Wilfrid Richmond.

The Americana: a universal reference library, comprising the arts ..., Volume 10 online

. (page 163 of 185)
Online LibraryWilfrid RichmondThe Americana: a universal reference library, comprising the arts ..., Volume 10 → online text (page 163 of 185)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


progress for the most part has been peaceful.
The various monarchies of Europe, except
Russia and Turkey, had already all adopted con-
stitutions modeled upon the English govern-
ment, though in none of them were the min-
istries so truly dependent upon popular will as
in England. Indeed, in some states the formal
constitutional monarchy really merges into a prac-
tical despotism. Progress in politics since 1871
has been of two kinds: (1) a growth in minis-
terial responsibility, and (2) rapid extension of
the franchise toward a manhood basis. Actual
administration, in most European countries, is
still highly aristocratic; but in the matter of
ultimate control democracy is generally tri-
umphant, and it is training itself everywhere,
by compulsory school systems, for the closer
management of affairs.

International Relations Since 1880. Europe
in Africa and Asia. — International relations



since 1880 require brief statement France,
longing to recover her lost provinces from Ger-
many in a war of revenge, drew close to Russia.
Bismarck offended Russia by supporting Austria
in the Balkans. Italy was angered by the
French seizure of Tunis in 1880. Thus new
combinations of the powers appeared. In 1881,
Germany, Austria, and Italy (all old enemies)
leagued in the Triple Alliance; while a little
later, France and Russia formally adopted a
dual alliance. The Continent was thrown into
two hostile camps, and has rested ever since
under an armed peace. France became a the tail
to the Russian kite.* England, unwilling to
join the Triple Alliance, as Bismarck wished,
has been left in a position her statesmen have
chosen to characterize as one of splendid isola-
tion.

In the '90s, all these arrangements were
threatened by the active appearance, in the field
of international politics, of two non-European
powers. The Chinese war of 1894 revealed
Japan as a modern and powerful state; and the
Spanish- American War (1898) made it apparent
that the United States had abandoned its ex-
clusively American policy. Moreover, since
about 1880, European politics had been merging
more completely than ever before in world pol-
itics. The questions at issue ceased to be Rhen-
ish or Danubian, and became African and
Asiatic. The 19th century, indeed, had been
one of expansion of civilized powers, but that
expansion had hardly been conscious of its own
importance. The United States had quietly filled
its borders from ocean to ocean with a homo-
geneous population. Russia had spread across
northern Asia to the Pacific, and was reaching
down in the Trans-Caspian region toward the
Persian Gulf. And England had continued an-
nexation of the keys to empire in waste spaces
of the earth. These three were the world-
powers. Far behind came France ? with some
important possessions in North Africa and some
ancient claims in southeast Asia. Until 1884
Germany had no thought of colonial empire.

About 1880 a new, conscious greed for colo-
nial territory seized Europe. Africa, some Pa-
cific islands, and the helpless Asiatic empires of
Persia, Turkey, Siam, and China were the only
unappropriated lands. There followed a swift,
peaceful division of Africa. In 1880, only
patches here and there on the coast were Eu-
ropean; in 1891, except for the native states of
Abyssinia, Liberia, and Morocco, the continent
was mapped out between European claimants.
The three important African powers are Eng-
land, France, and Germany, though Belgium,
Spain, Portugal, and Italy are also represented.
England is far in the lead. Her ambition has
been to unite her two main possessions, in the
Nile Valley and in South Africa, by acquiring
intermediate territory; but the Congo Free
State and German East Africa were thrust be-
tween too soon. France comes second in extent
of territory; but, except for Algeria and Mada-
gascar, her districts are less valuable than those
of England or Germany. France would have
liked to join her holdings on the east and west
of the continent; but she found English terri-
tory thrust in between. German ambition was
frustrated in similar manner. The three powers
seem to have mutually stale-mated one another's
attempts to dominate Africa.



Digitized by



Google



HISTORY, LOGIC OP



The occupation of Asia by European states
has proceeded more slowly, but has moved with
increasing rapidity in recent years. England,
Russia, Japan, and France are the chief powers
concerned, though Germany has shown an active
disposition to take a hand in any partition,
and though the commercial interests of the
United States make it certain that that country
will be an important factor in any further
changes.

In 1894, Japan and China engaged in war
over the control of Korea. With amazing rapid-
ity, Japan overcame her bulky antagonist; but
Russia, backed by France and Germany, stepped
in to rob her of the fruits of her victory. Japan,
owning not even one modern ship of war, was
forced to yield — to spend all energies for the
next 10 years in preparing for further conflict.
Russia secured from China the right to extend
her Siberian railroad through Manchuria, and
in 1898 she also obtained the powerful fortress
of Port Arthur. Germany and England then
compelled China to grant them important dis-
tricts, which, like the Russian acquisitions,
seemed to command the heart of China and to
doom that power to partition. In 1900 the
Chinese resentment against ^western barbarians*
culminated in the Boxer massacres. The pow-
ers sent armies to rescue their beleaguered em-
bassies at Peking ; but, largely through the policy
of the United States, no territorial indemnities
were demanded. During the campaign, how-
ever, Russia occupied Manchuria, and, despite
repeated solemn promises, it soon became plain
that she meant to keep it. The powers appar-
ently acquiesced; but when Russia in 1903 en-
croached also upon Korea, Japan foresaw danger
to her own independence, and, in 1904, she
began war. The struggle has been tremendous,
almost beyond parallel; but Japanese victory
has been swift and overwhelming, and has
changed the whole face of world politics.
Russian aggression in the East has been checked
for a long period. See Manchuria; Ports-
mouth, Treaty of.

Summary. — The three mighty agents in the
19th century transformation have been democ-
racy in politics and industry, humane sentiment
in morals, and scientific progress. The first of
these has been the main theme of the latter part
.of this article. The gentler spirit of recent
society, likewise touched upon, has abolished
slavery, ameliorated law, and brought about or-
ganized, zealous, and intelligent effort to lessen
misery and crime. But perhaps the most mar-
velous phase of the a Wonderful Century® is the
scientific advance. Since the primitive inven-
tions of making fire, of the bow, of domesticat-
ing animals, of smelting iron, and of the alpha-
bet, all the inventions of man up to the year
1800 probably count for less than those since
that year. In civilized lands, life has been
lengthened over a fourth, and the population of
the civilized world has trebled. This larger
amount of life has been lifted to a higher level.
Wealth is more abundant; and the laboring
masses, though still getting too little of it. get
far more than formerly. The area of civilized
life has been wonderfully expanded, but steam
and electricity bind the most scattered portions
together more closely than adjacent villages
were joined in the near past And this new



solidarity is not merely in material interests:
it has its intellectual and moral side. There is
a growing unity of sympathy and opinion.

The picture, of course, has its dark side.
Crowded populations live and work under con-
ditions of misery and disease and often of sin.
Civilized nations show callous disregard for
the rights of weaker or barbarous people.
And over the civilized world itself there still
broods the danger of annihilating war, more
terrible because of the inventions of this scien-
tific age.

Happily this survey may close with a chron-
icle of a great step toward removing this last
danger. The Hague Conference of 1899, called
in the interests of peace, did not find it possible
to make any advance toward disarmament, but
it did provide for a permanent international
tribunal for arbitration between such nations
as may choose to avail themselves of it. It is
of supreme consequence that machinery is ready
so that two nations at difference may escape war
without loss of dignity, if they both desire.
Even more significant and hopeful, however, is
a long series of arbitration treaties between
nations, two and two, beginning with the Anglo-
French treaty of 1903. Despite the terrible
Russo-Japanese war, the first years of the 20th
century have seen remarkable progress toward
the federation of the world.

Bibliography. — Within the space at command,
no detailed bibliography is possible. Since the
dawn of the scientific study of history, writers
have shunned the attempt to cover the complex
field of modern history except in co-operative
^series.** Of such series the most important in
English are <The Cambridge Modern History,*
edited by Ward (1903, 12 vols., of which only 5
have appeared by 1905); and < Periods of Eu-
ropean History,> edited by Hassall (1890-2, 8
vols., of which the last 5 belong to our period).
Andrews' historical Development of Modern
Europe* (1896), Fyffe's ( Modern Europe to
1878* (1884), and Seignobos' < Europe Since
1814* (1899) deal with the 19th century. Cun-
ningham's < Western Civilization* (1900), and
McVey's Modern Industrialism* (1904) treat
special phases. For further references the
reader may consult the special bibliographies at
the close of the articles on leading countries and
movements. West's < Modern History* ( a high-
school manual, 1904) in an appendix gives a
classified bibliography of 150 standard English
works. Willis Mason West,

Professor of History, University of Minnesota.

History, Logic of. The relation of history to
the problems of the philosopher has been mostly
confined to those questions which are treated
in the philosophy of history. The object of this
discipline is to interpret the meaning of man-
kind's historical development and to compre-
hend the progress of humanity in the setting
of a metaphysical system. It is only in recent
times that philosophy has recognized clearly the
importance of an entirely different relation. If
the philosopher studies in the science of logic
the ways of thought and the special methods
by which the different special, sciences are able
to reach the truth it must be logical and thus,
ultimately, a philosophical task to examine the
methods of historical investigation. The special



Digitized by



Google



HISTORY, JLOCIC OF



fchenes of the historian's technique belong to
historical science proper. But as soon as the
attitude which the historian has to take towards
the world is in question, we stand before a logi-
cal problem which is most nearly connected
with the general problem of the meaning of
truth. A rich literature devoted to this circle of
problems has grown up during the last decade,
partly through the activity of philosophers and
psychologists, partly from the interests of
historians and economists themselves.

Of course, it is possible to take the skeptical
attitude and to deny the existence of a par-
ticular problem here. We can say that all sci-
ence has the same kind of task, and that the
logical problems are thus not other for history
than for the natural sciences. Yet this attitude
may lead to two different standpoints. The first
is the most popular one. From that it would
appear that history is not a real science at all.
It collects a mass of material just as the zool-
ogist collects his specimens; but that kind of
treatment which makes zoology a real science,
the study of the common characteristics and of
the underlying laws, is not in question for the
historical material. Instead of this an art enters
into play, the art of historical presentation. The
works of the great historian are thus in first
line works of art parallel to the great epic nar-
ratives, with only the difference that the epic
poems follow the lines of imagination while the
historian reconstructs the facts as they may
have happened. Scientifically history would
thus stand on the lowest level, as a mere col-
lection of facts without that reaj scientific treat-
ment which makes the value of the other sci-
ences. The best which can be hoped, then, is
that it may be brought to a kind of scientific
height by introducing as much as possible the
results of other sciences such as physics, biol-
ogy, anthropology, geo-physics, etc, into
the explanation of historical happenings. The
influences of climate, of race disposition, of
technical inventions, and so forth, then become
predominant in the scholarly treatment of his-
torical events. It may be said that this low
opinion of the pure scientific character of history
has been prevalent throughout the whole history
of science.

But those who consider the natural sciences
as the only type of real scientific work may be
led, and have been led frequently in recent
times to still another standpoint. They may say
that history has the greatest possibility of being
a full-fledged science. The only step it has to
take is that from the merely descriptive to the
law-seeking attitude. The real task of the
historian, they say, would be to find the com-
mon features which belong to the growth of
every nation and to the political and social,
artistic and scientific, economic and religious
movement of the different .periods and of the
different communities. As long as isolated pro-
cesses are described, history indeed remains on
a pre-scientific level, but as soon as we recog-
nize characteristic types of development, we
reach general laws like those of the biologist
or the chemist. The interest concentrates itself
then on the psychological factors which moulded
the fate of the nations, and especially the life
of the masses becomes a true historical agency.
That which is unique then becomes insignificant
and accidental as compared with the great typ-



ical processes which repeat themselves under
similar conditions in the most different coun-
tries. A kind of natural science of historical
nations thus becomes the logical goal.

Those modern movements, however, whkh
have forced the problems of the logic of history
to public attention object to both these stand-
points because they refuse to admit the first
presupposition. They deny that the natural sci-
ences are the only type of a real science. They
claim, rather, that this is a prejudice which has
been suggested to the world by the overwhelm-
ing influence of the Aristotelian logic on the
one side, and the impressive triumphs of natu-
ral science on the other. They hold that there
exist two types of scientific thought in principle
commensurable, and that the historical way of
thinking is in its importance and in its logical
right perfectly coordinate with naturalistic
thought. Yet here again a variety of stand-
points have been taken.

The simplest presentation of this doubleness
of logical method is offered by those who hold
that the whole separation is to be deduced from
the doubleness of the logical attitude. They say
that we can take with reference to everything
in the universe either the attitude of interest in
the general law or the attitude of interest
in the particular thing. The one interest can
never be substituted for the other. In the one
case the particular object is for us only a
sample illustration for a general relation. We
seek the law which expresses that relation and
inhibits therefore the interest in the special
chance case which is before us. That is the
attitude of the naturalist. On the other hand
we may give our whole attention to the par-
ticular object before us in its uniqueness, and
there is no doubt that our practical interests
of life force on us just this attitude. Our earth
may be astronomically not more important than
any other planet, but our practical interest be-
longs to this planet alone. Our friends may be
to the biologist not more instructive than any
other group of organisms, but for our friend-
ship those particular men have their unique po-
sition and cannot be replaced by other chance
copies. To develop systematically this interest
in the particular is the function of the historian,
and anything which has its particular existence
is possible historical material. Yet it is evident
that no science can have the task of describing
every particular pebble on the beach. There
must be a principle of selection, and this is given
in the reference to our values. The men who
have relation to that which is valuable in the
world, to the development of state and law, of
art and science and religion, are to be selected
for the historian's account. And this ultimate
reference to values binds the particular objects
together, while it is evident that the law of
natural science brings the facts under a point
of view under which they have no special
value at all, but are indifferent objects of theo-
retical observation. The antithesis is thus
complete. The naturalist seeks the general,
the historian seeks the particular. The natural-
ist refers everything to the law, the historian
everything to the value. Both groups of inter-
est create logically independent systems of
knowledge. Their difference is thus m no
way a difference of material, as there is nothing
in the world which cannot be considered from



Digitized by



Google



HISTORY, GREAT EVENTS OF—HITCHCOCK



both points of view. The sun which the
astronomer studies in relation to the astronom-
ical laws as a chance case of a general relation
which holds for myriads of suns, may be at
the same time the object of interest for those
who ask about the development of this one
particular sun which gives us light. And on
the other hand, even the Napoleon of the
historian may be brought under the laws of
biology from the standpoint of the naturalist

Others who welcome this sharp separation
feel doubtful whether it is really the logical
attitude which determines the difference and
not the content. They claim that it is not true
that natural science has to deal with laws only.
Natural science may very well give its atten-
tion to particular objects too, and the develop-
ment of our sun or our earth or our mankind
is not history but natural science. The true
difference, they say, lies rather in the double-
ness of the objectifying and the subjectifying
attitude.

The sun and earth are for us all objects, but
men and their work can be considered in a
double way. We can consider our neighbors as
objects, as phenomena which we describe and
explain, but we can consider them also as sub-
jects of will which we understand and inter-
pret and appreciate, and this doubleness of
attitude reaches over the whole of mankind.
Wherever there is will, there the object can be
taken as a subject and it is claimed that the work
of the naturalist is the study of the world in so
far as it is conceived as a system of objects,
while the study of the historian is the world in
so far as it is conceived as a system of will
relations. Only subjects of will would thus be
able to enter into history at all. And the task
of the historian is to understand the systematic
relations between the purposive actions. The
naturalist starts from the objects of his per-
ception and seeks their causes and their effects.
The historian starts from those will demands
which reach him as the political, legal, artistic,
scientific, economic, religious demands of his
social world, and he seeks to interpret them by
connecting them with the purposes of the past.
The naturalist explains, while the historian in-
terprets intentions and links the will purposes
into a connected unity.

Bibliography. — Windelband, Waturwissen-
schaft und Geschichte* ; Simmel, ( Probleme
der Geschichtsphilosophie* ; Rickert, ( Greazen
der naturwissenschaftlkhen Begriffsbildung ) ;
Munsterberg, Psychology and Life* ; Lam-
precht, c What is History?'

Hugo Munsterberg,
Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

History, Great Events of. The following
list gives only those important events which have
affected or changed the subsequent history of
nations. The cross references will refer the
student to the special information concerning
these epoch-making occurrences, and the follow-
ing special articles may also be consulted : His-
tory, Ancient; Medieval; Modern; Wars of
the World; Peace Treaties; Republics, His-
tory of; Explorations in the iqth Century;
Polar Research; Judaism — Jewish History;
Crusades; Cromwell; Gunpowder; Thirty
Years' War; Seven Years' War; Napoleon;
Waterloo, Battle of; Crimea; America, Dis-



covery and Colonization of; Discovmss of
America to 1562, Spanish and Port ugue se;
Colonial Wars in America; Navy or the
United States, History of; United States,
Wars of the; Declaration of Independence;
Slavery in the United States; Confederate
States of America; Monroe Doctrine; United
States— The American Revolution ; The Wae
with France; War of 1812; Mexican War;
Slavery; Causes of the Civil War; Recon-
struction; War with Spain; etc; Treaties
of the United States with Foreign Nations \
The Eastern Question; The Oregon Ques-
tion ; Dictatorships in Latin-Am erica ; Eman-
cipation in Latin-A m erica ; Peking, Siege of;
Boers; South African War; Riel's Rebel-
lion; etc

B. c.

1277 Exodus of the Children of Israel from Egypt.
1111 Mariner's compass (q.v.) discovered.

753 Rome (q.v.) founded.

603 Geometry and Maps (qq.v.) first used.

Ml-479 Confucius (q.v.) flourished.

490 Battle of Marathon.

538 Fall of Babylon (q.v.).

§2 6 ^ Ac ^ cssio . n of Alexander (q.v.); Grecian Empire.

03-44 Csesanan era; Britain invaded; Gaul conquered.

A.O.

33 The Crucifixion of Christ fa.v.).



(Test.



ai.

us Khan.

St.



1 Europe.



ievised.

ation.
anish Suooet

sion (q.v. J.
1741-48 War of the Austrian Succession.
1756-63 The Seven Years War (q.v.).
1776 Declaration of Independence (q.v.).
1789-1802 French Revolution.
1804-1815 Napoleon (q.v.) Emperor of Franc*.
1812-14 War of 1812 (q.v.).
1815 Battle of Waterloo (q.v.).
1819 Electro- Magnetism discovered.
1821-29 Greek War of Independence.
1831-39 Belgian war of Independence.
1845-48 Mexican War (q.v.) with the United StatSf.
1853-55 Crimean War.
1857-59 Indian Mutiny and War.
1861-65 Civil War (q.v.) in United States.
1863 Battle of Gettysburg (q.v.).
1866 Laying of first Atlantic Cable.
1868-99 Cuban War of Independence.
1870-71 Franco-Prussian War (q.v.).
1877-78 Russo-Turkish War.
1883-84 War in the Sudan.

1894 War between Japan and China.

1895 Roentgen discovery of X-rays (q.v.).

1897 War between Turkey and Greece.

1898 Spanish-American War began.

1898 Hawaii (q.v.) annexed to the United States.

1899 Peace Conference at The Hague (q.v.).
1899-1900 War between England and Boers.

1902 First Anglo- Japanese Alliance. See Anolc-JaPV

NBSB TrEATIBS.

1903 Panama Canal treaty signed. See Panama Cahal.
1903 Pacific Cable completed.

1904-5 War between Japan and Russia, terminated I
Sept. 1905 by Treaty of Portsmouth (q.v.). Set
Manchuria.

1905 Second Anglo- Japanese Alliance (q.v.).

1906 Earthquake and fire, San Francisco, CaL See

Earthquakb.
1908 Restoration of the Constitution in Turkey.
1910 Republic established in Portugal.

Hitchcock, hichlcok, Charles Henry, Am-
erican geologist: b. Amherst, Mass.. x% Aug
1836. He was a son of Edward Hitchcock,



Digitized by



Google



HITCHCOCK — HITTBLL



geologist (q.v.). He was graduated from
Amherst College in 1856, was assistant
State geologist of Vermont in 1857-61*
State geologist of Maine 1861-2. and of
New Hampshire 1868-78. In 1868 he was
appointed professor of geology in Dartmouth
College. In connection with his survey of New
Hampshire, he maintained, during the winter of
1870, a meteorological station on Mount Wash-
ington, the earliest high-mountain observatory
in the United States. He became known as a
compiler of geological maps, and for his inves-
tigations regarding the geology of the crystal-
line schists, ichnology, and glacial geology. The
location of the terminal glacier in the United
States was first suggested by him. He was a
founder of the Geological Society of America,
and in 1883 president of the American Associa-



Online LibraryWilfrid RichmondThe Americana: a universal reference library, comprising the arts ..., Volume 10 → online text (page 163 of 185)