Historical Development and Present Character of the Science of History — What Is History

LECTURE I

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT AND PRESENT CHARACTER OF THE SCIENCE OF HISTORY

WHAT IS HISTORY?

LECTURE I

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT AND PRESENT CHARACTER OF THE SCIENCE OF HISTORY

History is primarily a socio-psychologicrJ science. In the conflict between the old and the new tendencies in historical investigation, the main question has to do with social-psycliic, as compared and contrasted with individual-psychic factors; or, to speak somewhat generally, the understanding on the one hand of conditions, on the other, of heroes, as the motive powers in the course of history. Hence, the new, progressive and therefore aggressive point of view in this struggle is the socio-psychological, and for that reason it may be termed modern. The individual point of view is, on the other hand, the older, one that is based on the championship of

a long-contested, but now, by means of countless historical works, a well-established position.

What is, then, the cause of these differences? Personal preference, or the special endowments of individual investigators ? The reaction of feeling against former exaggerations of the one or the other principle ? Assimilation to other trends of thought, philosophic or scientific, of the science of histoiy ? Nothing of the kind. Rather, we are at the turn of the stream, the parting of the ways in historical science.

In order to understand better the process that is going on let us consider the following contrasts of the day.

Take first, a period in which all men, within a relatively small community, such as we see in the beginnings of a nation, are absolutely of the same psychic equality, so much so that they in action and feeling can be said to stand side by-side as examples of the same endowments. Then take another age in which, within a given community of much greater extent, each individual differs in kind from all others, so that — even more than is at present the case — his

volitions and sensations differ radically from those of his fellow-men.

It is clear, then, that we have here the two poles of human activity whose influences must give different results in any study of the currents of life that we call historical psychic existence, the life embraced within the limits of these poles. In the first case the treatment would yield only a delineation of the life of units: for the treatment of the collective psychic existence would produce as a result only a- sum of the already known, — the psychic existence of the individual. In the second case we should indeed take a glance first at the psychic life of the unit from which it would be seen that it by no means included the character of the life of the many, but rather that the collective psychic life fertilized by the marked deviations of the individual within itself is quite a thing in itself, with its peculiar psychic or socio-psychic character; and that to this spiritual life of the whole, the psychic activity of the individual is in such a manner subordinate as to be dominated by it for the best and highest ends.

One sees, therefore, that the first case of the

coexistence of persons psychically quite identical would result in a purely individual psychology ;. the second case of coexistence of absolutely differentiated persons would result in a radically socio-psyetiological historical method of treatment.

But the instances just given never occur in perfection. However, the connections formed among them constitute principles in the course of history and historical science; the pole of similarly organized persons appears in the beginning of cultural development as the principle of lower culture, while the pole of dissimilar units reveals itself as underlying higher cultures, for the simple reason that the trend of evolution is toward progressive differentiation and integration of the human soul.

If on the results of the examples cited and deduced in a purely psychological manner are based the main principles of every development of historical treatment from the lowest to the highest, one finds corresponding to them, in the various civilizations of the world, the same course of history, descriptive or scientific. It begins always with the individual-psychological

investigation of the past, and arrives finally at a markedly social-psjchological point of view. In a word it is the course of events which begins with the heroic poem and ends with the history of civilization. If we paint the panorama of this historiographic development rather more vividly and minutely, it will be seen that the individuals of the lower stages of civilization have as little consciousness of the conditions that are characteristic of them, as of the difference between these conditions and those of other stages of civilization. The English, French, Italian, and, in particular, the German poet of the Golden Age of Medievalism who worked over the materials of classic antiquity transferred them unconsciously to the conditions of his own age. AEneas became a knight, and Dido a fair chatelaine. It was only the beginning of modern times, the closing centuries of dying medievalism, that brought the dawn of a comprehension of the differences of various cultural conditions, and therefore in our opinion a quickened sense of the historical difference of the periods of civilization in general. Similar observations might be made in the history of

ancient peoples and in the cultural phases of eastern Asia. Everywhere the beginnings of socio-psychological historical com prehension are coincident with the emancipation of individuality from mediaeval restraint in order to enter on the so-called new age with the more rapid process of its own differentiation.

But before this stage is reached centuries have elapsed, and centuries in which history was understood only in the individual-psychologic sense, merely as the product of single distinguished individuals. And correspondingly the forms of historical tradition are purely individual. Almost everywhere there appear two forms which may be taken as typical, — genealogy and the heroic poem.

A characteristic beginning! Whence arises its dual nature? In both instances we are concerned with the memory of single persons, particularly of ancestors. But in the one case the barren record is taken from the purely prosaic reality of a natural pedigree, in the other the single individual is selected and his deeds immortalized in poetic form with an exaggerated objectivity. How does this difference arise?

We are here face to face with a radical division in the historical point of view, one which occurs in all ages in higher as in lower stages of culture. It can be characterized as the difference between Naturalism and Idealism. In the first, instance reality is followed closely, held fast, copied. To this belong the rapid offhand sketches, the journalism of to-daj in so far as it serves as the annalistic medium of news; and, finally, statistics. In the other case there intervenes between the sirrmltaneous photographic and phonograjmic impression of occurrences and their collective reproduction, time, and with time, memor)-. Memory, with its thousand strange associations, abbreviating, rounding off, and admitting of outer influences and inner prejudices ; in a word, memory is the artist that individualizes and remodels its subject. For what else is idealism but the retrospective treatment of a theme into which the personal note enters, — indeed with intention, — whereby the flood-gates are opened to the whole intellectual current of personality proper? Hence in higher states of culture, in the case of differentiated individuals, the personal style arises and with it the personal work

of art; while in lower states of culture, with individuals of similar proportions, and from the simultaneous work of the many, the impersonal, the typical timestyle will arise, and with it the art work of this particular style.

This explains, then, for the beginnings of historical tradition the growth of naturalistic and realistic forms side by side. As a naturalistic form there appears by preference the genealogy; as idealistic, the heroic poem. And with this the roots of the contention of ages are laid bare as to whether a historical work is a work of art or not. It will always be a work of art in so far as, even in naturalistic transmission, at least in higher cultural stages, the influence of personal elements cannot be avoided. And it will be peculiarly a work of art as soon as, in the case of an important theme, the imagination can bring forth a composition by means of idealizing retrospection. So that, when the de lege ferenda is uttered, one can only advise that to every historical work of our time, not only unconsciously but consciously, the character of a work of art should be given.

But genealogy and the epic are not the only forms of individual-psychic tradition. Together

with them and with increasing cultural growth and intellectual leisure, others come to the fore. If it be possible to follow the progress of human events not only through the forms of tradition, as required in geuealogy and epic poetry, but more intensively, by means of the written letter, the chisel and the stilus, pedigrees and epics will be superseded — if, indeed, they do not disappear at once — by annals and chronicles. And even these forms can be improved upon. In the history of every human community, the inevitable moment comes in which reason, based on increasing experience, attempts independently to classify and control the world of phejaomena, in which the logical conclusion begins gradually to yield to induction, and the miraculos to the causal principle; and if, with this, there begins a really scientific mastery of the outward world, then this too takes hold of historical tradition. And the direction it follows is both naturalistic and idealistic.

In the first instance tradition is ransacked for new sources ; when found, these are brought to light in a clear-cut literary form. With untiring zeal the whole field is worked over,

and a careful consideration of isolated events is entered upon of which the object is to show each single occurrence to be indisputably genuine ; it is then polished up, rubbed clear of its rusty casing, and presented to the world.

On the other hand, there is great need for the enormous accumulations of the classified and isolated traditional data produced by the unceasing mills of naturalistic criticism ; these data must be turned to account as material for a more general positive structure of history with its divisions and emendations. Of course this is to be done under the direction of an authoritative and constructive mind, and not without the aid of the imagination. How else is a control of the enormous material possible ? But the mere memorizing of details and a linking together of particulars, a handling such as was referred to, is clearly proved to be impossible. It is necessary that we employ some means of mechanical combination of the parts of the huge world of facts which knowledge alone can supply, certain forms of criticism to classify the mass of material and thereby control it. And naturally this constructive criticism

must deal in the first place with individuals who may still be considered as the only fundamental psychic motor powers of history. If their deeds, their single achievements, and the collective achievements of single persons, — if these can be regarded as parts of a completed series of facts in official service or in an independent profession, they must be grouped according to a system which does not overlook the universal course of things and which makes the whole only the more intelligible. This is the origin of Pragmatics.

But the Divide et impera embraced in the application of the pragmatic principle proves itself to be insufficient in the face of the mass of traditional material, continually increasing in scope as it does. Above those groups which Pragmatism has thus formed to facilitate the handling of events, above the whole survey of heroic deeds, incidents of wars or diplomatic negotiations, we see appearing by degrees the outlines of a better system of classification of material, a system which groups series of events of entire ages within the domain of whole nations and families of nations. As, for example,

the outlines of certain oft-recurring incidents in the history of the Papacy, or the types of simi-- lar occurrences in the development of the Prussian monarchy, or the main characteristics of religious movements in all respects alike and which are to be detected in the piety of all denominations of Protestantism. It is clearly possible to follow these also in the paths of formative criticism far beyond the simple domain of Pragmatism. The common landmarks, too, of historical happenings, especially when pragmatically grouped, can be massed together on the higher plane. With this accomplished, the work of the historian begins at the point where the development of the so-called lristorio theory of ideas sets in The term " idea " arises from the application of the word to the historic elements common to these masses, so that the idea asserts itself as a form of higher thought integration. And in western culture, as far as investigation permits of a time limit, it is in its purely historiographic beginnings to be first found in the historical works of the last half of the eighteenth century.¹

¹ Cf., of recent date, Heussi, " Church History and its Writiug." Johan Lorenz von Mosheims. Gotha. 1904.

One naturally asks here, had these higher forms of integration from the beginning a closer connection with the naturalistic or idealistic conception of history? It is of interest to know that these comparatively abstract forms of intellectual activity had, for purely psychological reasons at first, the closest connection with idealistic historical description. Allied with this is the fact that this activity, having developed along quite primitive lines to a higher plane, was yet capable of assuming at times a transcendental character. The ideas which were made the basis of the understanding of the greatest historical concatenations by isolation and abstraction of the elements common to them, did not appear as human ideas, but were rather divine powers holding sway behind these events, permeating and determining them, as emanative and associative forms of the absolute working through the fates of men. It was a sort of idealistic historical treatment which slowly took shape in Germany in the course of the second half of the eighteenth century, which then, owing to Schelling, passed over into the great idealistic philosophy of German Romanticism, to which from the point of

view of the profoundest theory of life Ranke paid homage as long as he lived, and which, starting from all these points of its development, became a constituent part of all the higher historical training of the nineteenth century.

Meanwhile the strictly epistemological character of the theory of the idea had certainly been recognized, and not least clearly at the beginning of the great discussions of historical methods in the early nineties of the last century, and which have not yet entirely ceased. It can truly be said that to-day, practically no one believes in the transcendency of historical ideas, — that is, not fully, nor even in the Ranke sense, — but that, on the other hand, the usefulness of the conceptions contained in them for the grouping of the greater individual-psychic series of events is generally conceded.

While the individual-psychological treatment of history has been thus gradually developed to the state of perfection which marks it to-day, it had long had its limits, and — as far as the main principles of historical comprehension are concerned — its substitution in the form of a socio-peychological treatment had begun and had been proved to be necessary.

In the course of the latter part of the seventeenth, but more especially in the eighteenth and, nineteenth centuries, all the peoples of western European culture passed through stages in which the most marked psychic differentiations took place in the individual members of these communities. A certain time-spirit dominated all these nations in which the civilization of the new American world had its origin; it is the spirit which may rightly he called that of Subjectivity. Not uniformity but variety of the subjective perfection of the individual is the ideal of to-day. And the collective culture of our time rests on vast working corporations of individu-als^vho are no less vastly differentiated each in themselves.

For us it is a well-known state of affairs, this product of nervous activity which has characterized the last six or seven generations, and it is superfluous to describe it in detail. But it would not be inappropriate to trace once and for all, logically and clearly, the consequences of these changes as well for the character of historical science of the present as for that of the immediate future. The result is that for such a time as

this only that kind of historical comprehension is adequate which, side by side with the individual psychological, admits also the socio-psychologi-cal treatment, the consideration of the evolution of the collective psychic products of human communities—a treatment which does not merely allude occasionally to this admission, but maintains consistently and unconditionally, that for every case of historical investigation the socio-psychological forces are the stronger, and therefore those that properly determine the course of things; that, consequently, they include the operation of the individual-psychic forces. Granted that this is the universal formulation of the now necessary point of view as it is carried out to-day not only in the field of historiography (in some instances with a clear insight into its consequences), but as seen in the new sciences and new methods which it hits made to bear fruit, e.g. soeiology, or prehistoric excavations; yet it would be a mistake to assume that the revolution in this direction took place suddenly or that it has even now reached its completion. Rather has it gone forward slowly in the course of at least a century and a half, if we reckon

according to events in Germany. And the resulting views have been shown, though in steady conflict with the older individual-psychic opinions, to be invincible in spite of the marks of immaturity and a lack of definiteness borne on their face. They stand forth, nevertheless, with a breadth, a logical cohesion, and an inward completeness which it has been beyond the power of the bitterest hostility to weaken or to remove.

If I carry the study further to the contemplation of the evolution of Germany, because this is most familiar to me, and because, I believe, by keeping to a narrower limit, in the short time assigned to me, we may gain greater clearness and a more plastic form, I must not fail to mention the honored name of Herder, the hundredth anniversary of whose death has just been fittingly observed by Germans throughout the world. In the realm of Germanic cultures, and even beyond it, Herder stands as the creator of the conception " Folk soul " (the psyche of the masses). He was the first to admit the importance of the socio-psychic demands for the proper historical comprehension of the most important of all human communities, —

nations, — and to draw from these the necessary conclusions. But he did it,¹ not in a calm, entirely emotionless and intellectual spirit of research, but rather by leaps and with all the enthusiasm of the explore. His was a psychic attitude toward the new-found inexhaustible material of the socio-psychic interrelations. But to rejiroach Herder on this score would betray an extremely small socio-psychic understanding. When communities have made rapid progress toward a higher spiritual existence, it is not in a rational manner or with purely intellectual age-marks of the thought process. Rather with youthful feelings of anticipation, with an ecstatic presentiment of dimly felt combinations, are the portals of a new epoeh entered. Science becomes a prophecy, philosophy turns to poetical metaphysics. That was the character of the great German period of subjectivity that began with Klopstock, and ended in the spreading branches of the philosophy of identity—the period to which Herder, as one of its first great phenomena, belongs. Therefore Herder's enthusiastic grasp of the socio-psychic elements of

¹ See his "Ideas concerning the History of Mankind."

history does not stand alone. It is the property of the whole epoch and dominates the characteristic movement of the time — Romanticism. The advance step in all this was a clearer view of the vast- combinations of the phenomena of the mass-psycJie — an advance which brought one to describe vital points poetically, in part or wholly so. But there was not the clear comprehension of the constituent elements of the mass-psychic or even of the elementary disentangling of combined phenomena.

It has been reserved to the so-called history-of-civilization method to attempt the description of socio-psychic phenomena, and Freytag, Riehl, even.

That no progress was made in historical method during a long period may be traced to the existence of too great a mass of material to deal with. To this another cause must be added. The first great subjective period which had begun with 1750 ended about 1820, at latest 1830; then about 1870 to 1880 another epoch begins, the second period of subjectivism.

In the interval, however (since 1820, at latest), the conquests of the first period began to be not so much developed as intel-lectualized. Enthusiasm yielded to reflection, the anticipativc comprehension of rationalism. It is the rebound in which, in the domain of natural science, the period of natural philosophy was replaced by the recent development of mechanics ; the change by which, in the field of mental sciences, the old rationalism of the Aufklitrung, as it had been developed in the generations following 1680, again became conspicuous, though with alterations. The outcome of this movement in the science of history, which had run aground in the impotent epigonism of art and poetry, as in the barren historicism of the mental sciences of the period of 1SG0 to 1870, was the reappearance of the individual-psychological method. But the socio-psychological point of view was not yet sufficiently well grounded to maintain its supremacy. In the competition of these rival influences, Ranke grew to be a master of his art. This coincidence, in a certain sense most fortunate, and at all events peculiar in its way, gives to him and his works

a position all their own. The individual-psychologic point of view now gains the ascendency more completely, though not so much because of Ranke as of his disciples, especially von Sybel. There was no longer any particular importance attached to the efforts of those who thought and worked according to the history-of-civilization method; these were not opposed because they were not considered as of more than passing significance. It was a time of almost purely political activity: the nation yearned with every fibre of its soul for the long-coveted political unity. Such works as the political history of the old German empire by Giesebrecht, or Droysen's " History of Prussian Polity," may be cited as important phenomena in this connection. Why should they not have preferred political history which, to a certain extent, was the individual-psychologic method, to all other forms of history? This explains for the most part the fact that the advance in the socio-psychological interpretation of events, made in the meantime by other peoples, e.g. the French in the philosophy of Comte, met with small acceptance in Germany. But the last decades of the nineteenth century

brought the rebound. The years 1870 and 1S71 released men from their great anxieties concerning the national life and unity; the development of internal culture comes prominently now to the front. And that happened at the very dawn of a new period of modern psychic existence. The rise of political economy and technology, the rapid development of freedom of trade all over the globe, the victories of science in the realm of nature, even to penetrating into the confines of the inner life: all this and a host of other less important phenomena yielded an untold amount of new stimuli and possibilities of association, and with that an unheard-of extension of psychic activity as then existing. But of this more in another lecture. The result was a marked differentiation of intellectual activity, and with it the renewed and determining advance of the socio-psychic elements. This was evident along the whole line of scientific endeavor, especially in the rise of sociology and anthropology during the last decades, with their far-reaching consequences and accompanying phenomena. In the domain of history, this meant a fresh start in the writing

of histories of civilization in so far as the development of method was energetically taken in hand ; description alone was no longer the watchword, but an intelligent comprehension.

It was now a question of following up the complex phenomena of the socio-psychic life, the working out of the so-called national soul in its elementary parts. The first step on this path would necessarily lead to the immediate analysis of the phenomena that appeared within the existence of great communities of men, that is to say, chiefly of nations. Hence the proving and detailed characterization of socio-psychic eras within this domain : this was the next step. We can see how this was done by Burckhardt who, in his history of the culture of the Renaissance, was the first to point out the great psychic difference between the so-called Middle Ages and the periods of higher culture. Thus a master hand determined and depicted one of the most marked phases in the rhythmic movement of the culture-epochs of a nation. From this point the way must lead on to a statement of the course of a whole series of cultural ages. This has been attempted in my " German History."

But this is only the beginning of an intensive socio-psychologieal method. In this blocking out of the culture-epochs, the elements of the socio-psycliic movements, as such, are not analyzed, but simply touched upon and the time indicated in which great movements find their origin. When this is once well done, the question arises whether for these ages of culture there is one common underlying psychic mechanism, and if so, of what nature it is, and what is the aggregate of these underlying, yet apparent, psychic elements. And if these problems are solved, there appears further a last yet perhaps provisional question, namely, whether the psychic elements referred to are really elementary in the sense that they are to be found in the results of modern psychology as hitherto known.

This is not the place to analyze or attempt to solve the questions thus raised but the means of finding an answer will be pointed out in the later lectures, at least in so far as to prove that, for the mechanism of the great socio-psychic movements, the same elements and laws hold good of which proof is given in recent psychological investigation, and with that of the

discovery of the elementary psychic energy proper to the historical movement. At this point there arises, in consequence of the preceding statement, another question. If modern historical science would penetrate to the innermost springs of universal history, find them to be in certain psychic conditions, does it act thus in conformity with the universal tendencies of the time, and has it accordingly the prospect of a wholesome duration and development ? Here is the first diffculty to be solved. The second is as follows: if modern historical science as thus set forth is in accord with the spirit of the time, what is then its relation to and effect on other sciences ?

For those who are acquainted with the intellectual movements of western Europe the first question — that of a more intensive study of all phenomena, a closer acquaintance with nature — is easy enough to answer. An impressionism which at first took hold of the external phenomena with a certainty of touch hitherto unknown was followed in the field of mental sciences and imagination by a psychological impressionism that discovered and. revealed the

depths of the psychic life which till now had lain concealed under the threshold of consciousness. This spirit brought, in regard to natural sciences, an intensity of observation which appeared almost to threaten those mechanical theories which, during ceuturies of energetic research, had stood as true and sufficient for all further progress in investigation. In this course of psychic progress the historical science of socio-psychology takes its place as a matter of course; it is nothing but the application of greater intensity of observation to historical material. And there is prospect, therefore, of a further development of this idea, not only on western and middle European soil, but, since the new psychic existence is due chiefly to the vast extension of association and stimuli which arise from the new technical, economic, and social culture, it will establish itself everywhere where western civilization pievails, as is actually being shown to-day in the new world and in Japan.

If socio-psychological history is of such growing importance, the more, then, does its relationship to other sciences call for consideration, even though but few words can be devoted to it.

Foremost and clearest is its connection with psychology. History in itself is nothing but applied psychology. Hence we must look to theoretical psychology to give us the clew to its true interpretation.

How often, indeed, has not psychology been named the mechanics of mental science, in particular of the science of history ? But the appreciation of this connection and the practical application of it are quite different things. For the latter it is necessary that the study of historical phenomena be extended to the most elementary occurrences and processes, — even those processes with which psychology has primarily to do. It is characteristic of the progress of science during the period of subjectivism of about 1750 or that at the beginning, at least, neither history nor psychology was understood. Of how little importance was psychology when books like Creutzer's "Essay on the Soul" and the fruitful but primitive journalism of the decades of Sentimentalism and the " Sturm und Drang " periods tried at least to set it free from the old traditional metaphysical theories. A universal genius like Kant was right to refrain from taking

part in such primitive beginnings, and this stage of philosophy corresponded to that of history.

Psychology and historical science begin to approach each other about 1800, under the influence of the new ideas of the time; but they were as yet far from meeting ; between them still lay heavy and bulky masses of scientifically unana-lyzed psychic matter.

How different it is to-day in the first decade of a new period of subjectivism, which in so many of its parts seems to be a restoration of the old, only in a higher stage of development. To-day psychology looks back on two generations of investigators who delivered it from the deadly grasp of metaphysics and made it an independent science. Wundt followed Herbart. And now a younger, a third, generation is at work perfecting and amplifying the results obtained. These results, however they may vary and become matters of dispute, according to the direction of investigation, permit a profound insight into the legitimate course of individual-psj'chic life, such as was denied to our predecessors. The most important results of all this investigation for the historical student are

recorded in the works of Wundt, Ebbinghaus, Munsterberg, Lipps, — collections of data which have already become indispensable to the allied sciences.

This is a condition of things extremely helpful to historical science in the socio-psychic direction. If one penetrates into the depths of historic causation, it will be found that psychology has prepared the way and has become a safe guide to the historian who wishes to make known his discoveries in -formulae in which they may be fitly expressed.

In this way have psychology and historical science entered into partnership. The partition between them is giving way, and certainly one may say — if it may thus be expressed—that psychology increasingly serves as a mechanical force to history.

But the relations of the two sciences are by no means thus completely described. Just as along with the psychology of the normal adult there must be kept in mind that of childhood and old age in order that the antithetic character of all psychic processes, the full extent and the whole circle of the potentiality of the human psyche, as far

as the individual is concerned, maybe appreciated and the corresponding biological functions be observed, so it is necessary to obtain a full comprehension of the meaning of the socio-psychological process in history in order to proceed in a manner quite analogous. In this instance psychology is dependent on history, and only from an intensive investigation of the cultural periods of mankind as a whole are the data attainable which will enable one to recognize the antithetic tendencies of the human mind in its whole empiric compass.

Thus we get a starting-point from which the relation of modern historical science to the other mental sciences may be explained. These may be divided into applied, such as theology, jurisprudence, political economy, politics, etc., and into constitutive, history of language, literature, art, etc. It is clear that the constitutive branches simply disappear as parts of modern historical science. For if the latter concerns itself with the investigation of the dominating social psyche of the times in question, and with its changing forms during the various ages of culture, it can only do this by taking a survey of all its embodiments in history from time to time.

These are to be found in language, in poetry, and art (i.e. style), in science and philosophy, the climax of intellectual attainment, argumentation, etc. And correspondingly, socio-psychological history is the universal foundation of all these sciences, and these are related to it as amplifying and special sciences. But even more is this the case with the relation to the applied mental sciences. For the latter, which have reference to a certain given psyche of a certain cultural period, reqrure a general knowledge of this period, which leads to the socio-psychological science of history.

Historical science therefore plays a double part: (1) as the basis of the practical as of the theoretical mental sciences, and (2) as stimulus to a historical method within the range of psychology. It is a position which is quite normally conditioned by the fact that psychic movements pass, as regards time, far more rapidly than physical movements, and that the change appears to us qualitatively different on that account. If in their relations the psychic developments of a given time had corresponded to the physical, only one mechanism would be needed to dominate

them both; for they would have shown a hundred thousand and more years ago the same character as they show in the traditional records of to-day. Now it is well known that where the conception of life is in question, that this is not the case; for example, in animal and plant organisms. In human life, i.e. in history, a moment of much quicker change of phenomena intervenes. How is it to be controlled ? It can only happen in that psychology as a psychological mechanism is allied with a functional idea of the time and becomes at once variable. And this functional idea historical science must supply. Through this it grows to be an evolutionistic psychology fully suited to the actual course of things and as such the basis of mental sciences, both theoretical and applied.

Is not the relation of historical to natural science determined by the last few remarks, even if these are only general propositions ? I think so, if one does not indeed include physics and chemistry in the historic point of view, — sciences the objects of which belong to the passing moment. However, if one does this, nothing remains but to admit that there

are biological agencies even in inorganic nature; with this we are driven out of the sphere of science into the atmosphere of hypothetic philosophy, into the metaphysical mode of thought.

It is not necessary to transcend the bounds of our subject, to pass over the border line that divides philosophy and science. But one thing has been determined by these reflections, — that the modern science of history has opened up for itself a vastly greater field of endeavor and conflict and that it will require thousands of diligent workers and creative minds to open up its rich and in many respects unknown regions, and to cultivate them successfully.

HOME