REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE EIGHTEENTH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION."

By CHARLES H. HASKINS, Corresponding Secretary.

The eighteenth annual meeting of the American Historical Association was held at Philadelphia December 26, 27, 29, and 30, 1902. It was in all respects successful and satisfactory. Many members were in attendance, the programme was excellent, and there was everywhere indication of the great activity and vitality of the Association, and of the work it is doing for the promotion of historical scholarship in America. The meeting deserves no less strong an adjective than inspiring. It showed how thoroughly the historical work of the country is organized and how much the task of the individual investigator and teacher is lightened and his efficiency improved by the generous criticism and thoughtful suggestion of others. In the best sense of the word, American scholars are to-day writing history by the coöperative method; one does not seek to supplant the other, but to supplement his labors and to give him encouragement and help. The acquaintanceship and good fellowship which are produced by the meetings of the Association are in consequence much more than merely pleasant and agreeable; they are a distinct aid to the upbuilding of sound historical scholarship. Moreover, one could not listen to the papers that were read without being impressed also with the great amount of thoroughly scientific work that is now being carried forward. The materials of foreign as well as American archives and libraries are profitably and sanely used to an extent until recently quite unknown. The various commissions and boards of the Association showed by their reports that they are earnestly and

This general account of the Philadelphia meeting of the Association is reproduced, with slight modifications, from the report prepared for the American Historical Review (April, 1903) by the managing editor of the Review, Prof. A. C. McLaughlin.

industriously doing their part in the classification and collection of material, in the publication of papers, and in the fulfilment of other plans which will be of inestimable service to the future student of American history. The members of these committees freely give their time and attention to these duties, from which they receive no personal benefit.

The arrangements for the meeting were carefully planned and admirably carried out. Although sessions were held in five different places, so judiciously were the details managed that there was not the least confusion or discomfort. When so many persons were unsparing in their efforts, it seems almost invidious to express appreciation of the labors of anyone in particular, but possibly it will not be amiss to mention especially the work of Prof. J. B. McMaster, the chairman of the programme committee, and the tireless attentions of Dr. Herman V. Ames, the secretary of the committee of arrangements. The friends of the Association in Philadelphia were very generous in their hospitality. Every afternoon and evening except Sunday some form of friendly entertainment. was provided. On Friday evening after the joint session a reception was held at the Drexel Institute in honor of the presidents of the Historical and Economic associations. Luncheons were served by the University of Pennsylvania after the morning sessions on Saturday and Monday. At the Museum of Science and Art a tea was given Saturday afternoon by the university faculties. An informal smoker was held at the University Club Saturday evening. On Monday evening the Historical Society of Pennsylvania gave a reception and supper, and Tuesday Mr. Henry C. Lea, the president-elect, was the host of the Association at a luncheon in the hall of the American Philosophical Society. The privileges of the University Club were granted to the men members of the Association, while the ladies were shown like courtesy by the New Century Club. The pleasure of the meeting was much increased by the opportunity of visiting the rooms of the Historical Society and of the Philosophical Society, and by the interest taken in the Association by citizens of Philadelphia, whose historical work has long been known to American students.

The programme, carefully arranged so as to give to each session a particular center of interest, was quite as good as

usual, and perhaps no stronger word of commendation is necessary. All the papers provided for were, with one exception, read, and the readers as a rule regarded the limits of length set by the committee on programme-a matter of no slight importance. Following the practice of the last two years, two sessions were held jointly with the Economic Association, at one of which the annual addresses of the presidents were read. The church history section did not present a separate programme. There has been a growing feeling that there is no special reason for separation, and that the cause of ecclesiastical history, as well as of secular history, is not materially advanced by segregation. If topics in church history are treated thoroughly and scientifically, there is no ground for their exclusion from the general programme. It might be well to say, however, that the existence of a separate church history section did not come about by a cleavage of the Association, but was due to the affiliation some seven years ago of a separate society with the Association.

One session of this meeting was given up to the consideration of topics in diplomacy and diplomatic history, and those especially interested have taken into consideration the formation of a distinct section in which matters of diplomatic history and current problems of international law may be discussed. There may be difference of opinion as to whether there is good ground for taking such a step, but it may be argued that it is distinctly worth while for members who are paying attention to such subjects to come together and to give some thought to the preparation of papers; and, however this may be, there is such obvious community of interest that to organize in connection with the Historical Association certainly seems better than to establish a separate society.

Mr.

The first evening, Friday, a joint session was held with the American Economic Association at Drexel Institute. Joseph Wharton presided and welcomed the associations. Capt. A. T. Mahan, president of the Historical Association, discussed the subject of Subordination in Historical Treatment. He passed rapidly over certain fundamental but wellrecognized attainments of every successful historical writer, such as thoroughness and accuracy of knowledge, intimate acquaintance with innumerable facts, and mastery of the sources of evidence. He referred only in a few words to the

need of sound judgment and critical faculty in the discovery of isolated truth and in the estimation of particular facts, but dwelt at length on the necessity of organization of material, on the need of interpretation that brings out the essence of a subject. Knowledge acquired by faithful, rigid, acute examination of witnesses, and by the sifting of evidence, is the material with which the historian has to deal, out of which he has to build up an artistic creation which is much more. than a bundle of ascertained facts, however undeniable each individual assertion may be. To present numerous related truths so as to convey an impression which will be the truth is the difficult task of the writer of real history, the chief problem of the man who would be more than a mere annalist or the compiler of arid details. Ill-arranged particulars not only confuse and weary the reader, but often leave erroneous impressions that are not far removed from falsehoods. For the casual reader emphasis is essential to due comprehension; and in artistic work emphasis consists less in exaggeration of color than in the disposition of details in regard to foreground and background and the grouping of accessories in due subordination to a central idea." The function, therefore, of the historian is not merely to accumulate facts at once accurately and in entirety, but to present them in such a way that the wayfaring man may not err in his understanding of them. Facts must be so presented as to show essential unity; but unity is not the exclusion of all save one; it is "a multiplicity in which all the many that enter into it are subordinated to one dominant thought or purpose of the designer, whose skill it is to make each and all enhance the dignity and harmony of the central idea."

Prof. E. R. A. Seligman, the president of the Economic Association, spoke on Economics and Social Progress. He dwelt on the fact that great changes had taken place in America, whose history was the history of national infancy. and that in addition to other forces economic impulses are everywhere discernible. By fully recognizing the influence of economic striving and conditions in the past one is better enabled to appreciate the meaning of the present and to look forward hopefully to the future. Such study helps to banish the idea that America's present prosperity must be followed by decadence. There are six points which differentiate us

from the civilization of the past: first, the practical exhaustion of free land, without which slavery is not likely to exist; second, the predominance of industrial capital, which means not industrial aristocracy, but democracy; third, the modern application of scientific methods to industry, making for international friendship and cooperation; fourth, the development of a competitive régime which is to be raised to a higher plane and not destroyed; fifth, the emergence of a true public opinion; sixth, the existence of the democratic ideal.

The Saturday morning session was held in Houston Hall, at the University of Pennsylvania. Provost Harrison, of the university, welcomed the Association and spoke of the history of the university and its relation to the past of the city. All the papers read during the morning were on subjects in American history. The title of Dr. James Schouler's paper was The American of 1775. It dealt chiefly with social and industrial conditions of the Revolutionary days, and gave an interesting description of slavery and white servitude of the time. Dr. James Sullivan, in a paper entitled The Antecedents of the Declaration of Independence, sought to show where the main philosophical assertions of the Declaration had previously appeared in earlier writings. He did not seek to trace out in detail the modern compact philosophy with which Jefferson was imbued or to mark out the connection between the theories of Jefferson and those of the English philosophers of the seventeenth century; but confined his attention to ancient writers, bringing out the fact that Protagoras the Sophist in the fifth century B. C. had put forth the compact theory of the state, that Socrates had spoken of natural law, that Aristotle and Plato referred to fundamental laws to which formal laws should conform in spirit, and that by the beginning of the fifth century A. D. all the important principles of the Declaration had been enunciated. The notion that there is a compact to obey kings appears in the writings of St. Augustine, where may also be found the thought that consent is the basis of government and that obedience to bad laws can be refused. The influence of Augustine through the Middle Ages serves to connect the ideas of the ancient world with the philosophers whose thinking was more directly felt by the Revolutionary fathers.