Skip to main content
×
×
Home

LOYAL WORKERS AND DISTINGUISHED SCHOLARS: BIG HUMANITIES AND THE ETHICS OF KNOWLEDGE

  • CHAD WELLMON (a1)
Abstract

Over the past two decades, long-running debates about the purposes and practices of humanistic inquiry have been refocused as a debate about the uncertain fate of the humanities in a digital age. Now, with the advent of digital and computational humanities, scholars are discussing with a new urgency what the humanities are for and what it means to practice them. And many suggest that the surfeit of digital data is unprecedented and are calling for new methods, practices, and epistemologies. This article considers these claims in light of a longer history of what Lorraine Daston has called “practices of compendia”––practices of collecting, collating, and interpreting massive amounts of data. It focuses, in particular, on the late nineteenth-century German historian Theodor Mommsen and the range of projects he initiated and led as secretary of the Prussian Academy of Sciences. Mommsen invented the “big humanities” and what his contemporaries termed the “industrial” model of scholarship, a model that helped create a new, modern scholarly persona and a distinctly modern ethics of knowledge.

Copyright
References
Hide All

1 Armitage, David and Guldi, Jo, The History Manifesto (Cambridge, 2015).

2 For Cohen and Mandler's review, as well as Armitage and Guldi's reply, see American Historical Review 120/2 (2015), 527–54.

3 Matthew L. Jockers, Macroanalysis (Urbana, 2013), 3–4, 5-6.

4 Compare Jocker's caricature, for example, to Feyerabend, Paul, Against Method: Outline of an Anarchist Theory of Knowledge (New York, 2010); Smith, Barbara Hernnstein, Scandalous Knowledge: Science, Truth, and the Human (Durham, NC, 2006); and, for a discussion of Jockers in particular, see Barbara Hernstein Smith, “What Was Close Reading? A Century of Method in Literary Studies,” a lecture delivered at Columbia University, 6 May 2015.

5 Adam Kirsch, “Technology Is Taking over English Departments: The False Promise of the Digital Humanities,” New Republic, 2 May 2014, at https://newrepublic.com/article/117428/limits-digital-humanities-adam-kirsch.

6 On the history of “objectivity” in the sciences and its complex relation to subjectivity see Daston, Lorraine and Galison, Peter, Objectivity (New York, 2010).

7 Blair, Ann, Too Much to Know: Managing Scholarly Information before the Modern Age (New Haven, 2010).

8 Daston, Lorraine, “The Sciences of the Archive,” Osiris 27/1 (2012), 156–87; see also the final section of essays, “Observing Together: Communities,” in Lorraine Daston and Elizabeth Lunbeck, eds., Histories of Scientific Observation (Chicago, 2011), 369–444.

9 See Wellmon, Chad, “Touching Books: Diderot, Novalis and the Encyclopedia of the Future,” Representations 114/1 (2011), 65102 .

10 Ann Blair, “Hidden Hands: Amanueses and Authorship in Early Modern Europe,” talk delivered at the Ohio State, 8 Oct. 2015; see also, Blair, Too Much to Know.

11 On Mommsen and his work as a precursor to big science see Rebenich, Stefan, Theodor Mommsen und Adolf Harnack: Wissenschaft und Politik im Berlin des ausgehenden 19. Jahrhunderts. Mit einem Anhang und Kommentierung des Briefwechsels (Berlin, 1997); vom Bruch, Rudiger, “Mommsen and Harnack: Die Geburt von Big Science aus den Geisteswissenschaften” in Demandt, Alexander, Goltz, Andreas, and Schlange-Schöningen, Heinrich, eds., Theodor Mommsen: Wissenschaft und Politik im 19. Jahrhundert (Berlin, 2005), 121–41.

12 Bruch, “Mommsen and Harnack.” On the history of “big science” see Shapin, Steve, The Scientific Life: A Moral History of a Late Modern Vocation (Chicago, 2008), esp. 80–87 and 169–73. On the differences between big science and the big humanities see Kahlert, Torsten, “Große Projekte: Mommsens Traum und der Diskurs um Big Science und Großforschung” in Müller, Harald and Eßer, Florian, eds., Wissenskulturen: Bedingungen wissenschaftlicher Innovation (Kassel, 2012), 6786 ; Spoerhase, Carlos, “ Big Humanities: ‘Größe’ und ‘Großforschung’ als Kategorien geisteswissenschaftlicher Selbstbeobachtung,” Geschichte der Germanistik 37/38 (2010), 927 .

13 This essay also owes a great deal to Daston and her unpublished keynote address, “Science, Humanities, Wissen, Wissenschaft: Remapping Knowledge,” delivered at the German Studies Association annual conference in 2013 in Milwaukee. Subsequently, Daston published a different essay on Mommsen, “Authenticity, Autopsia, and Theodor Mommsen's Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum,” in A. Blair and A. S. Goeing, eds., For the Sake of Learning: Essays in Honor of Anthony Grafton, vol. 2 (Leiden, 2016), 955–73. My essay is simply an extension of her work on Mommsen and the history of knowledge more broadly.

14 On the emergence of the “big humanities” more broadly see Spoerhase, “Big Humanities”; and Rebenich, Stefan, “Vom Nutzen und Nachteil der Grosswissenschaft: Alterthumliche Unternehnumgen an der Berliner Akademie,” in Annette M. Baertschl and Colin Guthrie King, eds., Die Modernen Väter der Antike: Die Entwicklung der Altertumswissenschaften an Akademie und Universität im Berlin des 19. Jahrhundets (Berlin, 2005), 397421 . There is an increasingly large body of work on the history of the humanities. This essay expands on this work by focusing more on the practices and techniques of humanistic work, which, as I hope to show, have a great deal in common with what are typically understood to be the “sciences.” For some of the most recent work on this history see the three volumes edited by Bod, Rens and Maat, Jaap, The Making of the Humanities, vol. 1, Early Modern Europe (Amsterdam, 2011); The Making of the Humanities, vol. 2, From Early Modern to Modern Disciplines (Amsterdam, 2013); The Making of the Humanities, vol. 3, The Modern Humanities (Amsterdam, 2015).

15 Ted Underwood, “Theorizing Practices We Forgot to Theorize Twenty Years Ago,” Representations 127/1 (2014), 64–72.

16 Weber, Max, “Wissenschaft als Beruf,” in Max Weber: Schriften 1894–1922, ed. Kaesler, Dirk (Stuttgart, 2002), 474–511.

17 Antiquitatis Romanae Monumenta Legalia extra Libros Juris Romani sparsa (Berlin, 1830). See Mommsen's letter from 18 April 1844 to the philologist Otto Jahn in Wickert, Lothar, ed., Briefwechsel: Theodor Mommsen, Otto Jahn (Frankfurt am Main, 1962), 5 .

18 Otto Jahn quoted in Harnack, Adolf, Geschichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, vol. 1(2) (henceforth Harnack, Geschichte) (Berlin, 1900), 901 .

19 Savigny, Friedrich, Vom Beruf unserer Zeit für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft. (Heidelberg, 1828), 14 .

20 Daston provides the most helpful account of Mommsen's debt to the tradition of German textual criticism and his notion of Kritik in “Authenticity, Autopsia, and Theodor Mommsen's Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum.”

21 See Harnack, Geschichte, 906–8. After debate among academy members, Jahn and Mommsen's request was reduced to around 8,000 thaler.

22 I quote from a reprinted version in Theodor Mommsen: Tagebuch der französisch-italienischen Reise 1844/45 (Frankfurt, 1976). Cited henceforth as Mommsen, “Plan.”

23 Mommsen quoted in Harnack, Geschichte, 908.

24 Otto Hirschfeld, Gedächtniss Rede auf Theodor Mommsen (Berlin, 1904), 16.

25 Emden, Christian, Friedrich Nietzsche and the Politics of History (Cambridge, 2008), 157 .

26 Harnack, Geschichte, 671.

27 Ibid.

28 August Boeckh, “Antrag auf ein Corpus Inscriptionum,” in Harnack, Geschichte, 374–8, at 377.

29 Harnack, Geschichte, 669.

30 Boeckh, “Antrag,” 378. Harnack describes this idea of the academy as an institution for collective and collaborative projects that no individual scholar could undertake as the “leitende Gedanke” of the philological-historical class. Harnack, Geschichte, 670.

31 Hoffmann, Petra, Weibliche Arbeitswelten in der Wissenschaft: Frauen an der Preußischen Akademie der WIssenschaften zu Berlin 1890–1945 (Bielefeld, 2011), 61 .

32 Harnack, Geschichte, 379–82; see also Grau, Conrad, Die preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin: Eine deutsche Gelehrtengesellschaft in drei Jahrhunderten (Berlin, 1993), 154 .

33 Galison and Daston, Objectivity, 19–27; see also Daston, Lorraine, “The Sciences of the ArchiveOsiris 27/1 (2012), 156–87; the final section of essays, “Observing Together: Communities,” in Histories of Scientific Observation, ed. Lorraine Daston and Elizabeth Lunbeck (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011), 369-444.

34 See Daston, “Authenticity, Autopsia, and Theodor Mommsen's Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum,” for a detailed account of how Mommsen's project differed from Boeckh's.

35 Mommsen, “Plan,” 225.

36 See Nippel, Wilfried, “New Paths of Antiquarianism: Mommsen and Weber,” in Miller, Peter N., ed., Momigliano and Antiquarianism: Foundations of the Modern Cultural Sciences (Berkeley, 2007), 207–28; Rebenich, Stefan, Theodor Mommsen: Eine Biographie (Munich, 2002), 5055 .

37 Quoted in Lothar Wickert, Theodor Mommsen: Eine Biographie, vol. 3 (Frankfurt am Main, 1969), 264.

38 Mommsen, Theodor, “Akademische Antrittsrede,” in Mommsen, Reden und Aufsätze (Berlin, 1905), 35–8, at 37, 38.

39 Mommsen, Theodor, Römische Geschichte: Vollständige Ausgabe in acht Bänden, vol. 1 (Munich, 1976), 30 .

40 Seeck, Otto, “Zur Charakteristik Mommsens,” Deutsche Rundschau 118 (1904), 75108, at 87.

41 Mommsen, “Akademische Antrittsrede,” 37; and Mommsen, “Über die Königliche Bibliothek,” in Mommsen, Reden und Aufsätze, 225.

42 Seeck, “Zur Charakteristik Mommsens,” 88.

43 Mommsen quoted in Harnack, Geschichte, 1004.

44 Theodor Mommsen, “Antwort an Nitzsch, 3. Juli 1879,” in Mommsen, Reden und Aufsätze, 199.

45 Mommsen, “Plan,” 230.

46 Mommsen, Theodor, review of Geschichte der Römer (1851) in Mommsen, Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 6 (Berlin, 1910), 653 .

47 Mommsen, “Otto Jahn,” in Mommsen, Reden und Aufsätze, 458–61, at 459.

48 Daston, “Authenticity, Autopsia, and Theodor Mommsen's Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum.”

49 Seeck, “Zur Charakterisktik Mommsens,” 89.

50 Mommsen's innovation had less to do with the idea of antiquities as evidence than with the application of such evidence to the institutional history of Roman law. The eighteenth century, both in Germany and Italy, saw a boon in such scholarship that made clear distinctions between literary and antiquarian types of evidence. See Momigliano, Arnaldo, “Ancient History and the Antiquarian,” Journal of the Warburg and the Courtauld Institutes 13/3–4 (1950), 285315 , at 295–304.

51 Mommsen, “Plan,” 239.

52 Quoted in Rebenich, Theodor Mommsen: Eine Biographie, 50. For a more detailed account of “authenticity” in Mommsen see Daston, “Authenticity, Autopsia, and Theodor Mommsen's Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum.”

53 On these historical challenges see Buonocore, Marco, “Epigraphic Research since Its Inception: The Contribution of Manuscripts,” in Bruun, Christer and Edmundsun, Jonathan, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Epigraphy (Oxford, 2015), 2141 .

54 Mommsen, “Plan,” 230–31. For a fuller account of Mommsen's notion of autopsia see Daston “Authenticity, Autopsia, and Theodor Mommsen's Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum.”

55 On the autopsia and other forms of collective empiricism see Daniela Bleichmar, “The Geography of Observation: Distance and Visibility in Eighteenth-Century Botanical Travel,” in Lorraine Daston and Elizabeth Lunbeck, eds., Histories of Scientific Observation (Chicago, 2011), 373–95.

56 Seeck, “Zur Charakteristik Mommsens,” 93.

57 Lachmann, Ueber die ursprüngliche Gestalt des Gedichts von den Nibelungen (Berlin, 1816), 1, 163 .

58 Hirschfeld, Otto, Gedächtnisrede auf Theodor Mommsen (Berlin, 1904), 21 .

59 Mommsen, “Plan.”

60 Mommsen, “Akademische Antrittsrede.”

61 Lachmann quoted in Timpanaro, Sebastiano, The Genesis of Lachmann's Method, trans. Most, Glenn W. (Chicago, 2005), 88 .

62 For an extended discussion of some of these projects see Wellmon, Chad, Organizing Enlightenment: Information Overload and the Invention of the Modern Research University (Baltimore, 2015).

63 See Blair, Too Much to Know.

64 Harnack, Geschichte, 659, 658.

65 Ibid., 659, 982.

66 Harnack quoted in Kurt von Nowack, ed., Adolf Harnack als Zeitgenosse: Reden und Schriften aus den Jahren des Kaiserreichs und der Weimarer Republik, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1996), 1: 48. For a discussion of similarly large-scale projects in archaeology, such as the excavation of Olympia (1875–81) led by Ernst Curtius, see Marchand, Suzanne J., Down from Olympus: Archaeology and Phillhellenism in Germany, 1750–1970 (Princeton, 1996), 75115 .

67 See Hans-Markus von Kaenel, “Arbeitsteilung und international Kooperation in der antiken Numismatik,” in Ulrike Peter, ed., Stephanos Numismatikos: Edith Schönert-Geiss zum 65. Geburtstag (Berlin, 1998), 321–32.

69 Mommsen quoted in Harnack, Geschichte, 1004.

70 Mommsen, Reden und Aufsätze, 37, 36.

71 Ibid., 44.

72 28 March 1881, paragraph 40, in Harnack, Geschichte, 1006.

73 Ibid., 983.

74 Mommsen, “Ansprache am Leibnizschen Gedächtnistage (1895),” 196.

75 Clark, William, “On the Dialectical Origins of the Research Seminar,” History of Science 27 (1989), 111–54.

76 Ringer, Fritz, Fields of Knowledge: Academic Culture in Comparative Perspective (Cambridge, MA, 1992), 2 .

77 Adolf Harnack, “Sitzungsbericht,” in Harnack, Geschichte, I, 234. Both Harnack and Mommsen considered modern academic specialization a problem particular to the university, a function of its “zufällige Schranken” and “Fakultätsorthodoxie” that artificially separated various disciplines. Mommsen in “Antrittsrede in der Akademie der Wissenschaften” (1890), in Nowack, Harnack als Zeitgenosse, 2: 981.

78 See Hardtwig, W., “Wissenschaft als Macht oder Askese: Jacob Burkhardt,” in Hardtwig, ed., Geschichtskultur und Wissenschaft (Munich 1990), 161–88.

79 Adolf Harnack, “Rede für Mommsen, 10.31.1901,” in Stefan Rebenich, ed., Theodor Mommsen und Adolf Harnack: Wissenschaft und Politik im Berlin des ausgehenden 19. Jahrhunderts (Berlin, 1997), 831.

80 Mommsen quoted in Seeck, “Zur Charakteristik Mommsens,” 95.

81 Mommsen to Jahn, 16 May 1845, in Lothar Wicker, ed., Mommsen–Jahn Briefwechsel 1842–1868 (Frankfurt am Main, 1962), 25. Otto Hirschfeld, Mommsen's student who assumed editorship of the CIL, eulogized his teacher for his “heroic” sacrifice of personal desires for the sake of scholarship in Gedächtnisrede, 34.

82 See Weber, Max, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (London, 1992), 4955 .

83 Quoted in Rebenich, Mommsen und Harnack, 832.

84 Mommsen reffered to his scholarship as the “the greatest divinity.” See letter of 7 Jan. 1877 quoted in Heuss, Alfred, Theodor Mommsen und das 19. Jahrhundert (Kiel, 1956), 113.

85 Adolf Harnack, “Die Königlich Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften” (1900), in Nowack, Adolf Harnack als Zeitgenosse, 2: 983–1009, at 1004.

86 Heuss, Theodor Mommsen, 108–11. The following paragraph draws on Heuss.

87 Weber, “Wissenschaft als Beruf.”

88 Mommsen, Reden und Aufsätze, 160.

89 Theodor Mommsen, “Antwort auf Harnack,” in Mommsen, Reden und Aufsätze, 209.

90 Quoted in Rebenich, Mommsen und Harnack, 81 n.

91 See, for example, Mommsen's letters to Althoff in Stefan Rebenich and Gisa Franke, eds., Theoodor Mommsen und Friedrich Althoff: Briefwechsel 1882–1903 (Oldenbourg, 2012).

92 Mommsen also successfully secured private funds for various projects. See Stefan Rebenich, Mommsen und Harnack, 55–93.

93 Mommsen, “Plan,” 227.

94 Max Weber had his unique struggles with Althoff. See Mitzman, Arthur, The Iron Cage: An Historical Interpretation of Max Weber (New York, 1970), chapter 5, “Althoff, Weber Sr., and Marriage.”

95 See Spenkuch, Hartwin, “Die Politik des Kultusministeriums gegenüber den Wissenschaften und den Hochschulen,” in Wolfgang Neugebauer, ed., Acta Borussica: Preussen als Kulturstatt (Berlin, 2010), 165238 .

96 Ibid.

97 Mommsen, Reden und Aufsätze, 197; Mommsen to Wilamowitz, letter 393, 25 Feb. 1894 in Rebenich and Franke, Mommsen und Althoff Briefwechsel. Mommsen and Althoff's correspondence shows how Althoff and Mommsen maintained and even exploited social and political networks to secure research funds, faculty and academy positions, and recommendations. By the 1890s, however, Mommsen was increasingly intent on coordinating projects among several national and international academies. See Ulrich von Wilamowitz, Geschichte der Philologie (Stuttgart, 1998), 71.

98 Lionel Gossman, Orpheus Philologicus: Bachofen versus Mommsen on the Study of Antiquity (Philadelphia, 1983), 21–42.

99 Mommsen, Reden und Aufsätze, 69.

100 “Wissenschaftliche Zustände der Gegenwart,” in Mathematische und Natur-wissenschaftliche Mittheilungen aus den Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (Berlin, 1882), 177–88, at 183.

101 On the development of these see Hoffmann, Weibliche Arbeitswelten, 100.

102 Nowack, Harnack als Zeitgenosse, 58. For a detailed picture of this mundane but mühsame work, see the letters between Mommsen and Herman Dessau, which consisted primarily of discussions about money, budgets, and detailed reports of newly found (or confirmed) inscriptions. See, for example, Manfred G. Schmidt, ed., Herman Dessau (1856–1931): Zum 150. Geburtstag des Berliner Althistorikers und Epigraphikers (Berlin 2009).

103 Mommsen, Reden und Aufsätze, 160.

104 Blumenberg, Hans, “Philosophischer Ursprung und philosophische Kritik des Begriffs der wissenschaftliche Methode,” Studium Generale 5/5 (1952), 133–42.

105 Mommsen quoted in Heuss, Theodor Mommsen, 118–19.

106 Similarly, the Deutsche Zoologische Gesellschaft began a project to organize all forms of animals that became the Nomenclatur animalium generum et subgenerum in 1912. On the exemplary quality of these humanistic projects within the academy see Grau, Conrad, Die Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (Berlin, 1993), 195 .

107 Sitzungsberichte der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1 (1900), 667.

108 Ibid., 669. Auwer's Fixstern catalogue published forty-eight volumes between 1922 and 1965 with over a million entries form over 450 different catalogues.

109 Daston, “Science, Humanities, Wissen, Wissenschaft.”

110 See Daston, Lorraine, “Die Akademien und die Einheit der Wissenschaft: Die Disziplinierung der Disziplinen” in Kocka, Jürgen, ed., Die Königlich Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin im Kaiserreich (Berlin, 1999), 6184 .

111 For exemplary worries see August Boeckh, “Über das Verhältnis der Wissenschaft zum Leben,” in Gesammelte Kleine Schriften, vol. 2 (Leipzig, 1859), 14.

112 Grafton, Anthony, “Polyhistor into Philolog: Notes on the Transformation of German Classical Scholarship,” History of Universities 3 (1983), 159–92.

113 See Fichte, Einige Vorlesungen Über die Bestimmung des Gelehrten, Part I, vol. 3, in J. G. Fichte Gesamtausgabe der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, ed. Reinhard Lauth, Hans Jacob, and Hans Gliwitsky (Stuttgart and Bad Canstatt, 1964), I, 3:55.

114 Dilthey, Wilhelm, Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften , in Wilhelm Diltheys Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 1 (Leipzig, 1922). On the broader outlines of this debate see Ringer, Weber's Methodology, 9.

115 Friedrich Nietzsche, “Encyclopädie der klassichen Philologie,” in Nietzsche Kritische Gesamtausgabe: Vorlesungsaufzeichungen (SS 1870–SS 1871), ed. Fritz Bornmann and Mario Carpitella (Berlin 1993), 341–437, at 343.

116 For a broader discussion of this gap see Marchand, Down from Olympus; La Vopa, Anthony J., “Specialists against Specialization: Hellenism as Professional Ideology in German Classical Studies,” in Cocks, Geoffrey and Jarausch, Konrad H., eds., German Professions, 1800–1950 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 6574 .

117 Nietzsche, “Encyclopädie,” 343.

118 Nietzsche, Vorlesungsaufzeichnungen (WS 1871/72–WS 1874/75) , ed. Bornmann, Fritz and Carpitella, Mario, in Nietzsche Werke Kritische Gesamtausgabe, vol. 2, pt 4, ed. Colli, Giorgio and Montinari, Mazzino (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1995), 89206 .

119 Ibid., 192.

120 On Nietzsche as philologist see James I. Porter, Nietzsche and the Philology of the Future (Stanford, 1992); Emden, Christian, “Learning to Read Again: Nietzsche in Leipzig,” Oxford German Studies 35/2 (2006), 177–90; Benne, Christian, Nietzsche und die historisch-kritische Philologie (Berlin, 2005).

121 Nietzsche, Vorlesungsaufzeichnungen (WS 1871/72–WS 1874/75), 192.

122 Friedrich Nietzsche, Briefwechsel: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Part I, vol. 2, ed. Giorgio Colli and Mazzino Montinari (Berlin, 1975), 18.

123 Nietzsche, “Encyclopädie der klassichen Philologie,” 373.

124 See, for example, Nietzsche's inaugural lecture at Basle, “Homer und die klassische Philologie” (1869), in which he contributes to the large body of scholarship on Homer. See Emden, “Nietzsche in Leipzig,” 181–2.

125 Nietzsche, “Encyclopädie der klassischen Philologie,” 344.

126 Friedrich Nietszche, Unzeitgemäße Betrachtungen: Vom Nutzen und Nachteil der Historie für das Leben, in Friedrich Nietzsche: Sämtliche Werke: Kritische Studienausgabe, 15 vols., ed. Giorgio Colli and Mazzino Montinari (Munich, 1999), 1: 157–510, at 265. Friedrich Nietzsche, Friedrich Nietzsche Nachlaß 1875–1879, in ibid., 8: 9–127, at 21.

127 Ibid., 20.

128 The following paragraphs directly draw on Wellmon, Chad and Reitter, Paul, “How a Philologist Became a Physician of Modernity: Nietzsche's Lectures on German Education,” Representations 131/4 (2015), 68104 .

129 Nietzsche, Nachlaß 1869–1874, in Friedrich Nietzsche Kritische Studienausgabe, 7: 613.

130 Ibid., 614.

131 Nietzsche, “Notizen zu Wir Philologen,” in Friedrich Nietzsche Kritische Studienausgabe, 8: 53.

132 In his letters, Nietzsche referred simply to “Berlin philology.” See Benne, Nietzsche und die historisch-kritische Philologie, 292–3.

133 Nietzsche, “Encylopädie der klassischen Philologie,” 342.

134 Ibid.

135 Ibid., 392.

136 Ibid., 366–7.

137 Nietzsche, Unzeitgemässe Betrachtungen, 202–3.

138 Ringer, Fields of Knowledge, 200.

139 Johann Gustav Droysen, Briefwechsel, 1851–1884, vol. 2 (Stuttgart, 1926), 941 ff. Droysen was writing in this case about the massive Monumenta Germaniae Historia, a monumental primary-source collection for German history. Mommsen become a member of its commission in 1874 and led a complete reorganization of the project, including its move to Berlin. See Rebenich, Mommsen und Harnack, 63–5.

140 Burckhardt quoted in W. Hardtwig, “Wissenschaft als Macht oder Askese: Jacob Burkhardt,” in Hardtwig, Geschichtskultur und Wissenschaft (Munich, 1990), 161–88. Bachofen quoted in Gossman, Orpheus Philologicus, 23.

141 Nietzsche, however, abhorred the liberal commitments of a more traditional Humboldtian notion of Bildung.

142 On the moral character of nineteenth-century German philology see Weimar, Klaus, Geschichte der deutschen Literaturwissenschaft bis zum Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts (Munich, 1989), 226–8.

143 Mommsen in a letter to Althoff from 6 August 1893 in Rebenich, Stefan, ed., Theodor Mommsen und Friedrich Althoff: Briefwechsel 1882–1903 (Oldenbourg, 2012), 693 .

144 Spoerhase, “Big Humanities,” 16; and Kahlert, “Große Projekte”; see Weber, “Wissenschaft als Beruf”; Helmut Plesner, “Zur Soziologie der modernen Forschung und ihrer Organisation in der detuschen Universität,” in Max Scheler, ed., Versuche zu einer Soziologie der Wissenschaft (Munich, 1924), 407–25.

145 Mommsen in Harnack, Geschichte, 1003.

146 See especially Max Weber, “Die Objektivität sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis”; Weber, “Kritische Studien auf dem Gebiet der kulturwissenschaftlichen Logik” (1906); Weber, “Der Sinn der Wertfreiheit der soziologischen und ökonomischen Wissenschaften” (1914); Weber, “Wissenschaft als Beruf” (1917), all in Max Weber, Schriften zur Wissenschaftslehre (Stuttgart, 1991).

147 Ringer, Fritz, Weber's Methodology (Cambridge, MA, 1997), 46 .

148 Ringer, Fritz, Decline of the German Mandarins: The German Academic Community (Hannover, 1990), 253–8.

149 Daston, Lorraine, “Marvelous Facts and Miraculous Evidence in Early Modern Europe,” Critical Inquiry 18 (1991), 93124 . See also Daston, “Reviews on Artifact and Experiment,” Isis 79/3 (1988), 452–67.

150 Nietzsche, “Encylopädie der klassischen Philologie.”

151 Chris Anderson, “The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes Scientific Method Obsolete,” Wired, 23 June 2008, at www.wired.com/2008/06/pb-theory.

152 See Svensson, Patrik and Goldberg, David Theo, eds., Between Humanities and the Digital (Cambridge, MA, 2015).

153 August Boeckh, in Enzyklopädie und Methodologie der philologischen Wissenschaften, ed. E. Brautuscheck (Leipzig, 1877), 10.

154 Spoerhase, “Big Humanities,” 15.

155 Bethany Nowviskie, “Toward a New Deal,” at http://nowviskie.org/2013/new-deal; McGann, Jerome, New Republic of Letters (Cambridge, MA, 2014), 13 .

156 McGann, Jerome, “Philology in a New Key,” Critical Inquiry 39/2 (2013), 327–46.

157 On the dynamics of labor and hierarchies in digital humanities and the hope that such bureaucratization has not fully captured digital humanities, see Raley, Rita, “Digital Humanities for the Next Five Minutes,” differences 25/1 (2014), 2645 ; Chun, Wendy Hui Kynong and Rhody, Lisa Marie, “Working the Digital Humanities: Uncovering Shadows between the Dark and Light,” differences 25/1 (2014), 125 .

158 For what I find to be an exaggerated account of these questions see Grusin, Richard, “The Dark Side of the Digital Humanities,” differences 25/1 (2014), 7992 .

159 For an insightful discussion of the digital humanities and claims that they are necessarily complicit with the “neoliberal” university see https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/digital-humanities-interview-bethany-nowviskie.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Modern Intellectual History
  • ISSN: 1479-2443
  • EISSN: 1479-2451
  • URL: /core/journals/modern-intellectual-history
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed