The Limits of History

by Constantin Fasolt

History casts a spell on our minds more powerful than science or religion. It does not root us in the past at all. It rather flatters us with the belief in our ability to recreate the world in our image. It is a form of self-assertion that brooks no opposition or dissent and shelters us from the experience of time.

So argues Constantin Fasolt in The Limits of History , an ambitious and pathbreaking study that conquers history's power by carrying the fight into the center of its domain. Fasolt considers the work of Hermann Conring (1606-81) and Bartolus of Sassoferrato (1313/14-57), two antipodes in early modern battles over the principles of European thought and action that ended with the triumph of historical consciousness. Proceeding according to the rules of normal historical analysis—gathering evidence, putting it in context, and analyzing its meaning—Fasolt uncovers limits that no kind of history can cross. He concludes that history is a ritual designed to maintain the modern faith in the autonomy of states and individuals. God wants it, the old crusaders would have said. The truth, Fasolt insists, only begins where that illusion ends.

With its probing look at the ideological underpinnings of historical practice, The Limits of History demonstrates that history presupposes highly political assumptions about free will, responsibility, and the relationship between the past and the present. A work of both intellectual history and historiography, it will prove invaluable to students of historical method, philosophy, political theory, and early modern European culture.

Genres: History, Philosophy, Theory, Nonfiction

347 pages, Hardcover

First published December 15, 2003

Reviews

[Jake · Rating 1 out of 5]

Constantin Fasolt’s The Limits of History is an aggravating text, full of arrogance and empty posturing. I’m always suspicious of history professors who spend their time complaining about the very activity that sustains them. Like Derrida, Fasolt is a pretentious intellectual of the worst kind. It looks like I'm in the minority of Goodreads reviewers in feeling this way, but in my view, The Limits of History is a mosquito buzz in textual form.

[María Besomi · Rating 3 out of 5]

The argument boils down to: history has limits and history is political. And it is so because history is a form of self-assertion.
It makes sense, the idea is good, but the style of writing makes it feel as if he was saying much more than that. Don't get me wrong, it is well written. It is just that every phrase seems tailored to be the title of a book, and creates a suspense and rythm that does not appear to be called for.

Also, by the end of the book he claims that his historical endeavour has miserably failed (which proves that history is limited), but it is never quite clear what exactly failed and to what degree because the question is also not really spelled out, nor is it the criterion of (relative) success. Then the author pushes his argument too far and the claim that history is limited seems to dissolve into a tired relativism in which nobody can really know anything but themselves and... honestly, it was not necessary.

Overall, interesting and thought-provoking.

[SLK · Rating 5 out of 5]

Maybe the 5th or 6th time I've read this over the last 10+ years. Every time, makes me think about something new in unexpected ways. So much so, that "thought-provoking" seems an inadequate description.

[Chloe Z · Rating 2 out of 5]

I just picked this up from the library and flipped through it, I'm not sure I would READ read it

[Zev · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting blend of historiography, political theory and a good rant about what history can and cannot accomplish. On the academic side, but I enjoy that kind of thing.

[Sara-Maria · Rating 5 out of 5]

just a little ol problem, no big deal. nothing to fret about.