science, in its own proper field. Weisengruen's madness has method. All this moonshine is put up to us in all seriousness for one purpose only. If all this is impossible, and there is nq denying that fact, then scientific treatment of history is impossible until some dim and distant future of which we can take no cognizance. And meanwhile, (and there is the rub), there is no science, and anybody and everybody has license to write any rot he pleases from any "standpoint" he pleases. . . .
You see, we are at the same old game again. . . .
Weisengruen and Seligman, Masaryk and Slonimski, and the rest of the tribe, are essentially alike. Whether by way of ponderous philosophic moonshine, or elegant phrase-mongering, the flow of objections to the Materialistic Conception of History runs from the same source, and it wends its course towards the same objective point.
