OF SOCIETY. 



.69 



In France the two schools of sociology have existed 

 side by side ; ^ in Germany, on the other hand, the 

 idealistic school is the older, the realistic a raucli 

 younger development. And even more adequately than 

 in France will it be permitted to identify the two 

 schools of historical research in Germany with two 

 great names, that of Leopold Eanke and that of Karl 

 Lamprecht. 



so. 



Ranke and 



Contrary to what one has been accustomed Lamprecht. 



^ This is hardly admitted by 

 Dr Barth, who says (see loc. cit-, 

 p. 213 sqq.): "Thus Tarde is 

 diametrically opposed to that 

 belief in the dominant power of 

 the masses, but it does not appear 

 that this controversy has as yet 

 arrived in France at a higher con- 

 ception, which should do justice to 

 both opinions. It is, however, 

 significant that Tarde, in spite of 

 his doctrine of the dependence of 

 the masses, nevertheless calls only 

 those events historical which refer 

 to the masses"; and Dr Barth 

 refers to the following passage 

 {'La Logique Sociale,' 3"ie ed., p. 

 497): "Dans les sciences, I'im- 

 portance sup^rieui^e de la decou- 

 verte v^rifiee, de I'invention ac- 

 creditee, est evidente et reconnue. 

 Mais, partout ailleurs, dans I'en- 

 semble de la vie sociale, elle est 

 non moius certaine et cependant 

 meconnue. L'important, c'est 

 tou jours, en histoire, I'equilibration 

 et la majoration de masses de foi 

 ou de forces de desir, et Ton doit 

 nommer evenement tout fait qui 

 provoque ou produit une forme 

 nouvelle, d'equilibre ou d'accroisse- 

 ment de ces masses ou de ces 

 forces." And this induces Dr 

 Barth to sum up by saying : ' " In 

 this respect, as to the conception 

 of history, it seems that in France 

 the tendency has finally conquered 

 which makes the life of society the 

 main subject, a tendency which we 



may briefly term Collectivism. 

 The controversy only turns on 

 this, to what extent an individual 

 influences this life of society. In 

 Germany, on the other side, the 

 conception of history has not yet 

 been uniformly fixed in this direc- 

 tion. The single person, not only 

 as an awakeuer of the whole of the 

 society in which he lives, not only 

 as a typical representative of the 

 members which form society, but 

 as a unique, not repeated, indi- 

 vidual, is to be the subject of the 

 historian's attention. With one 

 exception [M. Lehmann] all earlier 

 historians must be counted on the 

 individualistic side. To these all 

 those who look to the collective 

 labour of nations, to their culture 

 in the largest sense . . . stand in 

 a necessary but unexpressed op- 

 position." And according to Dr 

 Barth this opposition has found a 

 clear expression, for the first time, 

 in two thinkers — namely, E. Bern- 

 heim in his ' Lehrbuch der Histor- 

 ischen Methode' (1st ed., 1889, 

 latest, 6th ed., re-written 1908), 

 and K. Lamprecht in his 'German 

 History ' (1891 sqq.) : " They have 

 consciouslj' asserted the opposition 

 to the older individualism. Especi- 

 ally the latter has used this term 

 for the earlier tendency and at the 

 same time has coined the term 

 Collectivism for his own, and has 

 taken great pains to establish its 

 theoretical foundation." 



