error is the confusion, several times in the second lecture, of the terms symbolical and typical. These defects are not serious enough, however, to keep anyone from the translation. It will give a clear idea of the principles of Lamprecht's method; for thorough and detailed knowledge we must go,-rather more than usual,—to the original.

The first of the five lectures in the volume,—the one delivered at St. Louis,-begins with the sentence:-“ The modern science of history is primarily a social-psychological science ",--that is social in distinction to individual. The two schools of history which are thus indicated belong, really, to different stages of intellectual development. From its beginning in the imaginative epic and the realistic genealogy history has progressed with civilization. In the eighteenth century,-in accord with the prevailing mode of thought,-each series of events was considered to be the manifestation of an “idea ” which was made effective by great individuals. Later these “ideas” were regarded as transcendental, as in Ranke's works. Meanwhile, however, social-psychic phenomena were attracting

, attention. Herder introduced the concept of the folk soul”, and a new interpretation of history arose,—the descriptive history of civilization. This disappeared with the ending of the first period of subjectivism. When subjectivism began to dominate again, about 1870, psychology, economics, ethnology, etc. had established themselves, and with their help, and as a part of the same movement, a new and more penetrating social-psychic interpretation of history appeared, i. e., culture-history. Burckhardt began the analysis of psychic conditions by dividing the Middle Ages from modern times, a division generally recognized by the individualistic school, although, with that inconsistency which constitutes its chief charm for many minds, it generally denies the possibility of a systematic extension of the method. Lamprecht is the first who has worked out logically and applied systematically the principles of the social-psychic method.

The first three Columbia lectures deal with the system of cultureperiods, Lamprecht's great contribution to historical method. In the first he gives a sketch of German history in order to describe the characteristics of the periods and the manner of transition from one to another. In the second he treats more fully the present, subjectivistic, period in order to show more clearly the character and mechanism of the transitions and periods. And in the third he makes a general application of the principles which have been brought out in the review of German history.

This description and analysis of the most essential part of the Lamprecht method is the most thorough and at the same time the most concrete that we have. It shows, moreover, a careful reworking of his scheme since it was first applied and some modification in consequence. The period of conventionalism, the later Middle Ages, he now regards as a subordinate transition-period, rather than as a fully independent period, like the preceding typical, or the succeeding individualistic. Similarly the subjectivistic period is divided into an earlier and a later, which are separated by a reaction.

The underlying principles of these periods may be briefly indicated. In every period there comes, eventually, a time when new stimuli appear, economic, intellectual, etc. No one can escape them, they rule the age with constantly increasing power. The result is a dissociation with the dominant of the existing period, which brings in its train great psychic confusion and even suffering. But gradually men come under the control of a new dominant, and finally a new period, different in quality and breadth, takes the place of the old. The transition and the period are both primarily social-psychic, and the dominant is an active force,-not a passive expression of individual acts. This determines at once the position of the individual. He is dominated by the transition and by the period. Within them he enjoys freedom; but he cannot pass their bounds. An illustration is furnished in the imperfect success of the constant effort of historians to free themselves from the dominant of their time in order to understand the past. The true task of history is to study these periods and their transitions in the important social groups.--especially the nations, the most fundamental of all.

The concluding lecture is devoted to the problem of universal history. Nations are not isolated, they are osmotic, to borrow a term from natural science. The relation may be a specific renaissance of the culture of a past nation, a specific reception of culture from a contemporary nation, or a more truly osmotic interchange from day to day. This foreign culture may furnish stimuli, etc.; but to be effective there must not be too great a difference in the psychic level of the nations concerned. The change of the dominant may thus be helped or hastened from without; but it can really come only from within the nation itself. To trace the culture-relations of nations is the problem of universal history.

The scientific principles of the culture-history method are but those which have given, not alone to natural science, but also to economics, ethnology, the history of art and literature, and the other sciences of man, their great success in the latter part of the nineteenth century. What is history? or, rather, Where is history?


The Early History of India from 600 B. C. to the Muhammadan

Conquest, including the Invasion of Alexander the Great. By VINCENT A. SMITH, M.A. (Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1904. Pp. vi, 389.)

In the brief space at my disposal it is difficult to speak in an adequate fashion of the merits of this book. The first point that should be emphasized is, that Mr. Smith is a pioneer and one attempting a task that has frequently been pronounced impossible. The second point is that


he has succeeded in this task, i. e., in establishing with general accuracy for the eighteen centuries indicated in the title a sound framework of dynastic annals, which he rightly considers the first need of India's historical studies. This result is due to the fact that Mr. Smith is unusually well qualified for the work he has undertaken. Indian geography, epigraphy, and numismatics are fields in which he is a prominent worker, while the present book gives proof also of an intimate acquaintance with the notices of India in classic writers and of an evidently careful study of the translations of the Chinese works bearing upon the history of India. This knowledge, combined with a high ideal of the office of the historian, ability in the sifting and criticism of evidence, and finally the power of presenting in remarkably clear and attractive form the fruits of his investigations has led to the production of a work of exceptional merit.

For the student of the literature of India, it gathers the results of epigraphical and numismatic studies (with abundant references to the literature of these subjects) and combines them into a connected whole that supplies the background of political history which the study of literature always needs and the study of Indian literature has lacked. On the other hand the book opens to the general reader a new field of history which, on account of the numerous ties between India and the Occident, and the merits of Mr. Smith's work, should prove both as profitable and as attractive as the study of other branches of ancient history.

The contents of the book may be briefly summarized as follows: In the first chapter, after an explanation of the plan and purpose of the work, Mr. Smith gives a description and valuation of the sources of Indian history. In the second chapter, pp. 22-41, he treats of the dynasties before Alexander, to whose campaign in India the two following chapters, pp. 42-107, are devoted. To the dynasty of the Māuryas, three chapters, pp. 108-174, are given. In the next chapter, pp. 175193, the author disposes of the three dynasties of the Çuñgas, Kānvas, and Andhras, while the two following chapters, pp. 194-243, deal with the Indo-Greek, Indo-Parthian and Indo-Scythian dynasties. To the Gupta empire two chapters, pp. 244-281, are given. The thirteenth chapter, pp. 282-302, deals with the reign of Harsa, while the last three chapters of the book, pp. 303-357, are devoted respectively to the medieval kingdoms of the North, the kingdoms of the Deccan, and the kingdoms of the South. For each period chronological tables are given at the close of its treatment, and there are besides appendices dealing with the Age of the Purānas, the Chinese pilgrims, the Inscriptions of Açoka, Aornos and Embolima, the position of Alexander's camp on the Hydaspes, and the extent of the cession of Ariana by Seleukos Nikator.

An important question of method is involved in one of the salient features of the book. In opposition to the general opinion of western scholars, Mr. Smith believes himself justified in accepting as a general principle the dynastic lists of the Purānas. This procedure I do not consider justified by the evidence adduced in their favor, and consequently find the least pleasing portion of the book in the chapter on the Dynasties before Alexander, in which the dependence upon the Puranas is greatest. To my mind the study of this chapter shows how little weakened is the force of the first half of Elphinstone's assertion, that " no date of a public event can be fixed before the invasion of Alexander", while the second half, “no connected relation of the national transactions can be attempted until after the Mahometan conquest," finds at last in the rest of the book a brilliant refutation.

On account of its interest to a wider circle of readers the treatment of Alexander's Indian campaign calls for separate mention. Here the most valuable contribution is the series of comments upon the identification of places mentioned by classic writers. Among these the most important is the convincing argument for the crossing of the Hydaspes at Jihlam. Besides these the brief, clear narrative and a generally sound interpretation of Alexander's political and military motives make the treatment of the subject most satisfactory, while the author's estimate of the effect of this campaign upon India is both sound and timely. The one serious defect in this portion of the work is the description of Koinos's manoeuvre at the battle of the Hydaspes. For lack of space I must refer to Wheeler, Alexander the Great, p. 442, for a correct description of the battle, adding that while I am convinced that Arrian's idea of the battle coincided with Wheeler's interpretation, I consider that his account is far from being as clear as both Wheeler and Mr. Smith (whose interpretations are diametrically opposed) maintain, and that it is worth while to cite Polyainos, Strat. 4. 3. 22, as showing beyond question that Koinos was on the Greek right.

The typography of the book is generally careful, but some blunders are repeated so often that they cannot be charged to the printer; such are: Akesines, Hēgemon, and for “ India's greatest poet” Kālidāsa, or Kālidása. In conclusion one must gratefully mention the numerous and well executed illustrations and maps and the liberal index.


Greck Thinkers. A History of Ancient Philosophy. By THEODOR

GOM PERZ, Professor Emeritus at the University of Vienna. Translated by G. G. Berry. Volumes II. and III. (New York:

. Charles Scribner's Sons. 1905. Pp. xii, 397 ; vii, 386.)

These two volumes of the English translation represent only Vol. II. of Professor Gomperz's Griechische Denker. They treat of Socrates, the Socratics, and Plato, giving to Plato alone more than four hundred pages, exclusive of the many notes.

The features which characterized the first volume of the work are maintained throughout the second. The author does not attempt a rigorous history of philosophy, but presents a vivid picture of the chief philosophers of Greece in the setting of the life of their age. This picture is enriched by a wide knowledge of Greek civilization; its literature, science, politics, and religion are all laid under tribute in the execution of the task. At its best, the work is admirable. But there is always danger that an account so delightful and easy to follow will lose sight of the deeper elements in the development of philosophical thought. This limitation, perhaps inherent in the very purpose of the work, determines its place and service in the literature of the history of philosophy. It will admirably serve the purpose of the general reader who is interested in philosophy as an element in the history of human culture. And for the technical student who has mastered some of the more rigorous treatises, it will be useful in completing and vivifying his picture of the great thinkers of Greece.

In the treatment of Socrates it will be noted that Professor Gomperz has emphasized the utilitarian aspect of his ethical thought. “Usefulness or expediency is the guiding star of his thought on political, social and ethical questions” (Vol. I., p. 80). Another point of interest in the discussion of Socrates is the author's summary rejection of Xenophon as an authority for the history of thought. That twenty pages in a book on Greek thinkers should be given to a writer so povertystricken” in reflective power might appear to be a contradiction in titulo. But the space devoted to Xenophon is filled with interesting material, and will be justified by most readers, as it is by the author, “in view of the importance attaching to his accounts of the words and the teaching of Socrates ” (p. 136).

The central point of interest for students of Greek philosophy will doubtless be the author's interpretation of Plato. His treatment may be described as consisting, in the main, of a series of essays which deal with the chief dialogues. Abandoning as impracticable the task of extracting "a Platonic system from the philosopher's writings”, Professor Gomperz has rather sought to describe the progress of Plato's development and to lead the reader to a just estimate of his personality. He recognizes three periods in Plato's literary and philosophical career. The third period is "chronologically the best-authenticated of all". " It may be regarded as definitely established that the Sophist and the Statesman, the Timaeus, Critias, and Philebus, form, together with the Laws, a single group, and that the latest in the series ” (p. 290). In this third period Plato is represented as subjecting all his earlier beliefs to searching criticism. “The sceptical utterances of the Parmenides are followed, in the Sophist and the Statesman, by attempts at revision and adaptation. Finally, Plato rescues his dearest possessions from the storms of dialectic, which latter he abandons together with toleration and freedom of thought” (Vol. II., p. 36). The question of the genuineness of the dialogues in which criticism of Plato's earlier views appears, is thus simplified for Professor Gomperz. As the doctrine of ideas had “ acquired a kind of objective and historical character for its own author", in dealing with the “ friends of the ideas” Plato could


« ForrigeFortsett »