Karl Wilhelm von Humboldt, 4 Alexander’s older brother, on the other
hand, was far more relevant to the development of the historical method in
theWrst two decades of the nineteenth century. He was a politician, man of
letters, a translator of classical Greek authors and a philologist, whose interest
in the latterWeld brought to scholars’ attention the Basque language and its
non-Indo-European character. He was also signiWcant in the development of
history and of Vo ̈lkerpsychologie, the study of folk psychology, i.e. the
psychology of a people. He maintained that through its study, together with
that of history and languages, an understanding of particular peoples and
of their character—manifested in traditions, customs, religion, language
and art—could be reached (Bunzl 1996: 19–36). Importantly, as Minister
of Public Instruction in Prussia, Karl Wilhelm von Humboldt backed the
appointment of university professors such as the Danish-born Barthold
Niebuhr (1776–1831), a Classicist, and the Professor of Roman law, Friedrich
Karl von Savigny (1779–1861). He introduced the critical study of sources of
ancient legislation, publishing the ancient text by Gaius that had recently been
discovered by Niebuhr. In 1815 he launched hisHistory of Roman Law in the
Middle Ages(Geschichte des romischen Rechts im Mittelalter) in which he
demonstrated the continuation of Roman law through the post-Roman
period in local and ecclesiastical customs and legislations until its resurgence
in the Italian cities. He also argued that law was inextricably linked with the
formation of the nation.
Niebuhr was explicit about the eVect of contemporary political events. As he
explained, the Napoleonic threat had been felt at ‘a time when we were experi-
encing the most incredible and exceptional events, when we were reminded of
many forgotten and decayed institutions by the sound of their downfall’
(in Marwick 1989: 39). In hisHistory of Rome—Wrst published in 1812–13
and completely revised in 1827–32—he advocated the beneWts of a text-based
historical analysis, in which he included philological and epigraphical sources.
He focused his history on institutions rather than individuals andWnally
separated history from mythology. His method would dominate Roman
scholarship until Mommsen’s work. He also inXuenced historians specializing
in later periods such as Leopold von Ranke, a modern historian and professor
4 There were parallelWgures to Karl Wilhelm von Humboldt in other countries. In England, it
is necessary to point to Edward Gibbon (1737–94). In works such as hisThe History of the
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empirehe combined the traditional historical narrative and the
methods of antiquarian research—palaeography, epigraphy and the study of objects—(Ceserani
2005: 414–15; Levine 1987: ch. 7). In addition to Gibbon, Haskell mentions in his chapter about
the dialogue between antiquarians and historians scholars such as Montfauc ̧on, Montesquieu,
Giannone, Lodovico Antonio Muratori, MaVei, Caylus, Robert Adam, Seroux d’Agincourt
(Haskell 1993: ch. 6).
The Early Search (1789–1820) 333