Munoz - 1

Eric D Munoz09/10/12HIST 6013

The Varieties of History

The differences between art and science were exemplified through the Buckle and

Droysen portion when Stern explains that the two lived during the same period, but had

very different views on the study of history. Buckle searched for regularities in history,

supported the idea that events are connected, and suggested research should be done as a

discipline. (128) Droysen, a critic of Buckle, says that history is, “…at once art and science.”

(139) Droysen suggests that the methods to finding true history has not yet been found and

must be found one’s own understanding. (142-143)

Even those that Stern views as cohorts in one assembly of thought have varying

views on methods and focus. Lord Action, who saw history as a scientific discipline,

suggests that the specificity of a historian’s studies can create a more succinct history when

added to a community of common thinkers. (247) Frederick Jackson Turner, who also saw

history as a scientific discipline, suggests that history should comprehensive and, thus,

useful for the present. (200) The two historians clash in methodology, but push history to

be looked at as a scientific discipline.

The two historians that seem to be most at odds in Stern’s book are Leopold von

Ranke and Charles Beard. Ranke, the father of “historicism”, favors a primary source

method in which the historian must differentiate between the pure and impure accounts.

(54) Ranke illustrates this by discussing the how political strife in France and a religion

schism in the Catholic Church created a modern Europe. The presentation of facts, in a

chronological order, is the only true way history should be pursued, according to Ranke. In

Munoz - 2

this case, he finds truth among ecclesiastical writings. (56-57) This method pushes history

to an autonomous discipline because of the purity it has from true facts history seeks.

A century later, Beard argues that present events should use past events in

explanation. (314) The opposition to Ranke’s method is faulted by himself being too

religious and basing an understanding of history off of philosophy and “revelation of God”,

thus, not giving Ranke the opportunity to evaluate history in an objective manner. Beard

used Ranke’s history of the Papacy as an example by suggesting that Ranke did not take

Jesuit thought into consideration. (318)

The Beard and Ranke comparison seems to be an effective comparison. Stern

presents the reader with works by Beard that criticize Ranke, outright, and a large piece

that expand on Beard’s solution to Ranke’s methods. Stern’s attempt to show differences

between the two is successful, but it is possible the subjectivity that Beard fears might be

projected into the fact that Stern gives us only a limited amount of material between the

two. It is logical to assume that a more effective understand of the differences between

Ranke and Beard would need a study all to itself, but Stern’s presentation of the two is

suffice.

The weaknesses of the book are few, but relevant to the author’s goal of filling in the

academic holes of “historical discipline”. (9) The varied authors are relevant in patching up

the holes of historiography, but the locations of each historians takes the reader of Stern’s

book into a quagmire of nationalistic opinions. The regional differences shine through with

historians Walter Frank and Alexander von Müller, who struggle through Nazi Germany’s

push for partisan history. (329) Stern’s sporadic placement of authors can confuse readers

when considering the origins of the historians, let alone the time that the authors lived.

Munoz - 3

Another minor weakness of Stern’s book is the focus on the Western historians. If

Stern’s purpose in writing the book is to fill holes in the discipline of history, it would have

been beneficial to his reader to include historians from other parts of the world and their

perspectives and methods on telling history. Limiting to the West gives the reader a purely

one dimensional perspective on how history has been recorded and told from the mid-

eighteenth century. It is clear that Stern is using a period of intellectual discover in Europe

as a starting point, but fails to acknowledge those outside of the area designated for the

topic of historiography.

The focal point that Stern wants the reader to acknowledge is how the demand for

history and the transformation history needed to become an academic discipline. (Stern

11) The primary source accounts of the people seem to be an overwhelming favorite

among the historians, as it shows what the people of a society. Perkin is an example of this

when he says, “the history of society qua society.” (430) The push using primary source

documents from the people of a society creates a solid case for those that that may have

pushed against the movement of history becoming a legitimate discipline in academia.

The examination of methods that Stern provides for the reader gives insight into the

purpose of history and the retelling of it. From Voltaire’s secular and naturalistic view of

history to Charles Beard break from the traditional historicism that Ranke promoted, Stern

find placement for the authors, their contributions, and their time in history. From

identifying the objectivity of Bury to the subjectivity of Trevelyan, Stern addresses every

possible controversy that historians might have encountered as the advancement of history

was pushed toward serious academia. The most obvious controversy that Stern takes the

reader through is the debate between those that view history as an art or as a science.

Munoz - 4

Historians like Ranke, Niebhur, Bury and Lord Action demand the respect history deserves

and to give history its due in academia. Those that see history as an art or part of the

humanities are Carlyle, Droysen, Mommsen, and Trevelyn. These men believe that history

needs the respect of the literary community, as well as seen as one piece of the social

science puzzle.

Munoz - 5

Bibliography

Stern, Fritz Richard. The Varieties of History. New York: World, 1956. Print.