OF SOCIETY. 



571 



define the difference of his point of view as contrasted 

 with that of his predecessors in Germany. It seems 

 likely that coming into contact with the modern 

 psychological school represented by Professor Wundt in 

 Leipsic, he has been induced to define more clearly 

 and systematically the psychological foundation of his 

 eminently original treatment of history. He has latterly 

 adopted the French term Collectivism as characteristic 

 of his view in contrast to the older individualistic view ; 

 but, to an outside observer, it seems more helpful to 

 adopt the definitions which he lays down in his tract 

 on Eanke's 'Ideology' (1896). 



He there collects from Eanke's works a pretty 

 concise statement of Eanke's guiding ideas, of the 

 hidden philosophy of that master. This turns mainly 



foreground, now these, now other 

 segments, and determine in this 

 way the history of a definite period. 

 Thus what eventually becomes 

 etfectual does not in its origin 

 depend on the social mind but on 

 accidental, external stimulants : 

 history is the kaleidoscope with a 

 definite number of possible group- 

 ings of elemental psychical pheno- 

 mena, and the various pictures 

 contained in these possibilities are 

 called forth by a purely external, 

 'mechanical impulse, now in this 

 way, now in that" (p. 95). But 

 Lamprecht goes on to say that 

 whilst this view suffices for the 

 consideration of a special limited 

 period of civilisation, it is not 

 sufficient to explain the course 

 of successive periods of culture. 

 " For then it becomes evident that 

 these periods are by no means 

 accidental and internally uncon- 

 nected. Rather they follow the 

 line of a continuous increase or 

 decline of psychical force, &c., &c." 



(p. 96). The views of Lamprecht 

 have been extensively and severely 

 criticised. The literature of this 

 subject is given with great com- 

 pleteness in Bernheim ('Lehrbuch 

 der Historischen Methode,' 6th ed., 

 1908, p. 717), who also enters very 

 fully into Lamprecht's ideas, and, 

 though not agreeing with them, 

 admits that much can still be 

 learned from that tendency among 

 recent historians which is promin- 

 ently represented by Lamprecht, 

 but which, existing already before 

 him, dates back to Comte, and 

 may be termed anti-individualistic. 

 In recent French literature we 

 have an interesting study of the 

 subject by M. Ch. Andler in 'La 

 Philosophic Allemande au XIX"* 

 Siecle (1912, p. 205 sqq.). English 

 readers will find a concise state- 

 ment of the controversy in C. P. 

 Gooch, 'History and Historians in 

 the Nineteenth Century' (1913, p. 

 588 sgg.). 



