proved by the philosophical faculty and the council of his university, and forwarded by them to the congress for its consideration. On the general ground, Professor Bubnov maintained that the only defensible course was to leave each savant free to speak in what 'tongue he might choose; good sense and the desire to be understood would form a sufficient check upon vagaries. Speaking specifically for Russian, he argued with great warmth against the slight put upon it by exclusion, against an assumed doctrine that it was not a "civilized" speech, and, more appropriately, that the work of Russian scholars in Russian history, in Byzantine history, and in the whole history of eastern Europe (to say nothing of what they had done in the economic history of the West) had attained such dimensions and quality that to exclude their language from an international historical congress would bar it from any but a most defective and conventional consideration of that whole great field. At the close of the congress, as will be seen, the question quietly settled itself.

To give, in one article of moderate length, an account of two hundred scientific papers is manifestly impossible. The mere desire to hear any large number of them, a desire natural to anyone not hopelessly specialized, was sufficient to induce feelings of despair; but such is, as we all know, the nature of congresses held in sections. No convenient place had been found in London where under one roof so many as nine (and at times thirteen or fourteen) separate sections of historical folk could hold simultaneous meetings. Six of them could however be contained in rooms adjacent to each other in Burlington House, to wit, in the rooms of the Royal Society, the Society of Antiquaries, the Royal Astronomical Society, and the Chemical, Geological, and Linnean societies. To go from one to another of these sections, if need required, was therefore not difficult; it was harder in the case of sections which met at places so remote or.scattered as University College, King's College, the Old Hall of Lincoln's Inn (legal section), or the Royal United Service Institution in Whitehall (colonial, military and naval).

But printed summaries of most of the papers were at hand* (a provision, by the way, which much facilitated genuine discussion, and which should be more largely introduced at the annual meetings of the American Historical Association); and while it is not expected that the executive committee of the congress will be able to do much in the way of publication, doubtless many of the more valuable papers will in one way or another find their way into print. Unless the congress exercises its prior rights, this journal expects to

4 A complete set of these summaries is preserved at the office of this journal, and will be placed in various ways at the service of those interested.

have the pleasure of printing, not only the contribution of Professor Pirenne already mentioned, but also those of Professor Dietrich Schäfer of Berlin on the Sound-Dues as a Source of International History, of Mr. Goddard H. Orpen on the Effects of Norman Rule in Ireland, 1169-1333, of Professor Hume Brown of Edinburgh on the Intellectual Influences of Scotland on the Continent in the Eighteenth Century, of Professor Arnold Meyer of Rostock on Charles I. and Rome, of Dr. A. J. Carlyle on the Sources of Medieval Political Theory and its Connection with Medieval Politics, and in some form that of Sir Charles Lucas on Some Historical Problems in the West. Indies; perhaps also others."

Of contributions not already named, one may perhaps mention, as especially notable: in section I., the discourses of Professors A. A. Macdonell of Oxford and C. F. Lehmann-Haupt of Liverpool, on the Early History of Caste and on the Historical Position of Armenia in Ancient Times, respectively; in section II., Professor Otto Seeck on "Die letzte Waffengang des Römischen Heidentums"; in section III., the papers of Professors N. Bubnov and R. Davidsohn, the former on the legend of Gerbert, Pope Silvester II., the latter on the "spring-time of Florentine culture"; in the legal sub-section, Sir Frederick Pollock on the Transformation of Equity and Professor Esmein of Paris on the maxim "Princeps legibus solutus est" in old French law; and in the economic sub-section, Professor Charles M. Andrews's paper, which won warm commendations, on Anglo-French Commercial Rivalry, 1700-1750.

American readers may be interested to know what were the American contributions to this varied banquet. In addition to the papers of Professor Andrews and Dr. Hazeltine, named above and below, they were as follows: the Government of Normandy under Henry II., by Professor Haskins; the Orgy of Tiberius at Capri, by Mr. T. Spencer Jerome of that island; the Relation of the United States to the Philippine Islands, by Professor Bernard Moses of the University of California, formerly a member of the governing commission of that dependency; Contemporaneous European Action on the Monroe Declaration, by Mr. Dexter Perkins; Historiometry, a

5 Other papers known to be on their way to publication are, those of Professor Eduard Meyer on the Representation of Foreign Races on the Egyptian Monuments (Prussian Academy), of Mr. H. W. C. Davis on Canon Law and the Church of England (Church Quarterly Review), of Dr. Harold D. Hazeltine on the Early History of English Equity, of Dr. Felix Liebermann on the National Assembly in the Anglo-Saxon State, of Professor Alexander Cartellieri on "Philipp August und der Zusammenbruch des Angevinischen Reiches"; and a selection, in one volume, from the papers of section IV.

See the Atlantic Monthly for May, 1913.

New Method in the Science of History, by Dr. F. A. Woods; and Typical Steps of American Expansion, by J. F. Jameson.

The conviction has not been concealed, in this brief account, that the act and fact of meeting were of more importance than the scientific content of the papers, many of which would in any case have been produced; yet the scientific product was both extensive and valuable. In definite achievements by framing or promoting important international undertakings, these international historical congresses have hitherto borne no considerable fruit, have indeed. accomplished much less than, with a more truly international permanent organization, they might easily have done. In the business session with which this present congress was concluded, little more was transacted than the selection of the next place of meeting. Official invitations had been received from St. Petersburg and from Athens. In view of its priority and of the number of Russians present to support it, it was natural that the former should be accepted. The international historical congress of 1918 will therefore take place at St. Petersburg. The vote to that effect was accompanied with a resolution, somewhat gratuitous as it appeared to the transatlantic observer, instructing the executive committee to consider the question of adding Russian to the list of languages permitted for papers and discussions. It is not conceivable that an international historical congress should be held in St. Petersburg without the fullest freedom in the use of the Russian language, and those who think of attending, and wish to derive full profit from doing so, may as well address themselves at once, with such courage as they can muster, to the painful assault upon that formidable tongue.

It was natural for those Americans who have attended this or previous international historical congresses, and has had their shares of what Rome or Berlin or London have done in promoting the success of those gatherings, to wish that it might soon be the good fortune of the United States to entertain one. Doubtless the journey would seem difficult to many historians, and after going to St. Petersburg in 1918 it may be natural to wish to assemble in 1923 in some capital more central to western Europe, and the summer climate of Washington, or any other American city, would seem too hot to even the most philosophical of European historians; but if the spring vacations of European universities continue to be as ample in 1928 as now, we may well cherish the hope of entertaining that spring in our own capital the eighth international congress of historical science.

In the way of preparation for the future, the present meeting

went no farther than to appoint a small British executive committee, to act till a special committee of organization for the new congress should be brought into existence. The executive committee which had been in function during the six days of the congress had been fortified by a certain number of non-British members from the various sections. It is to be hoped, in the interest of proper future development and usefulness of the congress as an institution, as well as in the more immediate interest of catholic judgments on matters concerning the next congress in particular, that in its preliminary organization means may be taken toward creating at least a relatively permanent advisory committee of representatives of various nations, which on each quinquennial occasion may act with the national body entrusted with the immediate proceedings. Such a step, toward which indeed some suggestion was made by the expiring committee, would aid to give continuity of regulations and policy, and might ultimately make the congress a potent means, not merely as now of international friendship but of international achievement.

It was announced that, if more could not be done in the way of publication, at least a volume would be brought out containing the addresses of the president and acting president of this London congress, a general record of its organization and proceedings, and the summaries already mentioned as having been distributed in connection with the reading of the papers. Then the congress dissolved, with many formal and informal words of appreciation for the labor, the thoughtfulness, and the hospitality which had been expended in making it so distinguished a success. None, it is certain, were more cordial in the feeling of gratitude than the Americans, to whom English welcome had been especially abundant, and for whom London and England have stronger associations and richer sources of feeling than they can have for nations who do not owe to England their existence.

J. F. J.

7 Also, the British Academy will be requested to publish in its proceedings such papers as were presented by fellows or corresponding members of that body. On the papers in modern history, see also note 5, above.

THE INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY

Two great questions front all students of the social sciences: What happened? Why? History attempts to deal mainly with the first. It gathers the scattered traces of events and fills the archives of civilization with their records. Its science sifts the evidence and prepares the story. Its art recreates the image of what has been, and "old, forgotten far-off things" become once more the heritage of the present. Though no magic touch can wholly restore the dead past, history satisfies in considerable part the curiosity which asks "What happened?" But "Why?" What forces have been at work to move the latent energies of nations, to set going the march of events? What makes our revolutions or our tory reactions? Why did Rome fall, Christianity triumph, feudalism arise, the Inquisition flourish, monarchy become absolute and of divine right, Spain decline, England emerge, democracy awaken and grow potent? Why did these things happen when or where they did? Was it the direct intervention of an overruling Providence, for whose purposes the largest battalions were always on the move? Or are the ways past finding out? Do the events themselves reveal a meaning?

These are not simply questions for philosophers. Children insist upon them most. He is a lucky story-teller, whose Jack-the-GiantKiller or Robin Hood is not cut through, time and again, by the unsatisfied curiosity as to why the beanstalk grew so high, why Jack wanted to climb, why Robin Hood lived under a greenwood tree, etc. Many a parental Herodotus has been wrecked on just such grounds. The problem for the philosopher or scientist is just the same as that brought forward by the child. The drama of history unrolls before our eyes in more sober form; our Robin Hoods become Garibaldis, our Jack-the-Giant-Killer a Napoleon, but we still have to ask how fortune and genius so combined to place southern Italy in the hands of the one, Europe at the feet of the other. Not only is the problem the same, but we answer it in the same way. Here, at once, we have a clue to the nature of interpretation. For anyone knows that you answer the child's "Why?" by telling another story. Each story is, in short, an explanation, and each explanation a story. The school-boy's excuse for being late is that he couldn't find his cap. He couldn't find his cap because he was playing in the barn. Each incident was a cause and each cause an incident in his biography. In like manner most of the reasons we assign for our acts merely state