156 MODERN HISTORY OF EUROPE 



of history in disguise? Since international gatherings are designed 

 to promote peace and herald the golden year, one must refrain, in 

 speaking of historical synthesis, from all attempt to present an alleged 

 basis for a philosophy of history. What may be going on at this mo- 

 ment in the metaphysical section we cannot tell, but here the nearest 

 approach to philosophy which one dare make is to suggest that the 

 problem of synthesis is even more pressing than are the difficulties 

 which crowd in from the side of criticism. Should one be asked how 

 this subject is connected with the political history of modern Europe, 

 an answer might be found in the words a fortiori. What has to be said 

 regarding historical synthesis is of general application, bearing upon 

 the Greeks and Romans as well as upon the French Revolution 

 and the establishment of the German Empire. For the last four 

 centuries, however, the question grows increasingly complex and 

 important. The multiplication of data, nearness to the event, 

 patriotic prejudice, and other obvious causes combine to render this 

 problem most crucial of all in its relation to modern history. 



Indicating a contrast between synthesis and criticism, I expressed 

 the opinion, a moment ago, that the demands made upon us by the 

 latter were on the whole the more urgent and exacting. In historical 

 research and composition so many elements are concerned that one's 

 attitude toward them must, perforce, be tinged by opportunism. 

 How indispensable critical processes are, we all understand, and from 

 the very fullness of this recognition the danger would seem to lie 

 in another direction. It was not always so. We have but to read the 

 controversy which arose over Middleton's Letter to Dr. Waterland, 

 followed by the controversy over the same author's Free Inquiry, if we 

 would carry ourselves back to days when the claims of criticism were 

 paramount. When we have examined Bishop Zachary Pearce's 

 answer to the Letter, and especially the passage on Josephus in his 

 Reply to the Defence, we are quite prepared for a passage like this in 

 John Jackson's rejoinder to the Free Inquiry : " In what I have 

 examined I have found nothing of real argument or solid literature; 

 but a great deal of very bad reasoning; and what is worse, gross 

 misrepresentations of facts; and a very uncandid and unmanly 

 treatment of learned, honest, and pious men, whom without a shadow 

 of evidence he has treated as enthusiasts, cheats, and forgers; but 

 whom their greatest and most inveterable enemies, Pagans, Jews, 

 and most infamous heretics could never convict of the least fraud, 

 deceit, or bad practice." 1 Middleton died in 1750, but as late as 

 1829 the Quarterly Review was denouncing the "absurd and shallow 

 doctrines of Niebuhr " and attacking the translation of Thirlwall and 

 Hare in language which deserved the answer that Thirlwall gave it. 

 " By the bye," says the reviewer, "we think his last translators, two 

 1 Remarks on Dr. Middleton's Free Inquiry, London, 1749, p. 58. 



