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

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)Google Scholar; Smith, Barbara Hernnstein, Scandalous Knowledge: Science, Truth, and the Human (Durham, NC, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 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)Google Scholar.

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

⁸ Daston, Lorraine, “The Sciences of the Archive,” Osiris 27/1 (2012), 156–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 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), 65–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 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), 121–41Google Scholar.

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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 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), 67–86Google Scholar; Spoerhase, Carlos, “Big Humanities: ‘Größe’ und ‘Großforschung’ als Kategorien geisteswissenschaftlicher Selbstbeobachtung,” Geschichte der Germanistik 37/38 (2010), 9–27Google Scholar.

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), 397–421Google Scholar. 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)Google Scholar; 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), 474–511Google Scholar.

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), 5Google Scholar.

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

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

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), 157Google Scholar.

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), 61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

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

³³ Galison and Daston, Objectivity, 19–27; see also Daston, Lorraine, “The Sciences of the Archive” Osiris 27/1 (2012), 156–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 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), 207–28Google Scholar; Rebenich, Stefan, Theodor Mommsen: Eine Biographie (Munich, 2002), 50–55Google Scholar.

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, 38Google Scholar.

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

⁴⁰ Seeck, Otto, “Zur Charakteristik Mommsens,” Deutsche Rundschau 118 (1904), 75–108, at 87Google Scholar.

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), 653Google Scholar.

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), 285–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 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), 21–41Google Scholar.

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, 163Google Scholar.

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

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), 88Google Scholar.

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)Google Scholar.

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), 75–115Google Scholar.

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.

⁶⁸ See http://pir.bbaw.de/ueberblick.

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), 111–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

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

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), 161–88Google Scholar.

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), 49–55Google Scholar.

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), 113Google Scholar.

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)Google Scholar, 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), 165–238Google Scholar.

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), 133–42Google Scholar.

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), 195Google Scholar.

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), 61–84Google Scholar.

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), 159–92Google Scholar.

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)Google Scholar. 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), 65–74Google Scholar.

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), 89–206Google Scholar.

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), 177–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Benne, Christian, Nietzsche und die historisch-kritische Philologie (Berlin, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

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), 68–104Google Scholar.

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), 226–8Google Scholar.

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), 693Google Scholar.

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), 46Google Scholar.

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

¹⁴⁹ Daston, Lorraine, “Marvelous Facts and Miraculous Evidence in Early Modern Europe,” Critical Inquiry 18 (1991), 93–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar. 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)Google Scholar.

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), 1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

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

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), 26–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chun, Wendy Hui Kynong and Rhody, Lisa Marie, “Working the Digital Humanities: Uncovering Shadows between the Dark and Light,” differences 25/1 (2014), 1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

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), 79–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

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.