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 affected archaism。
§ 7
A history which aspires to traverse long periods of time； or to be universal； must indeed forego the
attempt to give individual representations of the past as it actually existed。 It must foreshorten its
pictures by abstractions； and this includes not merely the omission of events and deeds； but
whatever is involved in the fact that Thought is； after all； the most trenchant epitomist。 A battle； a
great victory； a siege； no longer maintains its original proportions； but is put off with a bare
mention。 When Livy e。g。 tells us of the wars with the Volsci； we sometimes have the brief
announcement： “This year war was carried on with the Volsci。”
2。 Pragmatical History
§ 8
A second species of Reflective History is what we may call the Pragmatical。 When we have to
deal with the Past； and occupy ourselves with a remote world a Present rises into being for the
mind … produced by its own activity； as the reward of its labour。 The occurrences are； indeed；
various； but the idea which pervades them … their deeper import and connection … is one。 This
takes the occurrence out of the category of the Past and makes it virtually Present。 Pragmatical
（didactic） reflections； though in their nature decidedly abstract； are truly and indefeasibly of the
Present； and quicken the annals of the dead Past with the life of today。 Whether； indeed such
reflections are truly interesting and enlivening； depends on the writer's own spirit。 Moral reflections
must here be specially noticed； … the moral teaching expected from history； which latter has not
unfrequently been treated with a direct view to the former。 It may be allowed that examples of
virtue elevate the soul； and are applicable in the moral instructions of children for impressing
excellence upon their minds。 But the destinies of peoples and states； their interests； relations； and
the plicated issue of their affairs； present quite another field。 Rulers； Statesmen； Nations； are
wont to be emphatically mended to the teaching which experience offers in history。 But what
experience and history teach is this； … that peoples and governments never have learned anything
from history； or acted on principles deduced from it。 Each period is involved in such peculiar
circumstances； exhibits a condition of things so strictly idiosyncratic； that its conduct must be
regulated by considerations connected with itself； and itself alone。 Amid the pressure of great
events； a general principle gives no help。 It is useless to revert to similar circumstances in the Past。
The pallid shades of memory struggle in vain with the life and freedom of the Present。 Looked at in
this light； nothing can be shallower than the oft…repeated appeal to Greek and Roman examples
during the French Revolution。 Nothing is more diverse than the genius of those nations and that of
our times。 Johannes v。 Müller； in his Universal History as also in his History of Switzerland； had
such moral aims in view。 He designed to prepare a body of political doctrines for the instruction of
princes； governments and peoples （he formed a special collection of doctrines and reflections； …
frequently giving us in his correspondence the exact number of apophthegms which he had
piled in a week）； but he cannot reckon this part of his labour as among the best that he
acplished。 It is only a thorough； liberal； prehensive view of historical relations （such e。g。 as
we find in Montesquieu's Esprit des Loix）； that can give truth and interest to reflections of this
order。 One Reflective History therefore supersedes another。 The materials are patent to every
writer： each is likely enough to believe himself capable of arranging and manipulating them； and we
may expect that each will insist upon his own spirit as that of the age in question。 Disgusted by
such reflective histories readers have often returned to a with pleasure to a narrative adopting no
particular point of view。 These certainly have their value； but for the most part they offer only
material for history。 We Germans are not content with such。 The French； on the other hand；
display great genius in reanimating bygone times； and in bringing the past to bear upon the present
conditions of things。
3。 Critical History
§ 9
The third form of Reflective History is the Critical。 This deserves mention as pre…eminently the
mode of treating history； now current in Germany。 It is not history itself that is here presented。 We
might more properly designate it as a History of History； a criticism of historical narratives and an
investigation of their truth and credibility。 Its peculiarity in point of fact and of intention； consists in
the acuteness with which the writer extorts something from the records which was not in the
matters recorded。 The French have given as much that is profound and judicious in this class of
position。 But they have not endeavoured to pass a merely critical procedure for substantial
history。 They have duly presented their judgments in the form of critical treatises。 Among us； the
so…called “higher criticism；” which reigns supreme in the domain of philology； has also taken
possession of our historical literature。 This “higher criticism” has been the pretext for introducing
all the anti…historical monstrosities that a vain imagination could suggest。 Here we have the other
method of making the past a living reality； putting subjective fancies in the place of historical data；
fancies whose merit is measured by their boldness； that is； the scantiness of the particulars on
which they are based； and the peremptoriness with which they contravene the best established
facts of history。
§ 10
4。 The last species of Reflective History announces its fragmentary character on the very face of it。
It adopts an abstract position； yet； since it takes general points of view （e。g。 as the History of Art；
of Law； of Religion）； it forms a transition to the Philosophical History of the World。 In our time this
form of the history of ideas has been more developed and brought into notice。 Such branches of
national life stand in close relation to the entire plex of a people's annals； and the question of
chief importance in relation to our subject is； whether the connection of the whole is exhibited in its
truth and reality； or referred to merely external relations。 In the latter case； these important
phenomena （Art。； Law； Religion； &c。） appear as purely accidental national peculiarities。 It must be
remarked that； when Reflective History has advanced to the adoption of general points of view； if
the position taken is a true one； these are found to constitute … not merely external thread； a
superficial series … but are the inward guiding soul of the occurrences and actions that occupy a
nation's annals。 For； like the soul…conductor Mercury； the Idea is in truth； the leader of peoples
and of the World； and Spirit； the rational and necessitated will of that conductor； is and has been
the director of the events of the World's History。 To bee acquainted with Spirit in this its office
of guidance； is the object of our present undertaking。 This brings us to 。。。
Philosophic History
III。 Philosophic History
i。 Reason Governs the World … ii。 The Destiny of Reason … iii。 World History
§ 11
The third kind of history； — the Philosophical。 No explanation was needed of the two previous
classes； their nature was self…evident。 It is otherwise with this last； which certainly seems to require
an exposition or justification。 The most general definition that can be given； is； that the Philosophy
of History means nothing but the thoughtful consideration of it。 Thought is； indeed。； essential to
humanity。 It is this that distinguishes us from the brutes。 In sensations cognition and intellection； in
our instincts and volitions； as far as they are truly human Thought is an invariable element。 To insist
upon Thought in this connection with history； may； however； appear unsatisfactory。 In this science
it would seem as if Thought must be subordinate to what is given to the realities of fact； that this is
its basis and guide： while Philosophy dwells in the region of self…produced ideas； without reference
to actuality。 Approaching history thus prepossessed； Speculation might be expected to treat it as a
mere passive material； and； so far from leaving it in its native truth； to force it into conformity with a
tyrannous idea； and to construe it； as the phrase is； “à priori。” But as it is the business of history
simply to adopt into its records what is and has been； actual occurrences and transactions； and
since it remains true to its character in proportion as it strictly adheres to its data； we seem to have
in Philosophy； a process diametrically opposed to that of the historiographer。 This contradiction；
and the charge consequent brought against speculation； shall be explained and confuted。 We do
not； however； propose to correct