrhundert[SamtlicheWerke,
vol. 151 [Leipzig, 18771, II, 103.)
29. Ranke, Die romischen Papste, 37.
30. Ibid., 39.

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 07 Aug 2015 19:52:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

RHETORIC AND AESTHETICS OF HISTORY

201

of eventsin the past, and combinesthis course with the actual changeof the
humanworld, happeningin presentactions and sufferings.
For Ranke,therefore,rhetoricis replacedby an idealisticphilosophyof history.31This philosophylets historiansfind by researchan underlyingstructure
of temporalchangeshapedby the mentalforcesof humanlife, and this underlying structurecomprisesthe actualoccurrencesof present-daylife. In this way
historicalknowledgeof whatreallyhappenedin the pastexpresseswhatis really
happeningtoday.Pastandpresentarecombinedbythe actualityof mentalforces
("ideas"),which place them into an intelligibleorderof time. The knowledge
of this orderis objectiveand theoretical(in the sense of intelligible),because
it is empiricallyevident in the events of the past and can be discernedin the
sourcesby research.At the sametime it is subjectiveand practical(in the sense
of orientingpracticallife or actionswith an idea of a temporaldirectionof the
changeto be effectedby practice),becauseit enlightensthe intentionalforces
of present-dayactivity and suffering.
The scientificmode of thinkingin historicalinterpretationis, therefore,alof historicalknowlreadyin principlea sufficientconditionfortheimplementation
edge into the coreof practicallife. Rhetoricis no longernecessaryas a strategy
of such an implementation.
we can unRelatingto this philosophicalgroundof historicisthistoriography,
derstandthe anti-rhetoricalturnof historicalstudiesas a theoretizationof rhetoric, as an input of essentialprinciplesof reasoningconcerningthe temporal
chainof humanaffairsinto lingusticprocedures,by whichhistoricalknowledge
of the past becomesimportantfor practicallife.
It is this reasonwhich gives Ranke'shistoriographyits remarkableaesthetic
character.Rankedid not conceptualizehis basic philosophyof historybecause
in his time philosophyof historywasa formof historicalknowledgecompeting
withhistoricalstudiesandnot compatiblewithits strategiesof empiricalresearch.
So he kept his conceptionof historyin a pretheoreticalstatus,which he called
Ahndung(presentiment),and which can be describedas a preconceptualcontemplation.In this statushis philosophyof historycould work as an aesthetic
elementof historiography.The aestheticlusterof Ranke'shistoriographyis a
gloomof reason.It is reasonwhichmakesit possibleto recognizetemporalwholes
in the underlyingstructureof events in the past, and which at the same time
constituteshistoricalresearchas a rationalprocedure:to find out these wholes
by "collecting,finding,and penetrating"the sourcematerial.
aestheticsand its differencefromrhetoric,I havesaid thataesCharacterizing
theticsbreaksthe constraintsof practicalnecessitiesin historiographyin favor
of a free relationshipof its audienceto historicalexperienceand its role in the
temporalorientationin practicallife. By its aesthetics,historiographylightens
the burdenof historyin the determinationof humanactivity.It introducesinto
the historicalpredetermination
of practicallife.a chancefor autonomy.How is
zur
Zemlin,GeschichtezwischenTheorieund Theoria:Untersuchungen
31. Cf. Michael-Joachim
Rankes(Wirzburg,1988).
Geschichtsphilosophie

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 07 Aug 2015 19:52:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

202

JORN RUSEN

this done by Ranke?His pretheoreticaltheoryof historyguideshistorians'sight

throughthe empiricalevidenceof the sourcesto the movingmentalforcesof
temporalchangein the humanworld,and it makesthese forcesunderstandable
as movingforcesin the depthsof historians'and their audience'ssubjectivity,
wherethey constitutethe historicalidentity,the "self' of them. So looking into
the past, they find their self, the spiritof their life, in the form of a temporal
whole.In Ranke'sown words:the historianexplicateswith the experienceof the
past "theplansof God in his governmentof the world"and "theforcesthat are
in action for the educationof the humanrace."32 Historiography,therefore,by
its aesthetics,addressesits audiencein a waythat makesvisiblethe mentalforces
whichconstitutethe identityof the addressedpeople in the temporalcourseof
theirlife. This comingto oneself is the freedominauguratedby historiography
into the temporalorientationof practicallife.
So far I haveonly characterizedRanke'saestheticstheoretically.It is still unclearwhat it meansin respectto the politicalintentionsand standpointswoven
rhetoricallyinto the textureof historiography,and it is still unclearas well how
the deliberatingand aestheticizingconceptor vision of temporalwholesis presented historiographically.
the constraintof one'spoint of view,
How does one breakhistoriographically
foundedin one's standpointin political and social life? It would be wrongto
saythatthe objectivityof historicalinsightinto the movingmentalforcesof temporalchangeneutralizespointsof viewor standpoints.Neutralityis not freedom;
neutralitysimplydepriveshistoriographyof the significanceand importanceof
historicalknowledgefor practicallife. Ranke'sclaim for objectivismshould be
understoodquite differently:it does not avoid points of view or politicaland
social standpoints,but offersa mode of dealingwith them using a deeperand
largertemporalperspectiveof actual practicallife. It offerscomprising,mediating,reconcilinghistoricalperspectiveswhichcan breakthe constraintof onesided, exclusivepoints of view,withoutnegatingthe practicalneedsfor historintroductionof temporal
ical orientation.Wecan signifythis historiographical
in Ranke'swords,
life
standpoints,
on
of
practical
the
dependence
wholes into
in theirpracas guidedby the intention"tolet the peoplesharedivineliberty"33
tical life.
How is this done in the practiceof historywriting?This questionleads us
to Ranke'stechniqueof historiographicalcomposition.Its main principleis a
narrativesynthesisof generaltendenciesand structuresand particularevents.
of the fundamental
Rankepresentstemporalsequencesof eventsas manifestations
forcesof temporalchangein the humanworld.He writes,so to speak,a structural historyof the humanmind in the form of a history of mainly political
32. Iggers and Moltke, eds., 184 ("den Planen der gdttlichen Weltregierung, den Momenten der
Erziehung des Menschengeschlechtes nachzuforschen" [Ranke, Die r6mischen Papste, 221).
33. Ranke, De historiae et politices cognatione atque discrimine [On the Relationship and Difference between History and Politics, inaugural lecture, 1836] (Sdmtliche Werke,vol. 24) (Leipzig, 1877),
290.

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 07 Aug 2015 19:52:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

RHETORIC AND AESTHETICS OF HISTORY

203

events.34This is done in a very artisticway by fittingdifferentlevels of occurrencesinto each other.35

The deepestlevelis that of the principleof historicaltime in general.Ranke
or the "invincibleand ceaseless
necessities"36
calls it the "greatworld-governing
It appearshistoriographicallyonly in very short passages
marchof events."37
surroundingimportantoccurrences,bridgingdifferentsectorsof the text. It appearsnot at all in the form of a theoreticaldigressionor explanation,but in
the form of a rathercasual, accidental,and arbitraryremark.
The next level is that of an abstractappearanceof this principlein the form
of modesof temporalmovements.Rankespeaksof tendenciesof universalization and of tendenciesof particularization,both fightingwith each other and
constitutinga complexityof directionsof temporalchange.This level appears
in the textin the formof summarizingpassages,whichindicatethe placeof particulardevelopmentsthat comprisethe temporalwhole.
The next level is that of actionsof individuals,mainlyof those personswho
representa politicalsystem,such as kings, popes, ministers.Theiractivityappearsas the surfaceof historicaloccurrences;it fillsthe mainstreamof the narrative.Eventsthusarethe fleshof empiricalevidenceon the bonesof principles.
By narratingthem,the mentalunderlyingstructureof temporalwholesappears
at the surfaceof whathappenedas reportedin the survivingdocuments.Ranke
narratesthe temporalsequenceof eventsin sucha waythatit appearsas an emanationof non-eventfulbut- as wecallthem- structuralprocesses,suchas nationbuilding,constitutingpoliticalrelationshipsbetweenstates,emergingof political
cultures,and so on. The eventshold the place and actualizeunderlyingstructuresof temporalwholesin theircomprisingtendencies.Thissignificanceof events
He speaksof "great
is an outspokenformativeelementof Ranke'shistoriography.
in whichthe generalcourseof historyis concentrated,and he uses
moments"38
the denominationand descriptionof those momentsas a dramatizingfactor.
He enlargesthe descriptionof those momentswithconsiderationsof alternative
of conflictingforces,of flashbacksandprojections,thuselucidating
developments,
the historicalrole of eventsas emanationsof the temporalwholes, which give
the courseof eventsan historicalmeaning.Finally,they point to the temporal
changein present-daylife.
Rankepresentseventsas symbols;they appearin their narrativeconnection
34. Cf. Hans Schleier, "Narrativeund Strukturgeschichteim Historismus";Georg Iggers, "Historicism (A Comment)"; and Jorn Ruisen,"Narrativeund Strukturgeschichteim Historismus," in Storia
della Storiografia 10 (1986), 112-152.
35. In the following remarks I agree with a good deal of Hermann von der Dunk's observations
in "Die historische Darstellung bei Ranke: Literatur und Wissenschaft," in Leopold von Ranke und
die moderne Geschichtswissenschaft, ed. Wolfgang J. Mommsen (Stuttgart, 1988), 131-165, mainly
151ff.
36. "groJ3eweltbeherrschende Notwendigkeiten," (Ranke, Die romischen Pdpste, 64); in Iggers
and 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.

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 07 Aug 2015 19:52:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JORN RUSEN

204

as unitsof singularoccurrenceandgeneralsignificance,as temporallyhappening

mediationsof factsand meanings.This is how reasonas the knowledgeof temas an aestheticsparkleon the surface
poralwholes appearshistoriographically
of a historyof events.In his historiographyRankeseemsto follow Hegel'sphilosophy of art, which definesbeauty,the essentialaestheticqualityof human
products,as "the sensualshiningof the idea."39
VI. OUTLOOK OF THE PRESENT DISCUSSION

It is not myintentionto praiseRanke'sHegelianismor to givehis modeof historiographyan obligatoryrelevancefor present-dayhistorywriting.I wantedsimply

to remindus of an historicallyimportantintroductionof reasoninto historiography,whichgaveit a certainaestheticquality.Historicalstudieshas forgotten
of profesthisaestheticqualityof modernhistory.It fell out of the self-awareness
gift and losingits internalrelasionalhistorians,becomingan extradisciplinary
tionshipwiththe methodologicalrationalityof historicalresearch.It stillremains
forgottenin the postmodernturnof theoryof history,rediscoveringthe rhetorical principlesand proceduresof historiography.Hereit is forgottenas long as
we do not distinguishbetweenrhetoricand aesthetics,and ask ourselveshow
we can introducethe deliberatingforcesof reasoninto the restraintsof practical
needseffectivein historicalnarration(as its rhetoric).We knowthat we cannot
do it in the way of Rankeand his contemporaryhistoriographers,becausewe
havelost theirconfidencein an idealisticphilosophyof history.That is not at
all an argumentagainstreasonin history,but ratheran argumentto strengthen
should
ourquestforit. Thepost-modernrecognitionof rhetoricin historiography
not lead us back to premodernrhetoricbut forwardto a rhetoricof historiographywhichpreservesthe necessityof liberatingreasonin historiographyand
whichreflectsthis reasonnot simplyas a techniqueof research,but with a much
widerand deeperapproachto historicalstudiesas a questionof the aesthetics
of historiography.
UniversitdtBielefeld

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

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 07 Aug 2015 19:52:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions