SECTION C MEDIEVAL HISTORY 



(Hall 6, September 21, 3 p. w.) 



CHAIRMAN: PROFESSOR CHARLES H. HASKINS, Harvard University. 

 SPEAKERS: PROFESSOR KARL GOTTHART LAMPRECHT, University of Leipzig. 



PROFESSOR GEORGE BURTON ADAMS, Yale University. 

 SECRETARY: PROFESSOR EARLE W. Dow, University of Michigan. 



HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT AND PRESENT CHARACTER 

 OF THE SCIENCE OF HISTORY 



BY PROFESSOR KARL GOTTHART LAMPRECHT 



[Karl Gotthart Lamprecht, Professor of History, Director of the Historical Semin- 

 ary and Historico-geographical Institute, University of Leipzig; and Privy 

 Councilor to the Court of Saxony, b. 1856, Jessen, Province of Saxony. Uni- 

 versity of Gottingen, 1874-76; University of Leipzig, 1876-78; University of 

 Miinchen, 1879. A.M. and Ph.D. University of Leipzig; LL.D. Columbia 

 University. Candidate of Superior Tutorship Friedrich-Wilhelm Gymnasium, 

 Cologne-on-Rhine, 1879-80; Privat-docent and Associate Professor, University 

 of Bonn, 1881-90; Professor of History, University of Marburg, 1890-91; 

 University of Leipzig, 1891 . Member various scientific and learned socie- 

 ties. Author or Editor of Contributions to the History of French Economical His- 

 tory; German Political Economy in the Middle Ages; Sketches on the History of 

 the Rhine; History of Germany, 8 vols., and many other works of history and 

 historical method.] 



HISTORY is primarily a socio-psychological science. In the conflict 

 between the old and the new tendencies in historical investigation, 

 the main question has to do with social-psychic, 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 the former exaggerations of the one or the other 

 principle? Assimilation to other trends of thought, philosophic or 

 scientific, of the science of history? Nothing of the kind. Rather, 

 we are at the turn of the stream, the parting of the ways in historical 

 science. 



