Historical facts refer to events that occurred in the past, and historians fall into two camps: those who view them as objective truths and those who interpret them as subjective perceptions.
“Historical facts” can refer to individual events that occurred in the past, or only to past facts that have been subjectively identified by historians. The historian’s attitude toward historical research varies depending on which of the two concepts of “historical facts” is emphasized.
Lange equated historical facts with objects in the natural world created by the “finger of God. He believed that individual facts of each epoch or past had their own intrinsic value, complete in themselves and existing beyond the passage of time. Therefore, he believed that allowing historians to interpret history as they see fit is a form of contamination of sacred history, and that the role of historians is to describe the historical facts of the past as they are. To this end, historians should recognize history through thorough historical research and verification of the historical record, and not distort history for the sake of their own agendas.
Lange’s position reflects the main trends in 19th-century historiography. At that time, historians sought to introduce scientific methodology into historical research, thereby establishing history as an objective and empirical discipline. Ranke’s approach, which emphasized “history as it is,” stressed the absolute nature of historical facts and continues to have an impact today. His methodology led to efforts to accurately reconstruct past facts through ancient philology and document analysis.
In contrast, Droysen emphasized that historical facts are only academically constructed facts based on the subjective perceptions of historians. Therefore, he did not see history as simply a collection of past events, and he saw the task of historians as understanding and interpreting past events and organizing them into a form of knowledge. He also said that only historical research to identify objective facts can provide a partial and uncertain explanation of the past.
Droizen’s position emphasizes the interpretive nature of history. It is not simply a listing of past events, but an exploration of the causal relationships and meanings between those events. From his perspective, history is not just a record, but a narrative construct that reflects the complexity of human experience. This interpretive approach has become the basis for emphasizing the importance of multiple interpretations and perspectives in modern history.
However, even though Droysen emphasized the subjective perception of historians, he did not mean that historians arbitrarily understand and interpret the facts of the past. He believed that in the process by which historians recognize some of the individual facts of the past as historical facts, there is a “category of history” that plays a crucial role before the intervention of the subjectivity of the historian. In other words, he believed that the category of history a priori defines the historian’s perception of history. At this point, it is the “human world” that constitutes the category of historical consciousness. Since the beginning of time, man has lived in a human world created by human will and action, not in a natural world. Therefore, history takes place in this human world and can only be understood in relation to it.
An important point in Droysen’s theory is the role of the historian. He believed that historians should not simply describe the past, but should reinterpret the past for the present and the future. This position emphasizes the importance and value of history for contemporary society and suggests that historians should fulfill their role as intellectuals with social responsibility. Even in modern history, discussions about the social role and responsibility of historians continue, and this can be seen as one of Droysen’s ideological legacies.
In short, Droysen argued for the subjectivity of historical perception, as opposed to Ranke’s objective perception of history, but he also believed that the a priori given world of human relations determines the perception and interpretation of history by historians. Therefore, his subjectivist theory of historical perception never led to relativism.
Ultimately, the two approaches to historical facts contribute to the diversity and depth of historical research. Although Ranke’s objective realism and Droysen’s subjective interpretivism seem to be in conflict with each other, both approaches have contributed to the development of history. Modern historical research seeks to integrate these two perspectives, continuing to try to understand the facts of the past as they are, while at the same time interpreting them and applying them to the present and the future. This integrated approach makes history a richer and more multifaceted discipline.
