HISTORICAL SYNTHESIS 155 



the inveterate empiricism of historical writers that makes Emerson 

 cry out, " I am ashamed to see what a shallow village tale our so- 

 called history is." 



The comments of an honest spectator are usually worth something, 

 but despite the present force of the reaction it seems agreed by 

 experts that subjective ideas should be kept in strict quarantine 

 and not permitted to infect the pure, annalistic record. At a recent 

 meeting of the American Historical Association which was held in 

 Philadelphia, Dr. James Sullivan read an excellent paper entitled, 

 "The Antecedents v of the Declaration of Independence." Much that 

 he then said I still remember, but what impressed me most was the 

 following reference to the fundamental propositions of the Declara- 

 tion. "In the public mind of to-day," said Dr. Sullivan, "inalienable 

 rights are those things which we reserve for ourselves and deny to 

 our neighbors." And he proceeded to take this as a crucial instance, 

 illustrating the wide gulf which separates the scholarly world from 

 the general public. "As a matter of fact," he continued, "the world 

 of learning long ago abandoned the state-of-nature theory, with 

 all its corollaries of equality, inalienable rights, and others, but the 

 world at large still seems to be, in respect to such doctrines, back in 

 the eighteenth century." 1 These words were received by the audience 

 with evident appreciation, and one could not but feel a slight shock 

 of surprise at observing the mirth of American citizens (in Philadel- 

 phia of all places) when gentle persiflage was thus directed against 

 the preamble of the Declaration. If "inalienable rights" seemed 

 amusing to a congress of American historians meeting in Philadelphia, 

 I am sure that an international congress of historians meeting at St. 

 Louis would be equally amused to hear any one suggest that there 

 exists a basis upon which a philosophy of history can be founded. 

 Lowell once complained of the trouble he found in trying 



" to raise anerithmon gelasma 

 With rhymes so hard-hunted they pant with the asthma." 



No such difficulty need be encountered in starting the merriment 

 of historians. Mention, with apparent seriousness, "the philosophy 

 of history " and the thing is done. Herder, Fichte, Schelling, Schlegel. 

 Krause, and Hegel have disappeared completely from our ken since 

 the days of Ranke. "Mais ou sont les neiges d'antan?" If any 

 individual member of our craft really believes that the philosophy 

 of history is anything more than flatus vocis, he had better keep the 

 opinion to himself. Otherwise he may encounter the fate which 

 overtook Nominalists in the age of Roscellinus. But why discuss the 

 subject further? Did not one of the best known and most eminent 

 historians of this hemisphere recently crush a whole host of adversa- 

 ries when he said that sociology was simply our old foe the philosophy 

 1 Report of the American Historical Association for 190.?, vol. I, pp. 66-67. 



