their proper material。 The influences that have formed the writer are identical with those which
have moulded the events that constitute the matter of his story。 The author's spirit； and that of the
actions he narrates； is one and the same。 He describes scenes in which he himself has been an
actor； or at any rate an interested spectator。 It is short periods of time； individual shapes of
persons and occurrences； single unreflected traits； of which be makes his picture。 And his aim is
nothing more than the presentation to posterity of an image of events as clear as that which be
himself possessed in virtue of personal observation； or life…like descriptions。 Reflections are none
of his business； for he lives in the spirit of his subject； he has not attained an elevation above it。 If；
as in Caesar's case； he belongs to the exalted rank of generals or statesmen； it is the prosecution
of his own aims that constitutes the history。
§ 3
Such speeches as we find in Thucydides （for example） of which we can positively assert that they
are not bona fide reports； would seem to make against our statement that a historian of his class
presents us no reflected picture； that persons and people appear in his works in propria persona。
Speeches； it must be allowed； are veritable transactions in the human monwealth； in fact； very
gravely influential transactions。 It is； indeed； often said； 〃Such and such things are only talk〃； by
way of demonstrating their harmlessness。 That for which this excuse is brought； may be mere
〃talk〃； and talk enjoys the important privilege of being harmless。 But addresses of peoples to
peoples； or orations directed to nations and to princes； are integrant constituents of history。
Granted such orations as those of Pericles — the most profoundly acplished； genuine； noble
statesman — were elaborated by Thucydides； it must yet be maintained that they were not foreign
to the character of the speaker。 In the oration in question； these men proclaim the maxims adopted
by their countrymen； and which formed their own character； they record their views of their
political relations； and of their moral and spiritual nature； and the principle of their designs and
conduct。 What the historian puts into their mouths is no supposititious system of ideas； but an
uncorrupted transcript of their intellectual and moral habitudes。
§ 4
Of these historians； whom we must make thoroughly our own； with whom we must linger long； if
we would live with their respective nations； and enter deeply into their spirit： of these historians； to
whose pages we may turn not for the purpose of erudition merely； but with a view to deep and
genuine enjoyment； there are fewer than might be imagined。 Herodotus the Father； i。e。 the
Founder of History and Thucydides have been already mentioned。 Xenophon's Retreat of the
Ten Thousand is a work equally original。 Caesar's mentaries are the simple masterpiece of
a mighty spirit。 Among the ancients； these annalists were necessarily great captains and statesmen。
In the Middle Ages； if we except the Bishops； who were placed in the very centre of the political
world； the Monks monopolise this category as naive chroniclers who were as decidedly isolated
from active life as those elder annalists had been connected with it。 In modern times the relations
are entirely altered。 Our culture is essentially prehensive and immediately changes all events
into historical representations。 Belonging to the class in question； we have vivid； simple； clear
narrations — especially of military transactions — which might fairly take their place with those of
Caesar。 In richness of matter and fullness of detail as regards strategic appliances； and attendant
circumstances； they are even more instructive。 The French 〃Memoires〃 also fall under this
category。 In many cases these are written by men of mark； though relating to affairs of little note。
They not unfrequently contain a large proportion of anecdotal matter； so that the ground they
occupy is narrow and trivial。 Yet they are often veritable masterpieces in history； as those of
Cardinal Retz； which in fact trench on a larger historical field。 In Germany such masters are rare。
Frederick the Great （Histoire de mon temps） is an illustrious exception。 Writers of this order
must occupy an elevated position。 Only from such a position is it possible to take an extensive
view of affairs — to see everything。 This is out of the question for him； who from below merely
gets a glimpse of the great world through a miserable cranny。
II。 Reflective History
1。 Universal History … 2。 Pragmatical History … 3。 Critical History
§ 5
The second kind of history we may call the reflective。 It is history whose mode of representation
is not really confined by the limits of the time to which it relates； but whose spirit transcends the
present。 In this second order strongly marked variety of species may be distinguished。
1。 Universal History
§ 6
It is the aim of the investigator to gain a view of the entire history of a people or a country； or of
the world； in short； what we call Universal History。 In this case the working up of the historical
material is the main point。 The workman approaches his task with his own spirit； a spirit distinct
from that of the element he is to manipulate。 Here a very important consideration will be the
principles to which the author refers； the bearing and motives of the actions and events which he
describes； and those which determine the form of his narrative。 Among us Germans this reflective
treatment and the display of ingenuity which it occasions； assume a manifold variety of phases。
Every writer of history proposes to himself an original method。 The English and French confess to
general principles of historical position。 Their standpoint is more that of cosmopolitan or of
national culture。 Among us each labours to invent a purely individual point of view。 Instead of
writing history； we are always beating our brains to discover how history ought to be written。 This
first kind of Reflective History is most nearly akin to the preceding； when it has no farther aim than
to present the annals of a country plete。 Such pilations （among which may be reckoned
the works of Livy； Diodorus Siculus； Johannes von Müller's History of Switzerland） are； if well
performed； highly meritorious。 Among the best of the kind may be reckoned such annalist as
approach those of the first class； who give so vivid a transcript of events that the reader may well
fancy himself listening to contemporaries and eye…witnesses。 But it often happens that the
individuality of tone which must characterise a writer belonging to a different culture； is not
modified in accordance with the periods such a record must traverse。 The spirit of the writer is
quite other than that of the times of which he treats。 Thus Livy puts into the mouths of the old
Roman kings； consuls； and generals； such orations as would be delivered by an acplished
advocate of the Livian era； and which strikingly contrast with the genuine traditions of Roman
antiquity （e。g。 the fable of Menenius Agrippa）。 In the same way he gives us descriptions of battles；
as if he bad been an actual spectator； but whose features would serve well enough for battles in
any period； and whose distinctness contrasts on the other hand with the want of connection and
the inconsistency that prevail elsewhere； even in his treatment of chief points of interest。 The
difference between such a piler and an original historian may be best seen by paring
Polybius himself with the style in which Livy uses； expands； and abridges his annals in those
period； of which Polybius's account has been preserved。 Johann von Müller has given a stiff；
formal； pedantic aspect of history； in the endeavour to remain faithful in his portraiture to the times
he describes。 We much prefer the narratives we find in old Tschudy。 All is more naive and natural
than it appears in the garb of a fictitious and aff