This book examines the transformation of the discipline of history at three central European German-language universities in the period from approximately 1870 to the accession of the Nationalist Socialists to power in 1933 in Berlin, in 1938 in Vienna, and in 1939 in Prague. Even more innovative than the in-depth narrative is the methodological approach and the theoretical assumptions on which the study is based. Kolář rejects the ways in which historiography has generally been written (for example, as a history of ideas, of the social context of historical studies, or with a focus on major historians). He denies that there are clear-cut developments in history as a discipline. He prefers to write a history “from below” that centers on the large number of individual historians who affect changes in historical attitudes and influence the ways in which the discipline moves. He stresses that there are no “paradigms” (p. 19), but sees the transformation of historical studies as the result of the “active engagement of historians” (p. 20), each of whom has different interests and aims. He proceeds from Pierre Bourdieu's conception of cultural “capital” by which the historians in a “socially constructed constellation” or “field” assert their “power” (p. 19), so that the actions of the historians, although individualistic, are not fully voluntaristic.

This Bourdieuan notion is particularly well applicable to the Ordinarienuniversität as it existed at all of the German-speaking universities in which a small number of Ordinarien (full professors) had virtually full control over subordinated personnel, including the Privatdozenten, and over resources. Kolář bases his history on an analysis of the documents relating to the appointments of new chair holders (i.e., Ordinarien), and the granting of teaching privileges (the venia legendi) to the Privatdozenten upon the acceptance of a second dissertation, the Habilitation. The decisions of the Ordinarien in this selection process defined what fields were to be taught and enabled Kolář to follow empirically continuities and changes.

Although Kolář argues that there are no clear trends, his narrative reflects the replacement of the occupation with “general history” by specialization in all three universities, but this for him is not a straight development, but one that is steadily challenged. The same is true of the rise of social and economic history at all three universities at the expense of a Rankean concentration on politics. Kolář plays down the role of politics, although he cannot ignore it totally. Thus the dramatic changes in political organization, the establishment of the Czechoslovak Republic, and the collapse of the Habsburg Monarchy and of the German Kaiserreich for him seem to have had little effect on the orientation of historical studies in the three universities. Little changed in the immense power of the Ordinarien, as most retained their chairs in the new political order. Kolář rejects the notion of a Sonderweg by which historians at the German-speaking universities allegedly rejected the social and cultural orientation of historians in western countries, and points at the social and economic history of Alfons Dopsch in Vienna, Gustav von Schmoller and Otto Hintze in Berlin, and the less well-known Theodor Mayer in Prague. Although there are pressures for political and religious conformity, several historians of Jewish ancestry were appointed at all three universities, including occasionally even Socialists such as Ludo Moritz Hartmann in Vienna and Gustav Mayer and Arthur Rosenberg in Berlin. Hedwig Hintze, incidentally of Jewish origin and left political leanings, became the first woman in Berlin to be accorded the Habilitation. At all three universities, a new transnational occupation with eastern Europe that tended to emphasize the supposed cultural backwardness of the Slavic peoples and to justify German domination of the area emerged in the post-World War I era. Related to this, a Volksgeschichte that stressed the racial superiority of the Germans appeared. Its main advocates soon joined the Nazi movement.

Thus although Kolář seeks to deemphasize the political context of historical studies, the implications of political commitments for methodology are clear. They play an important role in many of the controversies about professorial appointments and Habilitationen that Kolář examines. For example, in the Weimar Republic a sharp line is drawn between the opponents of the Republic such as Max Lenz and Dietrich Schäfer, who were ardent defenders of authoritarian nationalist traditions and of Rankean historiography, and supporters of the Weimar Republic such as Friedrich Meinecke and Otto Hintze who, while not fully breaking with these traditions, were nevertheless willing to work with students going in more liberal directions.

Although Kolář stresses the importance of local factors, which he argues gave the three universities their specific identities, he in fact shows that they had much in common and shared in the institutional structure and the academic culture of German-speaking universities in general.

Finally, Kolář, through his careful documentation of the controversies about appointments, has contributed to a fuller understanding of the complexities of writing a history of historiography and has made an important contribution in challenging broad generalizations such as the Sonderweg.