|
|
|
Review
| The Limits of History, by Constantin Fasolt. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2004. 368 pages. $40.00, cloth.
|
| In The Limits of History, Constantin Fasolt engages in traditional history in order to illustrate its limitations. The main subject of his book is Hermann Conring (1606–1681), a German historian who is best known for his argument against both the universality of Roman law and the notion that the Holy Roman Emperor held authority to rule the world. Conring is of particular interest to the author as a representative of the humanist revolt that placed history at the service of European royalty looking for freedom from the universal authority of Emperor and Pope. But Fasolt's purpose is not to increase our knowledge of an individual figure, but rather to "practice some history" on him (p. 41) for the purpose of demonstrating "in one instance what separates us in all instances from an adequate understanding of the past" (p. 45 |
1
|
|
For example, Fasolt focuses chapter three on trying to reconcile the discrepancy in Conring's thought as evidenced in The New Discourse on the Roman-German Emperor (1642) and The Roman Empire of the Germans (1644). But after employing the usual tools of the historical trade (detailed analysis of the works in the context of their time and place), Fasolt asserts that "there is no way—no way at all—to fathom Conring's meaning" (p. 150), there is no satisfactory answer to the question of what Conring really thought. Fasolt identifies the problem not in the historians' method, but in the implausibility of the goal. Conring's thought was indefinable and unfixed because his mind did not stand still, he argues. And he concludes that "meaning is not like a thing that can be grasped or measured; it is like the open space between two things that merely seem to touch." (150). For Fasolt, an adequate knowledge of the past simply cannot be gathered from the available evidence. |
2
|
|
What are the specific implications of this conclusion for the way historians should write history? Fasolt does not say. But the biggest limitation the author believes he has discovered about history is that it is "not as innocent as it pretends to be" (p. 3) rather, it is inherently political in its nature, particularly, paradoxically, when historians are at their most dispassionate best. That is because history is more than just a form of knowledge. According to Fasolt, it is designed to uphold the modern belief that humans are free and independent agents and their actions determine the course of the past. Alternate explanations that do not assume free agency (such as imitating custom, or allowing for providence) are inconceivable. Thus, history is a form of self-assertion and is tantamount to taking sides by insisting on a certain order and eliminating rival orders. |
3
|
|
The Limits of History is a book for specialists that would be ineffective in any other classroom than an advanced graduate seminar. Certainly the topic is inherently important, but Fasolt has difficulty conveying his meaning in a manner clear enough for anyone but intellectual historians to understand. One can sense his own frustration when, in analyzing Conring's work, Fasolt imagines the frustration of a writer whose readers slip into the "great divide between words and meaning". (p. 104). Which is precisely a difficulty in The Limits of History. The problem, may be due, in large part, to the author's method. In attempting to illustrate an argument about the assumptions of history by pushing them to their perceived limit during the course of writing history as usual, rather than by presenting an argument, Fasolt asserts but does not fully develop a number of ideas with which the reader must wrestle. A simple example is when, in trying to decipher Conring's thought on the Holy Roman Empire, Fasolt casually declares, "perhaps the very notion of 'real thought' is an oxymoron". (p. 141). Similarly, in trying to uncover the limits of our understanding of history, it is distinctly possible that Fasolt, in fact, uncovered only the limits of our understanding of Hermann Conring's thought. The general applicability of conclusions drawn from a case that even Fasolt admits is unusual, remains in doubt. Certainly the argument would have been more persuasive had it been illustrated by many more examples. Finally, while it is instructive to consider the assumptions of history, it is even more valuable to think about the implications they have for studying or writing history. In the end, it is deeply unsatisfying to be left, as Fasolt leaves us, with the thought of practicing history only for the purpose of experiencing the limits placed on our understanding of the past. |
4
|
| | |
| California College of the Arts |
Amy R. Sims |
|
Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.
|