How did Leopold von Ranke and the empiricist tradition turn history into a professional discipline, and what assumptions about evidence and objectivity did this method carry?
Students analyse the empiricist or scientific model of history founded by Ranke, its method of archival source criticism, and the claims about objectivity and truth that it embeds
A deep dive into Leopold von Ranke and the empiricist tradition that made history a professional discipline. The archival method, source criticism and the slogan about showing the past as it was, plus the unspoken assumptions about objectivity that later historians from Carr to White would attack.
Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed
Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page
What this dot point is asking
This dot point asks you to understand the empiricist or scientific model of history, the model most people unconsciously assume history simply is, and to see it as one historically specific construction rather than as common sense. Leopold von Ranke is its founder, and the dot point wants you to explain his method of archival source criticism, the institutions he built, and above all the assumptions that the method smuggles in: that the past is recoverable, that disciplined evidence yields objectivity, and that the historian can stand outside the story. You must be able to present empiricism sympathetically and then show why later historians treated it as a target rather than a foundation.
The answer
Leopold von Ranke, a Prussian historian writing from the 1820s, is conventionally credited with making history a professional academic discipline. Before Ranke, history was largely literature, moral instruction or providential narrative. Ranke insisted that the historian's task was to establish what actually happened through the rigorous, critical study of primary documents, especially the diplomatic archives of states. His famous formulation was that history should show the past wie es eigentlich gewesen, usually translated as showing it as it essentially was. The phrase became the slogan of empiricism and, later, its lightning rod.
The method
Ranke's contribution was as much institutional as philosophical. He established the research seminar, in which students were trained to interrogate documents; he insisted on the distinction between primary sources, produced at the time, and secondary accounts written later; and he made the footnote the visible guarantee that a claim rested on evidence. Source criticism meant testing a document's authenticity, dating, authorship and reliability before trusting it, the technique humanists such as Lorenzo Valla had pioneered when they exposed forged documents. With Ranke this became a systematic, teachable discipline housed in the university.
The assumptions inside the method
The power of empiricism is also where its critics struck. The method assumes that the past is real and knowable, that evidence constrains interpretation, and that a sufficiently disciplined historian can suppress personal and political bias to reach an objective account. It treats the document as a window onto the past rather than as itself a constructed, interested artefact. It tends to privilege the written records that states and elites produced, which is why so much nineteenth-century history was political and diplomatic, the doings of great men. The model presents the historian as a neutral discoverer rather than an active maker of meaning.
How later historians used Ranke as a target
Almost every later school defined itself against the Rankean model. The Annales historians rejected its narrow focus on politics and events in favour of total history. Marxist historians rejected its individualism and its blindness to class and material structure. E.H. Carr, in What Is History?, mocked the empiricist faith that facts speak for themselves, arguing instead that the historian selects and shapes them. Hayden White and the postmodernists denied that documents give unmediated access to the past at all. Yet Ranke also has defenders: Geoffrey Elton and, in a chastened form, Richard Evans restated the empiricist insistence that evidence genuinely limits what can be said and that some accounts are simply false.
Using this in an answer
Ranke is your anchor for the whole objectivity debate, so handle him precisely. Do not caricature him as naive; he knew history was interpretive and his slogan was partly a protest against moralising history. The strong move is to present empiricism as a coherent, productive model, then show how each later school exposed a different buried assumption, and finally judge what survives. Most defensible historians keep Ranke's discipline of evidence while abandoning his confidence in pure objectivity.