Frederick C. Beiser, The German Historicist Tradition (2011)

I read this for my project on historical methodology. In fact, I'd read it several years ago, but I'd forgotten the contents nearly completely, and it seemed to fit with my current focus within the project, i.e. understanding how and why the study of human history parted ways with other historical sciences (geology, paleontology, archeology, anthropology) in terms of methodology. Beiser seems to know the topic quite deeply and his judgments seem persuasive. What I came away thinking was that the earliest historicists - Chladenius, Moeser, Herder, Humboldt - all seemed open, or even committed, to the 18th century idea of a naturalistic "science of man." This was particularly true of the last two thinkers. At the same time, compared to Scots like Smith and Hume, and Frenchmen like Montesquieu, Rousseau or Condillac, the Germans were simultaneously wrestling with heavy-duty philosophical questions - about individuality, free will, and providence in history, for example. The enormous (and in my eyes disastrous) influence of Ranke from the 1830s on cannot be explained by the originality or persuasiveness of his ideas. Ranke is the first historicist who fully rejects naturalism and seeks to establish history in a way fundamentally distinct from the natural sciences. He emphasizes the importance of source criticism - this is to provide the scientific certainty of history. However, source criticism had been around for some time, originating in the Renaissance with men like Lorenzo Valla and Agricola, and in Germany being promoted in the 18th century at the University of Goettingen. My argument might be that source criticism didn't become the rallying cry of history in the 18th century, say, because a more naturalistic science of man was still being considered. Once that is dropped - because it would require unacceptable compromises when it came to philosophical ideas about individuality, free will, and providence - source criticism comes to seem especially appealing as an adequate source of scientificness. (Alas, it really isn't!). At least, this is one of the reasons. No doubt I will have to return to this book when I am ready to return to writing.