Page "belles_lettres" Paragraph 1270

In all fairness it must be admitted that Adams made no pretense at being an impartial historian.

Impartiality to him meant an unwillingness to generalize and to search for a synthesis.

He deplored the impact of German historiography on the writing of history, terming it a `` dismal monster ''.

Ranke and his disciples had reduced history to a profession of dullness ; ;

Brooks Adams preferred the chronicles of Froissart or the style and theorizing of Edward Gibbon, for at least they took a stand on the issues about which they wrote.

He wrote eloquently to William James that impartial history was not only impossible but undesirable.

If the historian was convinced of his own correctness, then he should not allow his vision to become fogged by disturbing facts.

It was history that must be in error, not the historian.

It was this basic trait that separated Adams from the ranks of professional historians and led him to commit time and time again what was his most serious offense against the historical method -- namely, the tendency to assume the truth of an hypothesis before submitting it to the test of facts.