This is a single-author essay in intellectual history, not a survey of nineteenth-century German historians. Its scope is conceptual: it asks how “Historismus” became a mode of thought in which history organized German intellectual life. Engel-Janosi includes Goethe, Schopenhauer, Marx, and Burckhardt because “German” here names an intellectual field, not citizenship.
Unter dem Begriff Historismus wird hier jene Einstellung verstanden werden, deren Zentrum die Geschichte bildete und die die meisten Gebiete des geistigen Lebens von der Geschichte durchdrungen sah und aus ihr die magistra, wenn nicht des aktiven Lebens, so doch, zu einem Großteil, des theoretischen machte.
English translation: By the term historicism is understood here that attitude whose centre was history, which saw most fields of intellectual life pervaded by history, and which made of history the magistra—if not of active life, then to a great extent of theoretical life.
The thesis is that German historicism forms by reworking three problems—development, individuality, and success. The study moves through Herder, Humboldt, Goethe, Niebuhr, Romanticism, Hegel, Ranke, Marx, Schopenhauer, and Burckhardt. Herder supplies the decisive anti-Enlightenment turn: peoples and epochs become individual forms with inward meaning, not mere steps toward later reason.
Im Zentrum seiner Vorstellungen von geschichtlicher Entwicklung steht der Glauben, daß jede historische Erscheinung mehr ist als ein Mittel zum Zweck, mehr als ein Schritt auf ein Ziel hin; sie hat ihre eigenen Ziele und wird durch sich selbst gerechtfertigt.
English translation: At the centre of his conception of historical development stands the belief that every historical phenomenon is more than a means to an end, more than a step toward a goal; it has its own ends and is justified through itself.
Humboldt turns individuality into an idealist theory of historical understanding: the historian grasps the “ideas” embodied in persons and epochs through imaginative assimilation. Goethe, despite distrusting ordinary historiography, gives historicism the organic language of growth, metamorphosis, typical individuality, and the demonic personality. Niebuhr joins critical source work to a philosophy of early collective life, writing Roman institutional history rather than heroic biography. The Romantic school generalizes the organism into Volksgeist: law, language, art, and people grow historically. Engel-Janosi values this deepening of individuality but sees its limit: self-contained peoples and epochs weaken the possibility of world history.
Hegel restores movement. History becomes a struggle in which world spirit realizes freedom through states, peoples, and great men. Particulars matter only within the whole; success becomes a sign of necessity.
Die Absicht war, zu zeigen, daß die ganze Weltgeschichte nichts ist als die Verwirklichung des Geistes und damit die Entwicklung des Begriffs der Freiheit.
English translation: The intention was to show that the whole of world history is nothing but the realization of Spirit and thereby the development of the concept of freedom.
Ranke is Hegel’s counter-pole. He seeks unity and providential meaning but refuses transparent system. His world is one of hidden harmony, great powers, diplomatic antagonism, and continuity. Critical fact and metaphysical reserve belong together: the historian must establish what happened while discerning living connection. His famous claim marks the essay’s chief alternative to progressivism.
Ich aber behaupte, jede Epoche ist unmittelbar zu Gott.
English translation: But I maintain: every epoch is immediate to God.
Marx appears as Hegel’s radical heir and Ranke’s opposite. He relocates necessity in production and class conflict, making history both proof and engine of socialism’s future. Engel-Janosi grants the force of economic interpretation, but sees its monism: individual, spiritual, and epochal richness shrink before revolutionary rhythm.
Die Revolutionen sind die Lokomotiven der Geschichte.
English translation: Revolutions are the locomotives of history.
Schopenhauer interrupts the line by denying development and devaluing individuality; his stress on the permanent and typical prepares Burckhardt. In Burckhardt the essay reaches culmination and crisis. He rejects Hegelian purpose, moral progress, and political glorification, turning instead to cultures, constants, types, and recurring forms of human life.
Wir betrachten das sich Wiederholende, Konstante, Typische als ein in uns Anklingendes und Verständliches.
English translation: We regard what recurs, what is constant, what is typical, as something that resonates within us and is intelligible to us.
Burckhardt’s ethical break lies in his account of power. Where Hegel and Ranke could find spiritual meaning in political power, Burckhardt sees it as morally compromised, even while admitting that culture needs protected political existence. Historicism thereby becomes tragic: the highest cultural achievements depend on what cannot be ethically redeemed.
Und nun ist die Macht an sich böse.
English translation: And now: power in itself is evil.
Engel-Janosi’s final claim is that historicism reaches its highest form in Burckhardt’s art of memory: not system, progress, or nationalism, but disciplined consciousness of continuity amid danger. The essay’s relevance lies in this genealogy of modern historical consciousness: the nineteenth century transformed history from a storehouse of examples into the medium for thinking individuality, culture, politics, and human meaning, while already generating its own critique in Schopenhauer and Nietzsche’s later “Kunst des Vergessens.”
This work was divided into 11 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 11 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian