Understanding History: a Rankean Lens

Why the principles of Rankean historiography still matter

INTRODUCTION

Leopold von Ranke was a German historian who studied and understood history not as a lame subject but as a scientific inquiry, modern scholars consider him as the “Father of Modern History,” but I don’t prefer the word Father as how can a subject’s scope can be limited to a one person’s contribution. I prefer the term ‘Progenitor.’ Nevertheless, he is credited to establish history as a rigorous and scientific discipline distinct from literature, philosophy and political propaganda. Before Ranke, history writing in Europe often focused on moral lessons, glorifying kings and philosophical speculation. He rejected these tendencies as corrupt forms of history writing, and focused on empirical source-based approach, laying the foundation of modern historiography.

RANKEAN METHODS

Primary Sources

The most important method he used was the usage and importance of Primary Source, he insisted that historians must rely primarily on original documents such as governmental records, private papers, diplomatic dispatches, chronicles and eye witness accounts.

He was also the pioneer of source criticism which he called in his language as ‘Quellenkritik’, which means that it is the rightful duty of a historian to evaluate, authenticate the sources.

His emphasis on primary sources draws upon the contemporary historians who documented what they saw. He challenged the prevalent history writing not merely as record keeping, but as truth writing. In the preface to “Histories of the Latin and Germanic Nations (1824)”, he emphasized that history should be constructed from the most immediate documents (die unmittelbarsten Urkunden).

The Principle Of How It Actually Happened?

He rejected the idea of history as a moral lesson or a tool of ideology. Instead, he preached that the historian’s task was to reconstruct the past on its own terms, free from teleological frameworks. His famous phrase “wie es eigentlich gewesen”, translates “as it actually was”.

He argued against the speculative philosophies of history such as those of Hegel which believed that history as a manifestation of universal spirit or inevitable progress.

In his work “Zur Kritik Neuerer Geschichtsschreiber (1824)”, he wrote that historians should refrain from judging the past and should seek to understand it as it actually was.

Every Age is Unique and Equal Before God

He was an ardent believer of Historicism, which in his words was the backbone of historiography. Historicism means that all human actions and ideas have to be explained historically according to their specific historical causes and context, not to be judged from contemporary practices and ideas.

His main emphasis was that no age should be judged as superior or inferior, every age is equal before God. For e.g., when we study about the middle ages in Europe, we often criticised the people as god fearing or superstitious, but if we analyse the prevalent norm in that age, it was a common practice to follow the religion extremely, and believing in many things that are now considered as superstitious.

Another example is the controversial and outdated “Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT)” of the Indian subcontinent, it was given by the imperial historians of Britain, who couldn’t digest the fact that oriental civilizations were far more diverse and less barbaric than they once thought. To satisfy their political and religious zeal, they came up with the AIT, to support the British conquest and White Man’s Burden to develop the other inferior race.

Writing Political History

His methods were deeply rooted in political history, in which he regarded the state as the central unit of historical development, famously calling it a manifestation of the idea of God in history. His work, “History of the Reformation in Germany (1839-47)”, illustrates how he analysed events primarily through the lens of state and diplomatic actions rather than social or economic forces. His lectures and writings reveal his conviction that the state was the highest form of human organization and thus the proper subject of historiography.

The main argument here is that his era of history writing coincided with the era of growing nationalism in Europe, especially in Germany and Italy, his emphasis on political historiography can be understood as writing history of the German nation, which was disorganised and divided among smaller principalities, his main focus was on writing history of a great, undivided German nations and his people.

SOME QUESTIONS OF UNDERSTANDING RANKEAN HISTORY

1) Does History Repeat Itself?

He did not believe in a mechanical or cyclical view of history, unlike some classical historians such as Polybius or Thucydides, who saw history revolving in a cycle. His main argument was that each age is unique and must be understood on its own terms. Rankean historians did not believe in a repetitive pattern of rise and fall, but a series of distinctive epochs, each shaped by its own conditions, ideas and circumstances.

For e.g., when studying about the French Revolution of 1789 and 1848, we often cite that revolutions repeats when anarchy and disorder happens and it will happen again, but this is not the case, according to Ranke, they are not repetitions, but are unique events that are shaped by their own contexts. The 1789 revolution occurred from the tyrannous regime of Louis XVI, financial crisis and growing Enlightenment ideas, whereas the 1848 revolution was driven by industrialization and growing nationalism in French society.

2) Is History A Dialogue Between The Present And The Past?

E.H. Carr in his seminal work “What is History? (1961)”, have presented the famous dictum that history is an "unending dialogue between the present and the past”, but he is wrong in the context of Rankean historiography.

Carr believed in the interpretation and context of history, which is shaped by the historians’ contemporary beliefs but the main question here remains that how can we measure a past event based on contemporary beliefs. For e.g., it would be a grave mistake to say that people of the 14^th century were inferior to those of the 21^st century because they did not have smartphones, cars, laptops or AI etc.

In short, history is not a dialogue between the past and present, but an attempt to reconstruct the past in its own truth, free from presentist judgements and biasness.

3) Should History Be Free From Speculative Philosophies?

Rankean historiography has always been an opponent of philosophical ideas in history, as Ranke has argued that historians must avoid imposing philosophical systems, moral lessons and ideological interpretations onto the past. Their duty was to carefully reconstruct the events from the authentic sources and present them as it actually happened.

Philosophy in history has imposed abstract frameworks that distort the uniqueness of each age and its facts. For e.g., non Rankean historians have presented the period of Reformation in Germany as an inevitable stage in humanity’s progress towards modern freedom, reducing it to a part of a universal law of development. But Ranke’s interpretation was that it should be studied through its own sources such as Luther’s writings, papal decrees, imperial diets and diplomatic correspondences. He believed that it was not a stage in a grand philosophical story but a unique historical event shaped by the 16^th century religious, political and cultural context.

4) Is There Causation In History?

The question of causation in history is the study of why events happened, exploring the relationship between events that led to a particular outcome, and understanding how past developments influence the present and future. For Ranke, causation was real, but it was not to be explained through abstract laws or deterministic philosophies. Instead, it had to be established through empirical evidence drawn from authentic sources. He sought to reconstruct how one event flowed into another within the framework of its own time, always respecting the uniqueness in every age. His main emphasis was that the historical events were linked by causes and consequences but he rejected the idea of universal laws of history as Hegel and Marx proposed.

He held that historians must derive causes in their own context, not applying modern categories, as he had warned against judging the past with present day values or reducing it to lessons for the present.

For e.g., a Rankean study on the decline of the Mughal Empire in the 18^th century India demonstrates his ideas of causation such as political, military and economic factors that must be studied within the Mughal context of the 17^th and 18^th centuries, not as a mechanical repetition of earlier imperial declines.

5) Why Does Historicism Matter In Writing History?

Historicism can be understood as a belief that each age in history must be understood in its own terms, without imposing the value or judgements of later times. Ranke gave classic shape to this doctrine in the 19^th century, believing that historicism prevents historians from distorting the past by applying modern categories such as democracy, nationalism or human rights to societies that never thought in those terms. It ensures fairness to historical actors by allowing them to be judged in their own context.

Karl Popper in his seminal work “The Poverty of Historicism(1944)” attacked historicism on the grounds that is unscientific and dangerously deterministic, his main argument centred on the belief that history unfolds according to discoverable “laws” that can predict the future and such thinking paves the way for totalitarian ideologies. While his caution against over generalization is valid, his criticism rests on a misunderstanding of what most historians meant by the term.

Historicism does not seek to predict the future or identify universal laws of development, Rather it argues that each epoch must be understood in its own context. By equating it with fatalistic prophecy, Popper created a straw man fallacy, as he ignored that fact that historians rarely claim to forecast the future, their task is to reconstruct and interpret the past.

Moreover, his emphasis on falsifiability and piecemeal social engineering works well for scientific inquiry but it is not suited to historical understanding. History does not function like an experimental science, its actors do not behave in ways that can be reduced to fixed laws, no humans can be controlled by laws, we all know. Historicism remains valuable precisely because it affixes the past within its own intellectual and cultural contexts, allowing us to appreciate it without distortions.

CONCLUSION

To conclude my argument, Ranke emerges as a true progenitor of modern historiography, not for grand philosophical claims, but for his rigorous firmness on truth grounded in authentic sources. His principle of writing history “as it actually happened”, rejected the speculative philosophies, cyclical patterns and moral lessons, demanding instead that each age must be understood on its own terms. While he recognized causation, he refused to reduce history to deterministic laws, preserving its complexity within empirical frameworks. The debates on his works provoke causation, dialogue between past and present and the role of historicism remains alive precisely because he established history as a discipline of evidence rather than ideology. In doing so, he laid the enduring foundations of critical modern historical practice.

His principles continue to hold implication in an age where history is often misused to judge or punish the past through the lens of the present. His visualization insists that the past must be understood on its own terms, free from falsifications, distortions or moral preachings. What happened in the past belongs to the past, just as the present and future must be seen within their own realities. History is more than a collection of facts or dates, it is a dynamic and lively subject of inquiry, debate and interpretation. Just mugging up facts and dates, won’t make one a historian.

REFERENCES

Boldt, Andreas. "Perception, Depiction and Description of European History: Leopold von Ranke and his Development and Understanding of Modern Historical Writing." International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) 8, no. 12 (December 2020): 2320–2882.

Carr, E. H. What Is History? 1961. Reprint, London: Penguin Books, 1990.

Gil, Thomas. "Leopold von Ranke." In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2023 Edition), edited by Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2023/entries/ranke/.

Grafton, Anthony. "The Footnote from De Thou to Ranke." History and Theory 33, no. 4 (1994): 53–76.

Harlan, David. "Intellectual History and the Return of Literature." The American Historical Review 94, no. 3 (June 1989): 581–609.

Iggers, Georg G. The German Conception of History: The National Tradition of Historical Thought from Herder to the Present. Rev. ed. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1983.

Iggers, Georg G., and James M. Powell, eds. Leopold von Ranke and the Shaping of the Historical Discipline. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1990.

Krieger, Leonard. Ranke: The Meaning of History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977.

Novick, Peter. That Noble Dream: The "Objectivity Question" and the American Historical Profession. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Popper, Karl. The Poverty of Historicism. 1944. Reprint, London: Routledge, 2002.

Ranke, Leopold von. Histories of the Latin and Germanic Nations. Translated by G. R. Dennis. London: G. Bell and Sons, 1909.

The Theory and Practice of History. Edited by Georg G. Iggers and Konrad von Moltke. New York: Routledge, 2011.

Zur Kritik neuerer Geschichtsschreiber. Leipzig: Reimer, 1824.

Southgate, Beverley. History: What and Why? Ancient, Modern, and Postmodern Perspectives. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2001.

Toews, John E. "Historicism Revisited." Journal of the History of Ideas 68, no. 4 (October 2007): 633–58.

Wang, Q. Edward. Inventing China through History: The May Fourth Approach to Historiography. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001.