Hegel’s century: alienation and recognition in a time of revolution

historians ought to do research, how archives transform the historian’s character and how he became the model of what a historian is supposed to be (88, 97, 104); and, finally, Georg Waitz’s concern with researching the character of the writers of sources, to find out their moral and epistemic virtues and vices (107–8, 112–13). The question remains whether these historians and their moral and political project are actually “modern”. For, when we look more closely, it is clear that many of these historians focus on “reasonable human beings” (28, 61, 64), and that the “folly of men” could be prevented or mended by means of history. These historians used empirical knowledge to inform and improve human knowledge and morality. In other words, it is about progress of human nature. That is essentially the traditional Enlightened theory of humanity: there is a sharp distinction between an (unreasonable) past and a (reasonable) present; by learning from past errors, progress is achieved; such learning is possible because human nature is capable of learning as long as it is reasonable. In other words, human nature includes reason and therefore the capacity to learn. That is exactly why historicists considered the Enlightened view of history to be generalizing and judgemental and not historical, instead urging historians to refrain from judgement, to focus on the individual context, and most of all to “feel into” the past, while simultaneously becoming aware that the present is a product of the past. Of course, this debate is essentially on the flexibility and adaptability of notions like historicism, professionalization, Enlightenment and modernity, as well as the (dis)agreements on periodization, selection and perspective. Even though Eskildsen seems to employ a rather restricted view of historicism, Enlightenment and modernity, this does not diminish the achievement of his concise yet skilfully written and researched study of the Enlightened foundation of modern German historical scholarship. It is an original addition to the debate about the foundation of historical scholarship, and it contributes particularly to the field of moral and epistemic virtues and its role in Enlightened German historical scholarship.