Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

as regards the holding of one or another of the two views of history, considered above. At one time, the pendulum swings towards the literary view of the subject. At another time, it swings far in the other direction, towards the scientific view. One needs scarcely to raise the question as to which of the two views is now in the ascendant. In fact, there has seldom been a time when the pressure has been so emphatically in favor of the scientific view. So completely is this tendency in control, that more than one scholar has raised his voice in lamentation at the passing of the literary standard and literary point of view,' apparently fearful that these may be crowded off the scene altogether. That there has been, says a recent writer, "a decline in historical writing, as judged by the canons of great literature, some might possibly deny, but the most of us would readily concede."*** With the great works of history, those "produced during the last quarter-century, while almost legion in number, are in but very few cases even comparable as pieces of literary art. They may be and without doubt frequently are, better histories, but they are certainly not so good literature" 2

It is quite likely that the true state of the case does not call for extreme concern or anxiety. Not to speak of the fact that the swinging of the pendulum can almost always be relied on to correct a tendency which runs to an extreme, it is to be remembered that there was really very much from which an extreme reaction was needed, in the vogue which has been enjoyed, in the past, by varieties of historical writings which were superficial in treatment, partisan in tone, and prejudiced in motive. It must also be remembered that the present and recent emphasis on the scientific point of view was really nothing more than natural, in view of the profound influence of the doctrine of evolu

It is not always from this precise point of view that the subject is considered. There is a very thoughtful article on "History and materialism," by Alfred H. Lloyd, in the American Historical Review, July, 1905, v. 10, p. 727-50.

F. A. Ogg, in the Dial, April 1, 1902, v. 32, p. 233.

Still

tion' on all fields of Nineteenth Century thought. further, it should be borne in mind that we are just now in possession of great masses of hitherto unused historical materials, in the record offices and archives of almost every civilized nation, calling for the application of scientific methods to reduce it to order and system. Until more of an impression has been made upon this undigested mass than has as yet been made, we are scarcely likely to see the domination of the scientific view very materially diminished.

There is one final reflection which claims our attention. There are duties in regard to historical narratives which concern the reader of history, as well as the writer of history. Let us return for a moment to the analogy of the court of justice, above referred to. Of those who deal with the evidence brought into court, we have already named the counsel. In accordance with what is expected of him, he presents his case, in the style of an advocate, and an extremist. The second to be noticed is the judge, who tries the case, and seriously, carefully, logically, arrives at his conclusion. But, lastly, there is the jury. We sometimes speak of "the verdicts of history"; but verdicts are rendered, not by the judge, but by the jury.

1The doctrine of evolution indeed has had, upon this whole subject of historical interpretation, an influence not even yet fully comprehended in this country. In Germany, the revolution which has been going on during the last quarter-century, as to historical method, has represented a conflict between the positions taken by Ranke and those taken by Lamprecht. "The new history," says a writer in the American Historical Review,-"and here lies its really fundamental feature-holds to the principle of describing the human past from the point of view of rational evolution." He adds that it asks not "Wie ist es eigentlich gewesen?" (as Ranke did), but rather "Wie ist es eigentlich geworden?" (Article by Earle W. Dow, "Features of the new history," in American Historical Review, April, 1898, v. 3, p. 448.) A very enlightening view of Lamprecht's relation to recent historical discussion in Germany is to be had from W. E. Dodd's article, "Karl Lamprecht and Kulturgeschichte," in Popular Science Monthly, Sept., 1903, v. 63. p. 418-24. See also the reviews of Lamprecht's "Deutsche Geschichte," by James Tait, in the English Historical Review, July, 1892, v. 7, p. 547-50, and Oct., 1893, v. 8, p. 748-50 Also the review of his "What is history?", (by "A. G."), in the English Historical Review, July, 1905, v. 20, p. 604.

2" To trace causes and effects" says Mr. William R. Thayer, "had long been their purpose," [i. e., that of the historians]; "now they saw that the principle of growth or development, was itself the very rudder of causation." ("Proceedings" of the Massachusetts Historical Society, May 11, 1905, at p. 280 of v. 19, of the 2d series.)

If the jury is not enlightened, and is perverse or prejudiced, the case receives a serious setback,-at least temporarily.

If now we apply the analogy to the field of historical writing, we may assume that the counsel is represented by the average historical writer, usually prejudiced and uncritical. The judge is represented by the exceptional or judicial historian, sound in judgment, sane in tone, and fully able to sum up the case in a comprehensive manner. But, in the last place, the jury is represented by the great public, in all civilized countries, among whom something analogous to "public sentiment" makes itself manifest, and is modified, more or less profoundly, from decade to decade. Since, therefore, it is the business of some to write history, soberly, it likewise falls to the lot of others to read history, sanely.1

1One of the latest additions to the literature of historical method is the 2d volume of the proceedings of the "Congress of arts and science-Universal Exposition, St. Louis, 1904," edited by Howard J. Rogers, Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, & Co., 1906 At p. 1-152 of this volume, under the sub-heading, "Historical science," are valuable papers by Woodrow Wilson, William M. Sloane, Jomes H. Robinson, Karl Lamprecht, and John B. Bury.

Throughout the foot-notes to the foregoing paper, the aim has been to cite the references in a somewhat detailed form, as an aid to the bibliographical study of the subject. The writer has received much valuable assistance from Miss Mabel E. Emerson, of the Reference Department of the Providence Public Library, in connection with the bibliographical citations. As already stated above, Mr. J. I. Wyer, Jr.'s "Bibliography," at p. 559-612 of v. 1 of the "Annual report" of the American Historical Association, for 1899, is invaluable, for the material published up to that year.

NOTE.

Prof. ANSON D. MORSE of Amherst has found it impossible to get ready for publication his paper "The Principles of Thomas Jefferson," which he read at the April meeting. It will appear in a later number of the Proceedings.

For Committee of Publication,

NATHANIEL PAINE,

CHARLES A. CHASE.

« AnteriorContinuar »