History: Its Theory and Practice
by . Translated by Douglas Ainslie. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co. 1921. 8vo, 317 pp. $3.75.
THIS is a thoughtful and a thought-provoking book, the product of an acute mind working at real problems. The author knows more about history than do most philosophers who write on the subject, or rather he knows more about historiography, having used to good purpose the excellent volume of the Swiss historian, Fueter, which is too little known in England and America. If Signor Croce’s treatment of topics of historical criticism is superficial and shows unfamiliarity with its actual practice, he is strong and penetrating in relation to the more difficult problems of historical synthesis.
History is not philology, or the poetical substitution of sentiment for thought, or narrative with a practical end. It is ‘that which has not its documents outside itself, but in itself, which has not its final and causal explanation outside itself, but within itself, which has not philosophy outside itself, but coincides with philosophy.’ Good, but just how does this work out? The historian, who has ever a concrete mind, would like some illustrative examples of true history; but none are vouchsafed. The first, or theoretical, part of the work leaves us much in the air. The second part is a stimulating review of the history of historical writing, which brings out finely the characteristics of the great periods and the impossibility of regarding any type as perfect or final, But the concluding chapter on ‘The New Historiography’ is brief and vague, telling us that this movement may be ‘confined to certain German or Italian circles,’but failing to mention any writers who exemplify it. History, we are told, differs from chronicle in being alive in the vital apprehension of the writer; only as it is contemporary, in this sense, is it really history. But this sounds much like the current distinction between history and the materials of history, and does not differ widely from Droysen’s definition of history as the selfconsciousness of humanity.
Historians will enjoy Croce’s trenchant attacks on the so-called philosophies of history. Not all will accept his identification of history and philosophy; but all will rejoice at this renewed evidence of identity of view as regards the continuity and the vitality of the historical process, and will wish that they might welcome to their profession one so historically minded.
There are many quotable phrases: ‘History never metes out justice, but always justifies.’ Polybius is ‘the Aristotle of ancient historiography’; Eusebius should be placed beside Herodotus as ‘father’ of modern historiography; historiansof the romantic school were ‘nostalgic’; a certain type of literary historian is ‘rich in elegiac motives but poor in understanding.’
The translator is insufficiently acquainted with the subject-matter. He does not know the difference between Freising and Frisia, and evidently thinks ‘Maurini’ (page 168) denotes a man, instead of the Benedictines of St. Maur. And when we find Ettore Pais masquerading as ‘Hector,’ we are reminded of the Protestant clergyman who always anglicized Pope Pius X as Joseph Taylor.
CHARLES H. HASKINS.