And these conditions will not be found in gen eralizations concerning metaphysical entities, but in the activities of worthful men finding self-expression in social relations for the ever more complete subjection of physical nature to human welfare." Viewed in this sense, this type of interpretation can he said to have a considerable affinity with the "great man" theory and apparently aims to reconcile this doctrine with the critical and synthetic interpretation, under cover of a common theological orienta tion. Closely conformable to this mode of inter pretation is Prof. E. D. Adams' attempt to Con nect the historical development of the United States with a succession of great national ideals, the origins of which are not explained. The attempt to view human progress as directly correlated with the advances in natural science received its first great exposition in the writings of Condorcet and was revived by Comte and Buckle. Aside from the attention given to it by students of the history of science, such as Sarton, Tannery, Libby and Sedgwick, this phase of historical interpretation has been sadly neglected by recent historians, though Prof. F. S. Marvin and Prof. Lynn Thorndike have recently shown its promising potentialities. It has been emphasized incidentally by Professors Lamprecht, Shotwell and Robinson in their synthetic interpretation of history, but it re mains the least exploited, and yet, perhaps, the most promising of all the special phases of historical interpretation. Its adherents claim a more fundamental causal importance than can be assigned to the economic interpretation, in that they contend that the prevailing state of scientific knowledge and application will deter mine the existing modes of economic life and activities. The main tenets of the anthro pological interpretation, as well as an enumera tion of its chief adherents, have been provided above and may be passed over at this point. The closely related sociological intepretation of history goes back as far as the Arab, Ibn Khal dun; was developed by Vico, Turgot, Ferguson, Condorcet, Comte and Spencer; and has its ablest modern representatives in Professor Giddings of Columbia, Professor Thomas of Chicago and Professor Hobhouse of London. Professor Giddings admirably describes this theory as "an attempt to account for the origin, structure and activities of society by the opera tion of physical, vital and psychical causes, working together in a process of evolution." As a genetrc social science, it works hand in hand with cultural anthropology in the effort to explain the repetition and uniformities in his torical development and to formulate the laws of historical causation. But the latest, most inclusive and most important of all types of historical interpretation, and the one which, perhaps, most perfectly represents the newer history is the synthetic or °collective psycho logical.;' According to this type of historical interpretation no single category of °causes" is sufficient to explain all phases and periods of historical development. Nothing less than the collective psychology of any period can be deemed adequate to determine the historical development of that age, and it is the task of the historian to discover, evaluate and set forth the chief factors which create and shape the collective view of life and determine the nature of the group struggle for existence and improvement. The most eminent leaders of this school of historical interpretation have been Professor Lamprecht of Leipzig; Pro fessors Levy-Bruhl, Fouillie, Seignohos and Durkheim of Paris; Professor Marvin of Lon don; Professors Robinson and Shotwell of Columbia University, and Professor Vehlen of New York. Their general doctrine has gained particular acceptance in France, probably on account of the early and extensive development of social psychology in that country.
Even this brief and hasty review of a few of the more conspicuous innovations in the de velopment of historiography in the last century will convince the reader that the progress in this field has not been less than in the other branches of human knowledge. It will serve to convey the full significance of Frederic Har rison's statement that Freeman's conception of history as exclusively politics) ignored nine-tenths of human history. A synthesis of the various modes of approach to the subject matter of history must be the ideal of all future historians, but the difficulties inherent in this endeavor will make it hard to be attained.
An attempt at a synthetic review of the de velopment of civilization has been essayed by Professor Seignabos. A less complete, but a more stimulating and suggestive outline has been supplied by Professor Marvin. An able and original, if not wholly objective, synthesis of the history of the modern world has been supplied by the detailed manual of Professor Hayes. Prof. W. C. Abbott's recent attempt to indicate the significance of the commercial revolution for the development of modern civil ization is probably the best harbinger which has appeared of that synthetic tendency which must characterize the ((new history .° Professors Robinson and Shotwell have long urged and predicted a larger synthesis ofhistorical ma terial. Whatever success daring individual scholars may achieve in this synthetic move ment, it will be apparent that the history of the future must be more and more a co operative work. The complete mastery of all the newer points of attack will be denied to most individuals and each must contribute through his own speciality. The understanding of this vital fact has contributed more than anything else to a growing spirit of mutual toleration and appreciation among the various °schools) of historians. In much the same way that the truth has been replaced by truth in recent years, so the history of various enthusi asts has been supplanted by a broader and sounder history. Again, in view of the fact that it has now become apparent that the prog ress of the human race in a cultural sense since 1500 has been greater than the advancement in 50 or more preceding centuries, the supreme importance of modern history hascome to be generally recognized, and the primary at tention of the previous generation to mediaeval history has become a thing of the past. The earnest labors of the medievalists cannot be deplored for they have furnished the younger generation of historical scholars with not only a sound methodology, but also with the indis pensable background for interpreting the origins of the modern age. Out of the labors of the last half century has come a
which will not only furnish a mental discipline for training in the methods of exact scholarship, but will also enable one, to know the past and interpret its significance. As Professor Robin son has said : °The 'New
is escaping from the limitations formerly imposed upon a study of the past. It will come in time con sciously to meet our daily needs; it will avail it self of all those discoveries that are being made about mankind by anthropologists; economists, psychologists and sociologists — discoveries which during the last 50 years have served to revolutionize our ideas of the origin, progress and prospects of our race. . . . History must not be regarded as a stationary subject which can only progress by refining its methods and accumulating, criticizing, and assimilating new material, but it is bound to alter its ideals and aims with the general progress of society and the social Sciences, and it will ultimately play an infinitely more im portant role in our intellectual life than it has hitherto done.) _ _
Ancient. In the ordinary use of the word, history is a record of past events and conditions as determined by the processes of investigation included in historical method. The history of mankind treats not so much of individuals as of the progress and decline of communities and states with especial reference to morality, religion, intelligence, social organi zation, economic condition, refinement and taste, government, and the peaceful and military re lations of governments to one another (cf. An drews