In an interview on War and Intellect

Tell me about your next choice, History: Politics or Culture? Reflections on Ranke and Burckhardt by Felix Gilbert.

In this brief work, written at the end of a very distinguished scholarly career, Gilbert considers decisive phases in the developments of two kinds of history, and behind their differences points to similarities and forces that bring them together. He begins with the new awareness among historians, originating in the late Enlightenment and brought to the fore by the French Revolution and reactions to it, of the uniqueness of particular societies and their cultures, and of a new sense of the interaction of ideas, social forces, policy, and the personality of individual leaders. The systematic study of documents and other primary sources, such as architecture and works of art and literature, gains new importance – as does the manner of their interpretation. Even as Ranke, by applying the critical method of philology to the study of the past, turns history into an autonomous discipline, removed from philosophy, theology, and law, he insists that history is also an art. He seeks to ‘tell a story that is full of tension’. Aesthetic considerations affect not only his narrative, but also the structure of his works. His History of the Popes, for example, is not strictly chronological, but shaped around one great theme: the relationship between state and church in Europe. His conception of history makes it inevitable that Ranke includes discussions of art, literature and culture in his political interpretations.

This interaction is also basic to Burckhardt’s work. His Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy opens with political history: the waning power of the empire and the achievement of control by the absolute monarchies of France and Spain. A further central element of the work is the significance of the individual, not only in art and literature, but also in politics. Despite their differences in opinion and purpose, the two historians are linked by strong bonds. And as Gilbert notes in this little book, rich with ideas briefly discussed, in the earlier 19th century ‘there was no real contrast or rivalry between political and cultural history’. He does not add, but the message is implied, that in the study and writing of history today specialisation and breadth of interpretation need not be antagonistic. At times they can be combined in conception and execution. When that is not possible, each may at least acknowledge and convey to the reader the importance of the other.

What kind of impact has this approach to history had on you?

I see myself as a remote descendant and follower of the intellectual tradition Gilbert summarises. Of course, while we have forgotten much since Ranke and Burckhardt wrote, we have also learnt something, but their generosity of spirit and their intellectual sweep remain an inspiration.