New-York tribune., 1908-08-08
HISTORY, NEW STYLE.
Il Psychologists Quaint Fie5cs of
the Past.

eEFE1 SE6A 90 asToE E z 3so r Emf SATs9ss ReIsR
Volumes and II. Svo. PIP 49, Az The Mac
milan Company.
History is being written to-day from several
sharply contrasting points of view. One student
interprets past events the result of politics.
Another reads the past as story of Institutions.
A third reduces the fall of Greece and the dis
, covery of America to a few simple economic
formulas DR.. Emil Reich accepts none of
these attributes Fundamentally. He sees too
clearly that every thought and deed. as well as
every rainstorm and mountain. contributes TO
the moulding Of nations and races In aspfra-
ton at least. his approach to general history
of Western nations is that of a psychologist
He SAYS:
tept DO for the stoTg Of o8s Wsse5n se Pot
for Linguistics, or savigny for Roman law
At the basis OF all that happened there Is
which singly and still more by meeting. blending
or 5ea1 fscts ee Te present work treats main
ly OF these general facts, In addlt1on an 70 s a
eral fact, try TO discover tne real cause, b 1na Is
the human factor, or, in other WORDS the pSycn9
It's prime cause
AS DR. Reich devotes nearly hundred
pages in his first volume defence and an
explanation of his psychological view Of his
tory: and as Furthermore, his very interesting
chapters on events down TO the fall OF Horne
cannot be appreciated or criticised without pre-
lininary knowledge OF his historical method
the latter claims our attention. 1t does this,
too by virtue of its unique character rms
author is. by confession and in fact a repeIhous
reactionary among historians He scores every
srubber who raeekly accepts as final the docu-
n1entary evidences of antiquity only after phi
lologists have edited them. Words can scarcely
acc7,noulatiug all visible facts about their pet
king. era or land reconstruct the latter out OF
this material alone. The supreme criterion, ne
believes is the psychologically plausible An
excellent gospel. we may exclain; but observe
whittier the historian lets it sweep him.
FeRinning with the accurate observation that
history is 1.-The science Of correlatlons' MI
Reich marches to the view that' II the au-
thor succeeds in showing the real-that is the
psychological connection Of two or more historic
facts or institutions, he has indeed advanced our
historical insight" Here is a frank identlflca-
t,on Of the real with the psychological nexus-a
,,o-+ nrecarious step, from whose consequences
Ar F2eich is in no wise deferred Ideas are
4-ea!x made TO control all things. despite the
u--iter's assurance that the five main, inter-
rIsvine factors IN history are geo-ponIcs'
tne production and distribution OF wealth. 0eA
relation. personality and ideals Inc uncon-
~,io,,s the irrational and Grass physical events
are negligible factors in the long rum Or III
his own technical language. incidents aho
cbarce events do not materially alter the pro-
rortions of q correlation" Conscious Fea'oh'
- +,e ,roe causes of all important events
Thus:
No nation ever habttuaiF prae1eTo p,e sc absurd
ma IInIess the people were, by the latenI piag
Of other interdependent ne nretudices
ole ra
for the sake OF securing an otherwise
and Indispensable advantage
This is pure rationalism- Its strange results
,-o exbih;tAd on almost every page. DR.. Reich
a. Les N reject absolutely everything Wnlcn
AesvrioIogists and Old Testament students have
,at5 There really was a Moses. The Pentateuch
a. M. = compilation. Hebrew monothefsm was
M, 5erived in any manner from the Bapylon-
;e In brief we have right to challenge
the essential points Of Jewish tradition because
eff is in absolute accordance with everything We
NAV exnect TO learn in the history or a SUCCESS
t,,1 +o-5.r nation" This explanation reveals Dr.
F2eich as great apostle of the Historical Farai-
leI that eternal refuge of the orator Ihe Two
ol,,,,ee before us have no more conspicuous,
and. be it added, no more entertaining Iealui &
.bar the comparisons OF Judea with the Trans
z,aal Rome with the United States. and so on
These are. of course. inevitable, as soon as the
.,,+bor has resolved to accept the psychology
oeIl,- most probable interpretations; for how
a,.o could he discover what one border state was
ltkelv 70 have done, save by observing the acts
~ contemporary border state? Concerning
tba value of his parallels no sweeping judgment
can he uttered; sometimes they are drawn with
s,,btIe insight as when he notes the common
asnects Of Imperialism in Sparta and Norman
England. but. more frequently, they are either
hazardous dvfnations or imaginative hlghts'
valuable perhaps suggestions but scarcely 10
be taken at face value
unfortunately, the author too often forgets his
ou,n excellent doctrine about the compiexity OF
historical factors when paralleling events He
onauv Iapses into the habit OF using analogy to
,,-ove a controverted r.oint A fragrant example
of this tendency appears in his discussion Of the
historicity of the Roman kings as follows:
II is. indeed evident, that he who denies Romulus
history Of the rise OF the magistrates of Rome
related in oui sources TO accept & on s9s enc 1
the course of few days, and TO refuse to accept
on the other, the foundation OF home ana ,e her
greatest abuse OF scientific methods OF research
Is II unnethohe I no 10 nf n5doing The state
founded the state?
We leave 10 its own condemnation this at
.enpt to parallel the construction of state
with the destruction of It is only less alb
srrd than the parallel between the rise of a
tion and the birth OF a political institution
within that nation II is regrettabe that such
errors OF method should appear throughout
volumes full of keen Interpretation and crfti-
oisn1. written il easy and picturesque though