stndent of history lives among them and handles them daily. Some of them become generally familiar through the use to which he turns them in his writings, while a few of the others have long been standard works of literature. But the mass of historical sources is concealed from public view, and it requires a special effort to bring even specimens before readers whose leisure is so short that they cannot waste any part of it. Three reasons, apparently, have blended to give the excerpt system a recognised place in historical method. They are a desire to enliven the subject, a desire to save the time of those who are busy and of those who have no large library close at hand, and a desire, strengthened by the universal scientific impulse, to secure accuracy. One could amply illustrate the forms which these motives, separately or together, have assumed in the hands of Continental, English and American editors during the past twenty-five years. For the present instances chosen from England, Switzerland and the United States (the three homes of Teutonic democracy) will suffice Stubbs' Select Charters contains documents which are essential to a sound knowledge of English constitutional history from its origins to Edward II. This excellent book—a standard of what such work should be-consciously restricts its scope to the demands of a small and special class by leaving in their original Latin form nearly all the passages which it assembles. Of a more popular nature than the Select Charters are Oechsli's Quellenbuch for Switzerland, and Hart's American History told by Contemporaries for the United States.

While explaining this regard for sources which is everywhere observable among historical writers and editors, one should not dismiss in a phrase the influence of science upon history. Since 1850 the humanities—and with them such allied branches as philosophy and history-have been deeply affected by the spirit which a close study of nature, of man and of matter, has aroused or confirmed. Belief in growth and belief in law have done so much towards supplanting former and more arbitrary ideas that the generation which is being educated now will find some difficulty in understanding how history was viewed and taught

in the early years of the century. It is not only on the side of negative criticism that the scientific tendency has modified our conception of the past, although a wholesale destruction of myth began in 1812 with Niebuhr's attack on Livy's stories of Romulus and Remus, of Numa Pompilius and the nymph Egeria. New and positive convictions have shaped themselves about the process of progress, the character of institutions, the development of nations, and the immense value of comparison in estimating the sense of any single fact or group of facts. But nowhere in the historical sphere has a scientific impulse been more noticeable than in whatever relates to exactness of information and sincerity of tone. The best men of science have shown that they can follow out vexed questions like the origin of the world or the origin of species, and yet accept the facts discovered in spite of any startling import which they may have. Historians are likewise learning to keep themselves in the background and "let humanity decide". The day is past when anyone who wilfully glorifies the Whigs of the Revolution or the Tories of the Napoleonic Wars can escape being suspected and condemned.

Lord Acton in his weighty inaugural address at Cambridge, 1895, singled out Leopold von Ranke as "the representative of the age which instituted the modern study of history. He taught it to be critical, to be colourless, and to be new." This noble type of the investigator was throughout sixty laborious years a truly scientific student who examined, criticised and presented sources, to the end that correct information might be available. "His course," says Lord Acton, "had been determined in early life by Quentin Durward. The shock of the discovery that Scott's Lewis the Eleventh was inconsistent with the original in Commynes made him resolve that his object thenceforth should be above all things to follow, without swerving, and in stern subordination and surrender, the lead of his authorities. He decided effectually to repress the poet, the patriot, the religious or political partisan, to sustain no cause, to banish himself from his books, and to write nothing that would gratify his own feelings or disclose his private convictions.. When a strenuous

b

divine who, like him, had written on the Reformation, hailed him as a comrade, Ranke repelled his advances. "You," he said, are in the first place a Christian: I am in the first place a historian. There is a gulf between us." He was the first eminent writer who exhibited what Michelet calls "le désintéressement des morts". A man of such calm temper, of such unselfish purpose and such splendid learning, was well fitted to spread the doctrine that history must be re-established on a sure and sound basis of scrutinised and sifted evidence. He repressed his own opinions, content if he could distinguish truth from error, and remove in part Sir Robert Walpole's reproach: Anything but history, for history must be false".

Whatever has favoured the spread of Ranke's school has equally accentuated the value of those historical materials upon which members of his school depend-the primary and authentic memorials of any given age. Ranke himself in passing back from Quentin Durward to Philip de Comines took the step which a great many persons ought, but neglect, to take. He would not rest content with romance, and determining to investigate an important character approached the quarter where his doubts could best be resolved. He might find that Comines' chronicle required criticism, but at all events its author had served Louis XI. while Sir Walter Scott had not. And so, however certain one may be that acquaintance with the best sources will add a desired freshness to historical study, he should see that they have another and a stronger claim. They are the stone and mortar of which not merely the foundation but the enclosing walls-if the fabric be worth anything— consist.

Having connected the love of scientific accuracy with a strict dependence on the sources, it still remains to indicate the nature of the alliance, if one exist, between scientific accuracy and selections from the sources. A fair objection may be raised at this point on the ground that no opinion worth holding can rest on a single statement. "Historical events and personages should be looked at in every light before judgment about them is permitted to form itself in one's mind." This doubtless is

a just contention when addressed to the author, who must examine and weigh each action and circumstance; but the unlearned reader cannot, if he would, check and verify as he advances. He must accept many conclusions on his author s word. It does not therefore follow that he should be wholly helpless in his author's hands. So long as he is ignorant of the manner in which historical books are prepared, he must continue in a state of painful subjection. One recommends the beginner to read passages from original sources that he may qualify himself in a measure for the office of critic. The smattering of information which he obtains will have a certain value, but it will be relatively small. The great benefit which he may expect to receive is a new perception of the difference between various kinds of materials, some faithful, others misleading. Let him once seize a few broad principles, the alphabet of historical students, and, aided in their application by common sense, he .can estimate rightly the calibre of prominent authors about him. One cannot promise that technically his criticism will deserve very wide attention, but he will read with increased intelligence, and will be less apt than before to ground rigid beliefs on a slender basis. In a word, the novice will prize accuracy the more he realises the difficulties which stand in the way of securing it; and these difficulties he can most easily grasp through an elementary knowledge of the sources and of how they differ from "literature".

This introduction has the clear, if limited, design of presenting a few elementary distinctions, and of exemplifying them by reference to English history-more especially to the extracts which follow. It is not an essay on method, for whoever pushes beyond the threshold will find such treatises as he needs by Droysen and Bernheim in German, by Tardif, Chevalier, Langlois and Seignobos in French, and by Freeman in English. It is rather a declaration that history is something besides pure dulness, or pure story telling, or a means of lauding friends and reviling foes. Although a Venetian can thread the calli or lanes of his native city, a foreigner soon loses his way among them, and, once astray, is lucky if his sole knowledge of Italian

be Dove è San Marco ? Likewise suggestions which an expert would deem obvious and commonplace, may assist those who have not yet mastered the rudiments.

The scope and character of history have been variously defined by opposing theorists and with equal dogmatism. Some would frankly confine it to politics, while others are so generous that they would make it embrace every authentic action of mankind. Such fluidity of opinion regarding limits alone marks it off from fellowship with the exact sciences, nor indeed is there any way of bringing it into the same class with them. The stars do not consciously and wilfully deceive the astronoThe rocks do not perjure themselves in telling their story to the geologist. But the historian is for ever thrown back on narratives which are vitiated by prejudice, vanity and passion. In the absence of definite experimental tests like those used by the sciences, history cannot claim the precision either of physics or of biology. The conditions are never twice the same, and the human factors concerned instead of being passive objects of inquiry are emotional and intellectual agents.

mer.

One must emphasise this distinction, because along with the growing belief in law and the spread of scientific methods, a certain looseness of language has, strangely enough, become frequent. Writers imply, if they do not state, that accurate research and impartiality of tone will work the miracle of transferring history to a place among the sciences. Let us not be beguiled into any such hope-unless we are willing that the term should comprise merely facts and dates. During the course of the eighteenth century the Benedictines of St. Maur compiled a valuable series called L'Art de Vérifier les Dates. Gibbon's footnotes testify that he used it regularly, and it is still a part of every well-equipped library. The aim of this work is to furnish an accurate synopsis of events, without the least effort at producing a literary effect or establishing a point in debate. It is possible that the business of verifying dates may hereafter be put on a scientific basis, that large sections of chronology may be determined. And under this head one