Chapter 33

common.

[22] In practice one does not as a rule resolve to treat a point of history before knowing whether there are or are not documents in existence which enable it to be studied. On the contrary, it is the accidental discovery of a document which suggests the idea of thoroughly elucidating the point of history to which it relates, and thus leads to the collection, for this purpose, of other documents of the same class.

[23] It is pitiable to see how the best of the early scholars struggled bravely, but vainly, to solve problems which would not even have existed for them if their collections had not been so incomplete. This lack of material was a disadvantage for which the most brilliant ingenuity could not compensate.

[24] "How hard it is to gain the means whereby we mount to the sources" (Goethe, _Faust_, i. 3).

[25] See C. V. Langlois, _H. H. Bancroft et Cie._, in the _Revue universitaire_, 1894, i. p. 233.

[26] The earlier scholars were conscious of the unfavourable character of the conditions under which they worked. They suffered keenly from the insufficiency of the instruments of research and the means of comparison. Most of them made great efforts to obtain information. Hence these voluminous correspondences between scholars of the last few centuries, of which our libraries preserve so many precious fragments, and these accounts of scientific searches, of journeys undertaken for the discovery of historical documents, which, under the name of _Iter_ (_Iter Italicum_, _Iter Germanicum_, &c.), were formerly fashionable.

[27] We may remark, in passing, a delusion which is childish enough but very natural, and very common among collectors: they all tend to exaggerate the intrinsic value of the documents they possess, simply because they themselves are the possessors. Documents have been published with a sumptuous array of commentaries by persons who had accidentally acquired them, and who would, quite rightly, have attached no importance to them if they had met with them in public collections. This is, we may add, merely a manifestation, in a somewhat crude form, of a general tendency against which it is always necessary to guard: a man readily exaggerates the importance of the documents he possesses, the documents he has discovered, the texts he has edited, the persons and the questions he has studied.

[28] See L. Delisle, _Le Cabinet des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque nationale_, Paris, 1868-81, 3 vols. 4to. The histories of ancient depositories of documents, which have been recently published in considerable number, have been modelled on this admirable work.

[29] Many of the ancient documents still in circulation are the proceeds of ancient thefts from state institutions. The precautions now taken against a recurrence of such depredations are stringent, and, in nearly every instance, as effective as could be desired.

As to modern (printed) documents, the rule of legal deposit [compulsory presentation of copies to specified libraries], which has now been adopted by nearly all civilised countries, guarantees their preservation in public institutions.

[30] It is known that Napoleon I. entertained the chimerical design of concentrating at Paris the archives of the whole of Europe, and that, for a beginning, he conveyed to that city the archives of the Vatican, the Holy Roman Empire, the crown of Castile, and others, which later on the French were compelled to restore. Confiscation is now out of the question. But the ancient archives of the notaries might be centralised everywhere, as in some countries they are already, in public institutions. It is not easy to explain why at Paris the departments of Foreign Affairs, of War, and of Marine preserve ancient papers whose natural place would be at the Archives Nationales. A great many more anomalies of this kind might be mentioned, which in certain cases impede, where they do not altogether preclude, research; for the small collections, whose existence is not required, are precisely those whose regulations are the most oppressive.

[31] The international exchange of documents is worked in Europe (without charge to the public) by the agency of the various Foreign Offices. Besides this, most of the great institutions have agreements with each other for mutual loans; this system is as sure and sometimes more rapid in its operation than the diplomatic system. The question of lending original documents for use outside the institution where they are preserved has of late years been frequently mooted at congresses of historians and librarians. The results so far obtained are eminently satisfactory.

[32] These are sometimes large collections of formidable bulk; it is more natural to undertake the cataloguing of small accumulations which demand less labor. It is for the same reason that many insignificant but short cartularies have been published, while several cartularies of the highest importance, being voluminous, have still to be edited.

[33] See his autobibliography, published by E. de Broglie, _Bernard de Montfaucon et les Bernardins_, ii. (Paris, 1891, 8vo), p. 323.

[34] E. Renan, _L'Avenir de la science_, p. 217.

[35] _Romania_, xxi. (1892), p. 625.

[36] In the passage quoted above.

[37] Mr. H. H. Bancroft, in his Memoirs, entitled "Literary Industries" (New York, 1891, 16mo), analyses with sufficient minuteness some practical consequences of the imperfection of the methods of research. He considers the case of an industrious writer proposing to write the history of California. He easily procures a few books, reads them, takes notes; these books refer him to others, which he consults in the public libraries of the city where he resides. Several years are passed in this manner, at the end of which he perceives that he has not a tenth part of the resources in his hands; he travels, maintains correspondences, but, finally despairing of exhausting the subject, he comforts his conscience and pride with the reflection that he has done much, and that many of the works he has not seen, like many of those he has, are probably of very slight historic value. As to newspapers and the myriads of United States government reports, all of them containing facts bearing on Californian history; being a sane man, he has never dreamed of searching them from beginning to end: he has turned over a few of them, that is all; he knows that each of these fields of research would afford a labour of several years, and that all of them would fill the better part of his life with drudgery. As for oral testimony and manuscripts, he will gather a few unpublished anecdotes in chance conversations; he will obtain access to a few family papers; all this will appear in his book as notes and authorities. Now and again he will get hold of a few documentary curiosities among the state archives, but as it would take fifteen years to master the whole collection, he will naturally be content to glean a little here and there. Then he begins to write. He does not feel called upon to inform the public that he has not seen _all_ the documents; on the contrary, he makes the most of what he has been able to procure in the course of twenty-five years of industrious research.

[38] Some dispense with personal search by invoking the assistance of the functionaries charged with the administration of depositories of documents; the indispensable search is, in these cases, conducted by the functionaries instead of by the public. Cf. _Bouvard et Pécuchet_, p. 158. Bouvard and Pécuchet resolve to write the life of the Duke of Angoulême; for this purpose "they determined to spend several days at the municipal library of Caen to make researches. The librarian placed general histories and pamphlets at their disposal...."

[39] These considerations have already been presented and developed in the _Revue universitaire_, 1894, i. p. 321 _sqq._

[40] It is well known that, since the opening of the Papal Archives, several governments and learned societies have established Institutes at Rome, the members of which are, for the most part, occupied in cataloguing and making known the documents of these archives, in co-operation with the functionaries of the Vatican. The French School at Rome, the Austrian Institute, the Prussian Institute, the Polish Mission, the Institute of the "Goerresgesellschaft," Belgian, Danish, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, and other scholars, have performed, and are performing, cataloguing work of considerable extent in the archives of the Vatican.

[41] Catalogues of documents sometimes, but not always, mention the fact that such and such a document has been edited, dealt with critically, utilised. The generally received rule is that the compiler mentions circumstances of this kind when he is aware of them, without imposing on himself the enormous task of ascertaining the truth on this head[sic] in every instance where he is ignorant of it.

[42] E. Bernheim, _Lehrbuch der historischen Methode_, 2nd ed., pp. 196-202.

[43] C. V. Langlois, _Manuel de Bibliographie historique_: I. _Instruments bibliographiques_, Paris, 1896, 16mo.

[44] E. Renan, _Feuilles détachées_ (Paris, 1892, 8vo), pp. 96 _sqq._

[45] vii. p. 228 _sqq._

[46] E. A. Freeman, _The Methods of Historical Study_ (London, 1885, 8vo), p. 45.

In France geography has long been regarded as a science closely related to history. An _Agrégation_, which combines history and geography, exists at the present day, and in the _lycées_ history and geography are taught by the same professors. Many people persist in asserting the legitimacy of this combination, and even take umbrage when it is proposed to separate two branches of knowledge united, as they say, by many essential connecting links. But it would be hard to find any good reason, or any facts of experience, to prove that a professor of history, or an historian, is so much the better the more he knows of geology, oceanography, climatology, and the whole group of geographical sciences. In fact, it is with some impatience, and to no immediate advantage, that students of history work through the courses of geography which their curricula force upon them; and those students who have a real taste for geography would be very glad to throw history overboard. The artificial union of history with geography dates back, in France, to an epoch when geography was an ill-defined and ill-arranged subject, regarded by all as a negligeable branch of study. It is a relic of antiquity that we ought to get rid of at once.

[47] "Historiography" is a branch of the "History of Literature;" it is the sum of the results obtained by the critics who have hitherto studied ancient historical writings, such as annals, memoirs, chronicles, biographies, and so forth.

[48] This is only true under reservation; there is an instrument of research which is indispensable to all historians, to all students, whatever be the subject of their special study. History, moreover, is here in the same situation as the majority of the other sciences: all who prosecute original research, of whatever kind, need to know several living languages, those of countries where men think and work, of countries which, from the point of view of science, stand in the forefront of contemporary civilisation.

In our days the cultivation of the sciences is not confined to any single country, or even to Europe. It is international. All problems, the same problems, are being studied everywhere simultaneously. It is difficult to-day, and to-morrow it will be impossible, to find a subject which can be treated without taking cognisance of works in a foreign language. Henceforth, for ancient history, Greek and Roman, a knowledge of German will be as imperative as a knowledge of Greek and Latin. Questions of strictly local history are the only ones still accessible to those who do not possess the key to foreign literatures. The great problems are beyond their reach, for the wretched and ridiculous reason that works on these problems in any language but their own are sealed books to them.

Total ignorance of the languages which have hitherto been the ordinary vehicles of science (German, English, French, Italian) is a disease which age renders incurable. It would not be exacting too much to require every candidate for a scientific profession to be at least _trilinguis_--that is, to be able to understand, fairly easily, two languages besides his mother-tongue. This is a requirement to which scholars were not subject formerly, when Latin was still the common language of learned men, but which the conditions of modern scientific work will henceforth cause to press with increasing weight upon the scholars of every country.[*]

[*] Perhaps a day will come when it will be necessary to know the most important Slavonic language; there are already scholars who are setting themselves to learn Russian. The idea of restoring Latin to its old position of universal language is chimerical. See the file of the _Phoenix, seu nuntius latinus universalis_ (London, 1891, 4to).

The French scholars who are unable to read German and English are thereby placed in a position of permanent inferiority as compared with their better instructed colleagues in France and abroad; whatever their merit, they are condemned to work with insufficient means of information, to work badly. They know it. They do their best to hide their infirmity, as something to be ashamed of, except when they make a cynical parade of it and boast of it; but this boasting, as we can easily see, is only shame showing itself in a different way. Too much stress cannot be laid upon the fact that a practical knowledge of foreign languages is auxiliary in the first degree to all historical work, as indeed it is to scientific work in general.

[49] When the "auxiliary sciences" were first inserted in the curricula of French universities, it was observed that some students whose special subject was the French Revolution, and who had no interest whatever in the middle ages, took up palæography as an "auxiliary science," and that some students of geography, who were in no way interested in antiquity, took up epigraphy. Evidently they had failed to understand that the study of the "auxiliary sciences" is recommended, not as an end in itself, but because it is of practical utility to those who devote themselves to certain special subjects. See the _Revue universitaire_, 1895, ii. p. 123.

[50] On this point note the opinions of T. von Sickel and J. Havet, quoted in the _Bibliothèque l'École des chartes_, 1896, p. 87. In 1854 the Austrian Institute "für österreichische Geschichtsforschung" was organised on the model of the French École des chartes. Another institution of the same type has lately been created in the "Istituto di studi superiori" at Florence. "We are accustomed," we read in England, "to hear the complaint that there is not in this country any institution resembling the École des chartes" (_Quarterly Review_, July 1896, p. 122).

[51] This is a suitable place to enumerate the principal "manuals" published in the last twenty-five years. But a list of them, ending at 1894, will be found in Bernheim's _Lehrbuch_, pp. 206 sqq. We will only refer to the great "manuals" of "Philology" (in the comprehensive sense of the German "Philologie," which includes the history of language and literature, epigraphy, palæography, and all that pertains to textual criticism) now in course of publication: the _Grundriss far indo-arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde_, edited by G. Bühler; the _Grundriss der iranischen Philologie_, edited by W. Geiger and E. Kuhn; the _Handbuch der classichen Altertumswissenschaft_, edited by I. von Müller; the _Grundriss der germanischen Philologie_, edited by H. Paul, the second edition of which began to appear in 1896; the _Grundriss der romanischen Philologie_, edited y G. Gröber. In these vast repertories there will be found, along with a short presentment of the subject, complete bibliographical references, direct as well as indirect.

[52] The French "manuals" of MM. Prou (Palæography), Giry (Diplomatic), Cagnat (Latin Epigraphy), and others, have diffused among the public the idea and knowledge of the auxiliary subjects of study. New editions have enabled, and will enable, them to be kept up to date--a very necessary operation, for most of these subjects, though now settled in the main, are being enriched and made more precise every day. Cf. _supra_, p. 38.

[53] What exactly are we to understand by this "incommunicable knowledge," of which we speak? When a specialist is very familiar with the documents of a given class or period, associations of ideas are formed in his brain; and when he examines a new document of the same class or species, analogies suddenly dawn upon him which would escape any one of less experience, however well furnished he might be with the most perfect repertories. The fact is, that not all the peculiarities of documents can be isolated; there are some which cannot be classified under any intelligible head, and which, therefore, cannot be found in any tabulated list. But the human memory, when it is good, retains the impression of these peculiarities, and even a faint and distant stimulus suffices to revive the apprehension of them.

[54] _Supra_, p. 17.

[55] This expression, which frequently occurs, needs explanation. It is not to be taken to apply to a _species_ of facts. There are no historical facts in the sense in which we speak of chemical facts. The same fact is or is not historical according to the manner in which it is known. It is only the mode of acquiring knowledge that is historical. A sitting of the Senate is a fact of direct observation for one who takes part in it; it becomes historical for the man who reads about it in a report. The eruption of Vesuvius in the time of Pliny is a geological fact which is known historically. The historical character is not in the facts, but in the manner of knowing them.

[56] Fustel de Coulanges has said it. Cf. _supra_, p. 4, note 1.

[57] In the sciences of observation it is the fact itself, observed directly, which is the starting-point.

[58] _Infra_, ch. vii.

[59] We shall not treat specially of the criticism of material documents (objects, monuments, &c.) where it differs from the criticism of written documents.

[60] For the details and the logical justification of this method see Seignobos, _Les Conditions psychologiques de la connaissance en histoire_, in the _Revue philosophique_, 1887, ii. pp. 1, 168.

[61] The most favourable case, that in which the document has been drawn up by what is called an ocular "witness," is still far short of the ideal required for scientific knowledge. The notion of _witness_ has been borrowed from the procedure of the law-courts; reduced to scientific terms, it becomes that of an _observer_. A testimony is an observation. But, in point of fact, historical testimony differs materially from scientific observation. The observer proceeds by fixed rules, and clothes his report in language of rigorous precision. On the other hand, the "witness" observes without method, and reports in unprecise language; it is not known whether he has taken the necessary precautions. It is an essential attribute of historical documents that they come before us as the result of work which has been done without method and without guarantee.

[62] See B. Lasch, _Das Erwachen und die Entwickelung der historischen Kritik im Mittelalter_ (Breslan, 1887, 8vo).

[63] Natural credulity is deeply rooted in indolence. It is easier to believe than to discuss, to admit than to criticise, to accumulate documents than to weigh them. It is also pleasanter; he who criticises documents must sacrifice some of them, and such a sacrifice seems a dead loss to the man who has discovered or acquired the document.

[64] _Revue philosophique_, l.c., p. 178.

[65] A member of the _Société des humanistes français_ (founded at Paris in 1894) amused himself by pointing out, in the _Bulletin_ of this society, certain errors amenable to verbal criticism which occur in various editions of posthumous works, especially the _Mémoires d'outre-tombe_. He showed that it is possible to remove obscurities in the most modern documents by the same methods which are used in restoring ancient texts.

[66] On the habits of the mediæval copyists, by whose intermediate agency most of the literary works of antiquity have come down to us, see the notices collected by W. Wattenbach, _Das Schriftwesen im Mittelalter_, 3rd ed. (Berlin, 1896, 8vo).

[67] See, for example, the _Coquilles lexicographiques_ which have been collected by A. Thomas, in _Romania_, xx. (1891), pp. 464 _sqq._

[68] See E. Bernheim, _Lehrbuch der historischen Methode_, 2nd ed., pp. 341-54. Also consult F. Blass, in the _Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft_, edited by I. von Müller, I., 2nd ed. (1892), pp. 249-89 (with a detailed bibliography); A. Tobler, in the _Grundriss der romanischen Philologie_, I. (1888), pp. 253-63; H. Paul, in the _Grundriss der germanischen Philologie_, I., 2nd ed. (1896), pp. 184-96.

In French read the section _Critique des textes, in Minerva, Introduction à l'étude des classiques scolaires grecs et latins_, by J. Gow and S. Reinach (Paris, 1890, 16mo), pp. 50-65.

The work of J. Taylor, "History of the Transmission of Ancient Books to Modern Times" (Liverpool, 1889, 16mo), is of no value.

[69] This rule is not absolute. The editor is generally accorded the right of unifying the spelling of an autograph document--provided that he informs the public of the fact--wherever, as in most modern documents, the orthographical vagaries of the author possess no philological interest. See the _Instructions pour la publication des textes historiques_, in the _Bulletin de la Commission royale d'histoire de Belgique_, 5th series, vi. (1896); and the _Grundsätze für die Herausgabe von Actenstücken zur neueren Geschichte_, laboriously discussed by the second and third Congresses of German historians, in 1894 and 1895, in the Deutsche _Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft_, xi. p. 200, xii. p. 364. The last Congresses of Italian historians, held at Genoa (1893) and at Rome (1895), have also debated this question, but without result. What are the liberties which it is legitimate to take in reproducing autograph texts? The question is more difficult than is imagined by those who are not professionally concerned with it.

[70] Interpolations will be treated of in chapter iii p. 92.

[71] The scribes of the Carlovingian Renaissance and of the Renaissance proper of the fifteenth century endeavoured to furnish intelligible texts. They therefore corrected everything they did not understand. Several ancient works have been in this manner irretrievably ruined.

[72] The principal of these are, for the classical languages, besides the above-mentioned work of Blass (_supra_, p. 74, note), the _Adversaria critica_ of Madvig (Copenhagen, 1871-74, 3 vols. 8vo). For Greek, the celebrated _Commentatio palæographica_ of F. J. Bast, published as an appendix to an edition of the grammarian Gregory of Corinth (Leipzig, 1811, 8vo), and the _Variæ lectiones_ of Cobet (Leiden, 1873, 8vo). For Latin, H. Hagen, _Gradus ad criticen_ (Leipzig, 1879, 8vo), and W. M. Lindsay, "An Introduction to Latin Textual Emendation based on the Text of Plautus" (London, 1896, 16mo). A contributor to the _Bulletin de la Société des humanistes français_ has expressed, in this publication, a wish that a similar collection might be compiled for modern French.

[73] Cf. _Revue Critique_, 1895, ii. p. 358.

[74] Quite recently our scholars used to neglect this elementary precaution, in order, as they said, to avoid an "air of pedantry." M. B. Hauréau has published, in his _Notices et extraits de quelques manuscrits latins de la Bibliothèque nationale_ (vi. p. 310), a piece of rhythmic verse, "De presbytero et logico." "It is not unedited," says he; "Thomas Wright has already published it.... But this edition is very defective; the text is occasionally quite unintelligible. We have, therefore, considerably amended it, making use, for this purpose, of two copies, which, it most be conceded, are neither of them faultless...." The edition follows, with no variants. Verification is impossible.

[75] "Textual emendation too often misses the mark through want of knowledge of what may be called _the rules of the game_" (W. M. Lindsay, p.v. in the work referred to above).

[76] It has often been asked whether _all_ texts are worth the trouble of "establishing" and publishing them. "Among our ancient texts," says M. J. Bédier, referring to French mediæval literature, "which ought we to publish? Every one. But, it will be asked, are we not already staggering under the weight of documents?... The following is the reason why publication should be exhaustive. As long as we are confronted by this mass of sealed and mysterious manuscripts, they will appeal to us as if they contained the answer to every riddle; every candid mind will be hampered by them in its flights of induction. It is desirable to publish them, if only to get rid of them and to be able, for the future, to work as if they did not exist...." (_Revue des Deux Mondes_, February 15, 1894, p. 910). All documents ought to be catalogued, as we have already pointed out (p. 31), in order that researchers may be relieved of the fear that there may be documents, useful for their purposes, of which they know nothing. But in every case where a summary analysis of a document can give a sufficient idea of its contents, and its form is of no special interest, there is nothing gained by publishing it _in extenso_. We need not overburden ourselves. Every document will be analysed some day, but many documents will never be published.

[77] Editors of texts often render their task still longer and more difficult than it need be by undertaking the additional duty of commentators, under the pretext of explaining the text. It would be to their advantage to spare themselves this labour, and to dispense with all annotation which does not belong to the "apparatus criticus" proper. See, on this point, T. Lindner, _Ueber die Herausgabe von geschichtlichen Quellen_, in the _Mittheilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung_, xvi., 1895, pp. 501 _sqq._

[78] To realise this it is enough to compare what has hitherto been done by the most active societies, such as the Society of the _Monumenta Germaniæ historica_ and the _Istituto storico italiano_, with what still remains for them to do. The greater part of the most ancient documents and the hardest to restore, which have long taxed the ingenuity of scholars, have now been placed in a relatively satisfactory condition. But an immense amount of mechanical work has still to be done.

[79] R. de Gourmont, _Le Latin mystique_ (Paris, 1891, 8vo), p. 258.

[80] See these alleged autographs in the _Bibliothèque nationale_, nouv. acq. fr., No. 709.

[81] F. Blass has enumerated the chief of these motives with reference to the pseudepigraphic literature of antiquity (pp. 269 _sqq._ in the work already quoted).

[82] E. Bernheim (_Lehrbuch_, pp. 243 _sqq._) gives a somewhat lengthy list of spurious documents, now recognised as such. Here it will be enough to recall a few famous hoaxes: Sarchoniathon, Clotilde de Surville, Ossian. Since the publication of Bernheim's book several celebrated documents, hitherto exempt from suspicion, have been struck off the list of authorities. See especially A. Piaget, _La Chronique des chanoines de Neuchâtel_ (Neuchâtel, 1896, 8vo).

[83] When the modifications of the primitive text are the work of the author himself, they are "alterations." Internal analysis, and the comparison of different editions, bring them to light.

[84] See F. Blass, ibid., pp. 254 _sqq._

[85] As a rule it matters little whether the _name_ of the author has or has not been discovered. We read, however, in the _Histoire_ _littéraire de la France_ (xxvi. p. 388): "We have ignored anonymous sermons: writings of this facile character are of no importance for literary history when their authors are unknown." Are they of any more importance when we know the authors' names?

[86] In very favourable cases the examination of the plagiarist's mistakes has made it possible to determine even this style of handwriting, the size, and the manner of arrangement of the manuscript source. The deductions of the investigation of sources, like those of textual criticism, are sometimes supported by obvious palæographical considerations.

[87] The Investigations of Julien Havet (_Questions mérovingiennes_, Paris, 1896, 8vo) are regarded as models. Very difficult problems are there solved with faultless elegance. It is also well worth while to read the memoirs in which M. L. Delisle has discussed questions of origin. It is in the treatment of these questions that the most accomplished scholars win their triumphs.

[88] See the edition of H. R. Luard (vol. i., London, 1890, 8vo) in the _Rerum Britannicarum medii ævi scriptores_. Matthew of Westminster's _Flores historiarum_ figure in the Roman "Index," because of the passages borrowed from the _Chronica majora_ of Matthew of Paris, while the _Chronica majora_ themselves have escaped censure.

[89] It would be instructive to draw up a list of the celebrated historical works, such as Augustin Thierry's _Histoire de la Conquête de l'Angleterre par les Normands_, whose authority has been completely destroyed after the authorship of their sources has been studied. Nothing amuses the gallery more than to see an historian convicted of having built a theory on falsified documents. Nothing is more calculated to cover an historian with confusion than to find that he has fallen into the error of treating seriously documents which are no documents at all.

[90] One of the crudest (and commonest) forms of "uncritical method" is that which consists in employing as if they were documents, and placing on the same footing as documents, the utterances of modern authors on the subject of documents. Novices do not make a sufficient distinction, in the works of modern authors, between what is added to the original source and what is taken from it.

[91] See a list of examples in Bernheim's _Handbuch_, pp. 283, 289.

[92] It is because it is necessary to subject documents of mediæval and ancient history to the most searching criticism in respect of authorship that the study of antiquity and the middle ages passes for more "scientific" than that of modern times. The truth is, that it is merely hampered by more preliminary difficulties.

[93] _Revue philosophique_, 1887, ii. p. 170.

[94] The theory of the critical investigation of authorship is now settled, _ne varietur_; it is given in detail in Bernheim's _Lehrbuch_, pp. 242-340. For this reason we have had no scruple in dismissing it with a short sketch. In French, the introduction of M. G. Monod to his _Études critiques sur les sources de l'histoire mérovingienne_ (Paris, 1872, 8vo) contains elementary considerations on the subject. Cf. _Revue Critique_, 1873, i. p. 308.

[95] Renan, _Feuilles détachées_, p. 103.

[96] It would be very interesting to have information on the methods of work of the great scholars, particularly those who undertook long tasks of collection and classification. Some information of this kind is to be found in their papers, and occasionally in their correspondence. On the methods of Du Cange, see L. Feugère, _Étude sur la vie et les ouvrages de Du Cange_ (Paris, 1858, 8vo), pp. 62 _sqq._

[97] See J. G. Droysen, _Grundriss der Historik_, p. 19: "Critical classification does not exclusively adopt the chronological point of view.... The more varied the points of view which criticism uses to group materials, the more solid are the results yielded by converging lines of inquiry."

The system has now been abandoned of grouping documents in a _Corpus_ or in _regesta_, as was done formerly, because they have the common characteristic of being unedited, or possibly for the exactly opposite reason. At one time the compilers of _Analecta, Reliquiæ manuscriptorum_, "treasuries of _anecdota_," _spicilegia_, and so on, used to publish all the documents of a certain class which had the common feature of being unedited and of appearing interesting to them; on the other hand, Georgisch (_Regesta Chronologico-diplomatica_), Bréquigny (_Table chronologique des diplômes, chartes et actes imprimés concernant l'histoire de France_), Wauters (_Table chronologique des chartes et diplômes imprimés concernant l'histoire de Belgique_), have grouped together all the documents of a certain species which had the common character of having been printed.

[98] J. P. Waltzing, _Recueil général des inscriptions latines_ (Louvain, 1892, 8vo), p. 41.

[99] Ibid. When the geographical order is adopted, a difficulty arises from the fact that the origin of certain documents is unknown; many inscriptions preserved in museums have been brought there no one knows whence. The difficulty is analogous to that which results, for chronological _regesta_, from documents without date.

[100] Here the only difficulty arises in the case of documents whose _incipit_ has been lost. In the eighteenth century Séguier devoted a great part of his life to the construction of a catalogue, in the alphabetical order of the _incipit_, of the Latin inscriptions, to the number of 50,000, which had at that time been published: he searched through some twelve thousand works. This vast compilation has remained unpublished and useless. Before undertaking work of such magnitude it is well to make sure that it is on a rational plan, and that the labour--the hard and thankless labour--will not be wasted.

[101] See G. Waitz, _Ueber die Herausgabe und Bearbeitung von Regesten_, in the _Historische Zeitschrift_, xl. (1878), pp. 280-95.

[102] In the absence of a predetermined logical order, and when the chronological order is not suitable, it is sometimes an advantage to provisionally group the documents (that is, the slips) in the alphabetical order of the words chosen as headings (_Schlagwörter_). This is what is called the "dictionary system."

[103] See Langlois, _Manuel de bibliographie historique_, i. p. 88.

[104] This argument is easy to develop, and often has been, recently by M. J. Bédier, in the _Revue des Deux Mondes_, February 15, 1894, pp. 932 _sqq._

There are some who willingly admit that the labours of erudition are useful, but ask impatiently whether "the editing of a text" or "the deciphering of a Gothic parchment" is "the supreme effort of the human mind," and whether the intellectual ability implied by the practice of external criticism does or does not justify "all the fuss made over those who possess it." On this question, obviously devoid of importance, a controversy was held between M. Brunetière, who recommended scholars to be modest, and M. Boucherie, who insisted on their reasons for being proud, in the pages of the _Revue des langues romanes_, 1880, vols. i and ii.

[105] There have been men who were critics of the first water where external criticism alone was concerned, but who never rose to the conception of higher criticism, or to a true understanding of history.

[106] Renan, _Essais de morale et de critique_, p. 36.

[107] "If it were only for the sake of the severe mental discipline, I should not think very highly of the philosopher who had not, at least once in his life, worked at the elucidation of some special point" (_L'Avenir de la science_, p. 136).

[108] On the question whether it is necessary for every one to do "all the preliminary grubbing for himself," cf. J. M. Robertson, "Buckle and His Critics" (London, 1895, 8vo), p. 299.

[109] Renan, _L'Avenir de la science_, p. 230.

[110] A university professor is in a very good position for discouraging and encouraging vocations; but "it is by personal effort that the goal (critical skill) must be attained by the students, as Waitz well said in an academic oration; the teacher's part in this work is small...." (_Revue Critique_, 1874, ii. p. 232).

[111] Quoted by Fr. X. von Wegele, _Geschichte der deutschen Historiographie_ (München, 1885, 8vo), p. 653.

[112] Renan, ibid., p. 125.

[113] B. Hauréau, _Notices et extraits de quelques manuscrits latins de la Bibliothèque nationale_, i. (Paris, 1890, 8vo). p. v.

[114] _Bibliothèque de l'École des chartes_, 1896, p. 88. Compare analogous traits in the interesting intellectual biography of the Hellenist, palæographer, and bibliographer, Charles Graux, by E. Lavisse (_Questions d'enseignement national_, Paris, 1885, 18mo, pp. 265 _sqq._).

[115] See H. A. L. Fisher in the _Fortnightly Review_, Dec. 1894, p. 815.

[116] Most of those who have a vocation for critical scholarship possess both the power of solving problems and the taste for collecting. It is, however, easy to divide them into two categories according as they show a marked preference for textual criticism and investigation of authorship on the one hand, or for the more absorbing and less intellectual labours of collection on the other. J. Havet, a past-master in the study of erudite problems, always declined to undertake a general collection of Merovingian royal charters, a work which his admirers expected from him. In this connection he readily admitted his "want of taste for feats of endurance" (_Bibliothèque de l'École des chartes_, 1896, p. 222).

[117] It is common to hear the opposite of this maintained, namely, that the labours of critical scholarship (external criticism) have this advantage over other labours in the field of history that they are within the range of average ability, and that the most moderate intellects, after a suitable preliminary drilling, may be usefully employed in them. It is quite true that men with no elevation of soul or power of thought can make themselves useful in the field of criticism, but then they must have special qualities. The mistake is to think that with good will and a special drilling every one without exception can be fitted for the operations of external criticism. Among those who are incapable of these operations, as well as among those who are fitted for them, there are both men of sense and blockheads.

[118] A. Philippi, _Einige Bemerkungen über den philologischen Unterricht_, Giessen, 1890, 4to. Cf. _Revue Critique_, 1892, i. p. 25.

[119] J. von Pflugk-Harttung, _Geschichtsbetrachtungen_, Gotha, 1890, 8vo.

[120] Ibid., p. 21.

[121] Cf. _supra_, p. 99.

[122] Renan, _L'Avenir de la science_, p. xiv.

[123] _Revue historique_, lxiii. (1897), p. 320.

[124] Renan, ibid., pp. 122, 243. The same thought has been more than once expressed, in different language, by E. Lavisse, in his addresses to the students of Paris (_Questions d'enseignement national_, pp. 14, 86, &c.).

[125] One of us (M. Langlois) proposes to give elsewhere a detailed account of all that has been done in the last three hundred years, but especially in the nineteenth century, for the organisation of historical work in the principal countries of the world. Some information has already been collected on this subject by J. Franklin Jameson, "The Expenditures of Foreign Governments in behalf of History," in the "Annual Report of the American Historical Association for 1891," pp. 38-61.

[126] L. Feugère, _Étude sur la vie et les ouvrages de Du Cange_, pp. 55, 58.

[127] Even the specialists in external criticism themselves, when they do not take the line of despising all synthesis _a priori_, are almost as easily dazzled as anybody else by incorrect syntheses, by a show of "general ideas," or by literary artifices, in spite of their clear-sightedness where works of critical scholarship are concerned.

[128] The sciences of observation do, however, need a species of criticism. We do not accept without verification results obtained by anybody, but only results obtained by those who know how to work. But this criticism is made once for all, and applies to the author, not to his works; historical criticism, on the contrary, is obliged to deal separately with every part of a document.

[129] Cf. _supra_, book ii. chap. i. p. 67.

[130] Cf. _supra_, p. 122.

[131] Taine appears to have proceeded thus in vol. ii, _La Révolution_, of his _Origines de la France contemporaine_. He had made extracts from unpublished documents and inserted a great number of them in his work, but it would seem that he did not first methodically analyse them in order to determine their meaning.

[132] Fustel de Coulanges explains very clearly the danger of this _method_: "Some students begin by forming an opinion ... and it is not till afterwards that they begin to read the texts. They run a great risk of not understanding them at all, or of understanding them wrongly. What happens is that a kind of tacit contest goes on between the text and the preconceived opinions of the reader; the mind refuses to grasp what is contrary to its idea, and the issue of the contest commonly is, not that the mind surrenders to the evidence of the text, but that the text yields, bends, and accommodates itself to the preconceived opinion.... To bring one's personal ideas into the study of texts is the subjective method. A man thinks he is contemplating an object, and it is his own idea that he is contemplating. He thinks he is observing a fact, and the fact at once assumes the colour, and the significance his mind wishes it to have. He thinks he is reading a text, and the words of the text take a particular meaning to suit a ready-made opinion. It is this subjective method which has done most harm to the history of the Merovingian epoch.... To read the texts was not enough; what was required was to read them before forming any convictions...." (_Monarchie franque_, p. 31). For the same reason Fustel de Coulanges deprecated the reading of one document in the light of another; he protested against the custom of explaining the _Germania_ of Tacitus by the barbaric laws. In the _Revue des questions historiques_, 1897, vol. i, a lesson on method, _De l'analyse des textes historiques_, is given apropos of a commentary by M. Monod on Gregory of Tours: "The historian ought to begin his work with an exact analysis of each document.... The analysis of a text ... consists in determining the sense of each word and eliciting the true meaning of the writer.... Instead of searching for the sense of each of the historian's words, and for the thought he has expressed in them, he [M. Monod] comments on each sentence in the light of what is found in Tacitus or the Salic law.... We should understand what analysis really is. Many talk about it, few use it.... The use of analysis is, by an attentive study of every detail, to elicit from a text all that is in it; not to introduce into the text what is not there."

After reading this excellent advice it will be instructive to read M. Monod's reply (in the _Revue historique_); it will be seen that Fustel de Coulanges himself did not always practise the method he recommended.

[133] Cf. _supra_, p. 103.

[134] The work of analysis may be entrusted to a second person; this is what happens in the case of _regesta_ and catalogues of records; if the analysis has been correctly performed by the compiler of _regesta_, there is no need to do it over again.

[135] Practical examples of this procedure will be found in Deloche, _La Trustis et l'antrustion royal_ (Paris, 1873, 8vo), and, above all, in Fustel de Coulanges. See especially the study of the words _marca_ (_Recherches sur quelques problêmes d'histoire_, pp. 322-56), _mallus_ (ibid., 372-402), _alleu_ (_L'Alleu et le domaine rural_, pp. 149-70), _portio_ (ibid., pp. 239-52).

[136] The theory and an example of this procedure will be found in Fustel de Coulanges, _Recherches sur quelques problêmes d'histoire_ (pp. 189-289), with reference to the statements of Tacitus about the Germans. See especially pp. 263-89, the discussion of the celebrated passage on the German mode of culture.

[137] Fustel de Coulanges formulates it thus: "It is never safe to separate two words from their context; this is just the way to mistake their meaning" (_Monarchie franque_, p. 228, note I).

[138] This is how Fustel de Coulanges condemns this practice: "I am not speaking of pretenders to learning who quote second-hand, and at most take the trouble to verify whether the phrase they have seen quoted really occurs in the passage indicated. To verify quotations is one thing and to read texts quite another, and the two often lead to opposite results" (_Revue des questions historiques_, 1887, vol. i.). See also (_L'Alleu et le domaine rural_, pp. 171-98) the lesson given to M. Glasson on the theory of the community of land: forty-five quotations are studied in the light of their context, with the object of proving that none of them bears the meaning M. Glasson attributed to it. We may also compare the reply: Glasson, _Les Communaux et le domaine rural a l'époque franque_, Paris, 1890.

[139] All that is original in Fustel de Coulanges rests on his interpretative criticism; he never did personally any work in external criticism, and his critical examination of authors' good faith and accuracy was hampered by a respect for the statements of ancient authors which amounted to credulity.

[140] A parallel difficulty occurs in the interpretation of illustrative monuments; the representations are not always to be taken literally. In the Behistun monument Darius tramples the vanquished chiefs under foot: this is a metaphor. Mediæval miniatures show us persons lying in bed with crowns on their heads: this is to symbolise their royal rank; the painter did not mean that they wore their crowns to sleep in.

[141] A. Boeckh, in the _Encyclopædie und Methodologie der philologischen Wissenschaften_, second edition (1886), has given a theory of _hermeneutic_ to which Bernheim has been content to refer.

[142] The method of extracting information on external facts from a writer's conceptions forms part of the theory of constructive reasoning. _See_ book iii.

[143] For example, Père de Smedt, Tardif, Droysen, and even Bernheim.

[144] Descartes, who came at a time when history still consisted in the reproduction of pre-existing narratives, did not see how to apply methodical doubt to the subject; he therefore refused to allow it a place among the sciences.

[145] Fustel de Coulanges himself did not rise above this kind of timidity. With reference to a speech attributed to Clovis by Gregory of Tours, he says: "Doubtless we are unable to affirm that these words were ever pronounced. But, all the same, we ought not to affirm, in contradiction to Gregory of Tours, that they were not.... The wisest course is to accept Gregory's text" (_Monarchie franque_, p. 66). The wisest, or rather the only scientific course, is to admit that we know nothing about the words of Clovis, for Gregory himself had no knowledge of them.

[146] Quite recently, E. Meyer, one of the most critically expert historians of antiquity, has in his work, _Die Entstehung des Judenthums_ (Halle, 1896, 8vo), revived this strange juridical argument in favour of the narrative of Nehemiah. M. Bouché-Leclercq, in a remarkable study on "The Reign of Seleucus II. (Callinicus) and Historical Criticism" (_Revue des Universités du Midi_, April-June 1897), seems, by way of reaction against the hypercriticism of Niebuhr and Droysen, to incline towards an analogous theory: "Historical criticism, if it is not to degenerate into agnosticism--which would be suicidal--or into individual caprice, must place a certain amount of trust in testimony which it cannot verify, as long as it is not flatly contradicted by other testimony of equal value." M. Bouché-Leclercq is right as against the historian who, "after having discredited all his witnesses, claims to put himself in their place, and sees with their eyes something quite different from what they themselves saw." But when the "testimony" is insufficient to give us the scientific knowledge of a fact, the only correct attitude is "agnosticism," that is, a confession of ignorance; we have no right to shirk this confession because chance has permitted the destruction of the documents which might have contradicted the testimony.

[147] The "Memoirs of Cardinal de Retz" furnish a conclusive instance: the anecdote of the ghosts met by Retz and Turenne. A. Feillet, who edited Retz in the _Collection des Grands Écrivains de la France_, has shown (vol. i. p. 192) that this story, so vividly narrated, is false from beginning to end.

[148] A good example of the fascination exerted by a circumstantial narrative is the legend respecting the origin of the League of the three primitive Swiss cantons (Gessler and the Grütli conspirators), which was _fabricated_ by Tschudi in the sixteenth century, became classical on the production of Schiller's "William Tell," and has only been extirpated with the greatest difficulty. (See Rilliet, _Origines de la Conféderation suisse_, Geneva, 1869, 8vo.)

[149] Striking example of falsehoods due to vanity are to be found in abundance in the _Économies royales_ of Sully and the _Mémoires_ of Retz.

[150] Fustel de Coulanges himself went to the formulæ of the inscriptions in honour of the emperors for a proof that the peoples liked the imperial _régime_. "If we read the inscriptions, the sentiment which they exhibit is always one of satisfaction and gratitude.... See the collection of Orelli, the most frequent expressions are...." And the enumeration of the titles of respect given to the emperors ends with this strange aphorism: "It would show ignorance of human nature to see nothing but flattery in all this." There is not even flattery here; there is nothing but formulæ.

[151] Suger, in his life of Louis VI., is a model of this type.

[152] The _Chronicon Helveticum_ of Tschudi is a striking instance.

[153] Aristophanes and Demosthenes are two striking examples of the power great writers have of paralysing critics and obscuring facts. Not till the close of the nineteenth century has any one ventured to recognise frankly their lack of good faith.

[154] For example, the account of the election of Otto I. in the _Gesta Ottonis_ of Wittekind.

[155] For example, the statistics on the population, the commerce, and the wealth of European countries given by the Venetian ambassadors of the sixteenth century, and the descriptions of the usages of the Germans in the _Germania_ of Tacitus.

[156] It would be interesting to examine how much of Roman or Merovingian history would be left if we rejected all documents but those which represent direct observation.

[157] It will be seen why we have not separately defined and studied "first-hand documents." The question has not been raised in the proper manner in historical practice. The distinction ought to apply to _statements_, not to documents. It is not the document which comes to us at first, second, or third hand; it is the statement. What is called a "first-hand document" is nearly always composed in part of second-hand statements about facts of which the author had no personal knowledge. The name "second-hand document" is given to those which, like the work of Livy, contain nothing first-hand; but the distinction is too crude to serve as a guide in the critical examination of statements.

[158] There is much less modification where the oral tradition assumes a regular or striking form, as is the case with verses, maxims, proverbs.

[159] Sometimes the _form_ of the phrase tells its own tale, when, in the midst of a detailed narrative, obviously of legendary origin, we come across a curt, dry entry in annalistic style, obviously copied from a written document. That is what we find in Livy (see Nitzsch, _Die römische Annalistik_, Leipzig, 1873, 8vo), and in Gregory of Tours (see Loebell, _Gregor von Tours_, Leipzig, 1868, 8vo).

[160] The events which strike the popular imagination and are transmitted by legend are not generally those which seem to us the most important. The heroes of the _chansons de gestes_ are hardly known historically. The Breton epic songs relate, not to the great historical events, as Villemarqué's collection led people to believe, but to obscure local episodes. The same holds of the Scandinavian sagas; for the most part they relate to quarrels among the villagers of Iceland or the Orkneys.

[161] The theory of legend is one of the most advanced parts of criticism. Bernheim (in his _Lehrbuch_, pp. 380-90) gives a good summary and a bibliography of it.

[162] "History of Greece," vols. i. and ii. Compare Renan, _Histoire du peuple d'Israël_, vol. i. (Paris, 1887, 8vo), Introduction.

[163] And yet Niebuhr made use of the Roman legends to construct a theory, which it was afterwards necessary to demolish, of the struggle between the patricians and the plebeians; and Curtius, twenty years after Grote, looked for historical facts in the Greek legends.

[164] See _supra_, pp. 93 _sqq._

[165] Cf. _supra_, p. 166.

[166] It is often said, "The author would not have dared to write this if it had not been true." This argument does not apply to societies in a low state of civilisation. Louis VIII. dared to write that John Lackland had been condemned by the verdict of his peers.

[167] See above, p. 153. Similarly, the particular facts which compose the history of forms (palæography, linguistic science) are directly established by the analysis of the document.

[168] Primitive Greece has been studied in the Homeric poems. Mediæval private life has been reconstructed principally from the _chansons de gestes_. (See C. V. Langlois, _Les Traditions sur l'histoire de la société française au moyen âge d'après les sources littéraires_, in the _Revue historique_, March-April, 1897.)

[169] Most historians refrain from rejecting a legend till its falsity has been proved, and if by chance no document has been preserved to contradict it, they adopt it provisionally. This is how the first five centuries of Rome are still dealt with. This method, unfortunately still too general, helps to prevent history from being established as a science.

[170] For the logical justification of this principle in history see C. Seignobos, _Revue Philosophique_, July-August 1887. Complete scientific certitude is only produced by an agreement between observations made on different _methods_; it is to be found at the junction of two different paths of research.

[171] This case is studied and a good example given by Bernheim, _Lehrbuch_, p. 421.

[172] It is hardly necessary to enter a caution against the childish method of counting the documents on each side of a question and deciding by the majority. The statement of a single author who was acquainted with a fact is evidently worth more than a hundred statements made by persons who knew nothing about it. The rule has been formulated long ago: _Ne numerentur, sed ponderentur_.

[173] Cf. _supra_, p. 94.

[174] It is hardly possible to study here the special difficulties which arise in the application of these principles, as when the author, wishing to conceal his indebtedness, has introduced deviations in order to put his readers off the scent, or when the author has combined statements taken from different documents.

[175] Here we merely indicate the principle of the method of confirmation; its applications would require a very lengthy study.

[176] Père de Smedt has devoted to this question a part of his _Principes de la critique histoire_ (Paris, 1887, 12mo).

[177] The solution of the question is different in the case of the sciences of direct observation, especially the biological sciences. Science knows nothing of the possible and the impossible; it only recognises facts which have been correctly or incorrectly observed: facts which had been declared impossible, as the existence of aerolites, have been discovered to be genuine. The very notion of a miracle is metaphysical; it implies a conception of the universe as a whole which transcends the limits of observation. (See Wallace, "Miracles and Modern Spiritualism.")

[178] See above, p. 194.

[179] In the experimental sciences an hypothesis is a form of question accompanied by a provisional answer.

[180] Fustel de Coulanges saw the necessity of this. In the preface to his _Recherches sur quelques problêmes d'histoire_ (Paris, 1885, 8vo) he announces his intention of presenting his researches "in the form which all my works have, that is, in the form of questions which I ask myself, and on which I endeavour to throw light."

[181] Fustel de Coulanges himself seems to have been misled by them: "History is a science; it does not imagine, it only sees" (_Monarchie franque_, p. 1). "History, like every science, consists in a process of discerning facts, analysing them, comparing them, and noting their connections.... The historian ... seeks facts and attains them by the minute observation of texts, as the chemist finds his in the course of experiments conducted with minute precision" (Ibid., p. 39).

[182] The subjective character of history has been brought out into strong relief by the philosopher G. Simmel, _Die Probleme der Geschichtsphilosophie_ (Leipzig, 1892, 8vo).

[183] This has been eloquently put by Carlyle and Michelet. It is also the substance of the famous expression of Ranke: "I wish to state how that really was" (_wie es eigentlich gewesen_).

[184] Cf. pp. 219-23.

[185] Curtius in his "History of Greece," Mommsen in his "History of Rome" (before the Empire), Lamprecht in his "History of Germany."

[186] It will be enough to mention Augustin Thierry, Michelet, and Carlyle.

[187] See P. Guiraud, _Fustel de Coulanges_ (Paris, 1896, 12mo), p. 164, for some very judicious observations on this subject.

[188] The classification of M. Lacombe (_De l'histoire considérée comme science_, chap. vi.), founded on the motives of actions and the wants they are intended to satisfy, is very judicious from the philosophical point of view, but does not meet the practical needs of historians; it rests on abstract psychological categories (economic, reproductive, sympathetic, ambitious, &c.), and ends by classing together very different species of phenomena (military institutions along with economics).

[189] Ecclesiastical institutions form part of the government; in German manuals of antiquities they are found among institutions, while religion is classed with the arts.

[190] Modes of transport, which are often put under commerce, form a species of industry.

[191] Property is an institution of mixed character, being at once economic, social, and political.

[192] For the history and biography of this movement see Bernheim, _Lehrbuch_, pp. 45-55.

[193] It is no longer necessary to demonstrate the nullity of the notion of _race_. It used to be applied to vague groups, formed by a nation or a language; for race as understood by historians (Greek, Roman, Germanic, Celtic, Slavonic races) has nothing but the name in common with race in the anthropological sense--that is, a group of men possessing the same hereditary characteristics. It has been reduced to an absurdity by the abuse Taine made of it. A very good criticism of it will be found in Lacombe (ibid., chap. xviii.), and in Robertson ("The Saxon and the Celt," London, 1897, 8vo).

[194] There is no general agreement on the proper place in history of retrograde changes, of those oscillations which bring things back to the point from which they started.

[195] The theory of chance as affecting history has been expounded in a masterly manner by M. Cournot, _Considérations sur la marche des idées et des événements dans les temps modernes_ (Paris, 1872, 2 vols. 8vo).

[196] Lamprecht, in a long article, _Was ist Kulturgeschichte_, published in the _Deutsche Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft_, New Series, vol. i., 1896, has attempted to base the history of civilisation on the theory of a collective soul of society producing "social-psychic" phenomena common to the whole society, and differing from period to period. This is a metaphysical hypothesis.

[197] The expression _national_ history, introduced in the interests of patriotism, denotes the same thing. The history of the nation means practically the history of the State.

[198] See Cournot, ibid., i. p. iv.

[199] We have already (p. 143) treated of this fault of method.

[200] The discussion of this argument, which was formerly much used in religious history, was a favourite subject with the earlier writers who treated of methodology, and still occupies a considerable space in the _Principes de la critique historique_ of Père de Smedt.

[201] This is what Montesquieu attempted in his _Esprit des Lois_. In a course of lectures at the Sorbonne, I have endeavoured to give a sketch of such a comprehensive account.--[Ch. S.]

[202] See p. 204.

[203] Michelet has discredited the study of physiological influences by the abuse which he has made of it in the last part of his "History of France"; it is, however, indispensable for the understanding of a man's career.

[204] On the subject of statistics, a method which is now perfected, a good summary with a bibliography will be found in the _Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften_, Jena, 1890-94, Ia. 8vo. and two good methodical treatises, J. von. Mayr, _Theoretische Statistik_ and _Bevölkerungsstatistik_, in the collection of Marquardsen and Seydel, Freiburg, 1895 and 1897, Ia. 8vo.

[205] As is done by Boardeau (_l'Histoire et les Historiens_, Paris, 1888, 8vo), who proposes to reduce the whole of history to a series of statistics.

[206] A good example will be found in Lacombe, _De l'Histoire Considérée Comme Science_, p. 146.

[207] We have thought it useless to discuss here the question whether history ought, in accordance with the ancient tradition, to fulfil yet another function, whether it ought to pass judgment on men and events, that is to supplement the description of facts by expressions of approbation or censure, either from the point of view of a moral ideal, general or particular (the ideal of a sect, a party, or a nation), or from the practical point of view, by examining, as Polybius did, whether historical actions were well or ill adapted to their purpose. An addition of this kind could be made to any descriptive study: the naturalist might express his sympathy with or his admiration for an animal, he might condemn the ferocity of the tiger, and praise the devotion of the hen to her chickens. But it is obvious that in history, as in every other subject, judgments of this kind are foreign to science.

[208] Comparison between two facts of detail belonging to very different aggregates (for example the comparison of Abd-el-Kader with Jagurtha, of Napoleon with Sforza) is a striking method of exposition, but not a means of reaching a scientific conclusion.

[209] This system is still followed by several contemporary authors, the Belgian jurist Laurent in his _Études sur l'histoire de l'humanité_, the German Rocholl, and even Flint, the English historian of the philosophy of history.

[210] Thus Taine, in _Les origines de la France Contemporaine_, explains the origin of the privileges of the _ancien régime_ by the services formerly rendered by the privileged classes.

[211] A good criticism of the theory of progress will be found in P. Lacombe, _De l'histoire Considérée Comme Science_.

[212] See the very clear declarations of one of the principal representatives of linguistic science in France, V. Henry, _Antinomies linguistiques_, Paris, 1896, 8vo.

[213] See above, p. 284.

[214] Lamprecht, in the article quoted, p. 247, after having compared the artistic, religious, and economic evolutions of mediæval Germany, and after having shown that they can all be divided into periods of the same duration, explains the simultaneous transformations of the different usages and institutions of a given society by the transformations of the collective "social soul." This is only another form of the same hypothesis.

[215] The historians of literature, who began by searching for the connection between the arts and the rest of social life, thus gave the first place to the most difficult question.

[216] For the earlier epochs, consult good histories of Greek, Roman, and mediæval literature which contain chapters devoted to "historians." For the modern period, consult the Introduction of M. G. Monod to vol. i. of the _Revue historique_; the work by F. X. v. Wegde, _Geschichte der deutschen Historiographie_ (1885), relates only to Germany, and is mediocre. Some "Notes on History in France in the Nineteenth Century" have been published by C. Jullian as an Introduction to his _Extraits des historiens français du xixe siècle_ (Paris, 1897, 12mo). The history of modern historiography has still to be written. See the partial attempt by E. Bernheim, _Lehrbuch_, pp. 13 _sqq._

[217] It would be interesting to find out what are the earliest printed books furnished with notes in the modern fashion. Bibliophiles whom we have consulted are unable to say, their attention never having been drawn to the point.

[218] It is clear that the romantic methods which are used for the purpose of obtaining effects of local colour and "revising" the past, often puerile in the hands of the ablest writers, are altogether intolerable when they are employed by any others. See a good example (criticism of a book of M. Mourin by M. Monod) in the _Revue Critique_, 1874, ii. pp. 163 _sqq._

[219] It is a commonplace, and an error all the same, to maintain the exact opposite of the above, namely, that the works of critical scholars live, while the works of historians grow antiquated, so that scholars gain a more solid reputation than historians do: "Père Daniel is now read no longer, and Père Anselme is always read." But the works of scholars become antiquated too, and the fact that not all the parts of the work of Père Anselme have yet been superseded (that is why he is still read), ought not to deceive us: the great majority of the works written by scholars, like those of researchers in the sciences proper, are provisional and doomed to oblivion.

[220] "It is in vain that those professionally concerned try to deceive themselves on this point; not everything in the past is interesting." "Supposing we were to write the Life of the Duke of Angoulême," says Pécuchet. "But he was an imbecile!" answers Bouvard; "Never mind; personages of the second order often have an enormous influence, and perhaps he was able to control the march of events."--G. Flaubert, _Bouvard et Pécuchet_, p. 157.

[221] As persons of moderate ability have a tendency to prefer insignificant subjects, there is active competition in the treatment of such subjects. We often have occasion to note the simultaneous appearance of several monographs on the same subject. It is not rare for the subject to be altogether devoid of importance.

[222] Interesting subjects for monographs are not always capable of being treated: there are some which the state of the sources puts out of the question. This is why beginners, even those who have ability, experience so much embarrassment in choosing subjects for their first monographs, when they are not aided by good advice or good fortune, and often lose themselves in attempting the impossible. It would be very severe, and very unjust, to judge any one from the list of his _first_ monographs.

[223] In practice it is proper to give at the beginning a list of the sources used in the whole of the monograph (with appropriate bibliographical information as to the printed works, and in the case of manuscripts, a mention of the nature of the documents and their shelf-marks); besides, each special statement should be accompanied by its proof: the exact text of the supporting document should be quoted, if possible, so that the reader may be in a position to verify the interpretation; otherwise an analysis of it should be given in a note, or, at the least, the title of the document, with its shelf-mark, or with a precise indication of the place where it was published. The general rule is to put the reader in a position to know the exact reasons for which such and such conclusions have been adopted at each stage of the analysis.

Beginners, resembling ancient authors in this respect, naturally do not observe all these rules. Frequently, instead of quoting the text or the titles of documents, they refer to these by their shelf-mark, or by the title of the general collection in which they are printed, from which the reader can learn nothing as to the nature of the text adduced. The following is another mistake of the crudest kind, and yet of frequent occurrence: Beginners, and persons of little experience, do not always understand why the custom has been introduced of inserting footnotes; at the bottom of the pages of the books they have they see a fringe of notes; they think themselves bound to fringe their own books in the same way, but their notes are adventitious and purely ornamental; they do not serve either to exhibit the proof or to enable the reader to verify the statements. All these methods are inadmissible, and should be vigorously denounced.

[224] Almost all beginners have an unfortunate tendency to wander off into superfluous digressions, to amass reflections and pieces of information which have no relevance to the main subject; they would recognise, if they reflected, that the causes of this tendency are bad taste, a kind of naïve vanity, sometimes mental confusion.

[225] We meet with declarations like the following: "I have been long familiar with the documents of this period and this class. I have an impression that such and such conclusions, which I cannot prove, are true." Of two things one: either the author can give the reasons for his impression, and then we can judge them, or he cannot give them, and we may assume that he has none of serious value.

[226] This difference has a tendency to disappear. The most recent alphabetical collections of historical facts (the _Realencyclopædie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft_ of Pauly-Wissowa, the _Dictionnaire des antiquités_ of Daremberg and Saglio, the _Dictionary of National Biography_ of Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee) are furnished with a sufficiently ample apparatus. It is principally in biographical dictionaries that the custom of giving no proofs tends to persist; see the _Allgemeine deutsche Biographie_, &c.

[227] _Revue Critique_, 1874, i. p. 327.

[228] The custom of appending to "histories," that is to narratives of political events, summaries of the results obtained by the special historians of art, literature, &c., still persists. A "History of France" would not be considered complete if it did not contain chapters on the history of art, literature, manners, &c., in France. However, it is not the summary account of special evolutions, described at second hand from the works of specialists, which is in its proper place in a scientific "History"; it is the study of those general facts which have dominated the special evolutions in their entirety.

[229] It is hard to imagine what it is possible for the most interesting and best established results of modern criticism to become, in the hands of negligent and unskilful popularisers. The persons who know most of these possibilities are those who have occasion to read the improvised "compositions" of candidates in history examinations: the ordinary defects of inferior popularisation are here pushed sometimes to an absurd length.

[230] Cf. _supra_, p. 266.

[231] We have spoken above of the element of subjectivity which it is impossible to eliminate from historical construction, and which has been misinterpreted to the extent of denying history the character of a science: this element of subjectivity which troubled Pécuchet (G. Flaubert, _Bouvard et Pécuchet_, p. 157) and Sylvestre Bonnard (A. France, _Le crime de Silvestre Bonnard_, p. 310), and which causes Faust to say:

"Die Zeiten der Vergangenheit Sind uns ein Buch mit sieben Siegeln. Was ihr den Geist der Zeiten heisst, Das ist im Grund der Herren eigner Geist, In dem die Zeiten sich bespiegeln."

["Past times are to us a book with seven seals. What you call the spirit of the times is at bottom your own spirit, in which the times are mirrored."--Goethe, _Faust_, i. 3.]

[232] A saying attributed to a "Sorbonne professor" by M. de la Blanchère (_Revue Critique_, 1895, i. p. 176). Others have declaimed on the theme that the knowledge of history is mischievous and paralyses. See F. Nietzsche, _Unzeitgemässe Betrachtungen_, II. _Nutzen und Nachtheil der Historie für das Leben_, Leipzig, 1874, 8vo.

[233] History and the social sciences are mutually dependent on each other; they progress in parallel lines by a continual interchange of services. The social sciences furnish a knowledge of the present, required by history for the purpose of making representations of the facts and reasoning from documents. History gives the information about evolutions which is necessary in order to understand the present.

[234] The same institution has been adopted in German-speaking countries under the name of _Leitfaden_ (guiding-thread), and in English-speaking countries under the name of _Text-book_.

[235] We must make an exception of Michelet's _Précis de l'histoire moderne_, and do Duruy the justice to acknowledge that in his school-books, even in the first editions, he has endeavoured, often successfully, to make his narratives both interesting and instructive.

[236] For a criticism of this method, see above, p. 265.

[237] The most complete, and probably the most accurate, account of the state of the secondary teaching of history after the reforms has been given by a Spaniard, R. Altamira, _La Enseñanza de la historia_, 2nd edition, Madrid, 1895, 8vo.

[238] We are here treating only of France. But, in order to dispel an illusion of the French public, we may remark that historical pedagogy is still less advanced in English-speaking countries, where the methods used are still mechanical, and even in German-speaking countries, where it is hampered by the conception of patriotic teaching.

[239] I have endeavoured, in a course of lectures at the Sorbonne, to do a part of this work.--[Ch. S.]

[240] Let it be noted, however, that to the question put to the candidates for the modern Baccalaureate in July 1897, "What purpose is served by the teaching of history?" eighty per cent. of the candidates answered, in effect, either because they believed it, or because they thought it would please, "To promote patriotism."--[C. V. L.]

[241] This is what has been produced in Germany under the name of _Quellenbuch_.

[242] The same pedagogic theory will be found in the preface to my _Histoire narrative et descriptive des anciens peuples de l'Orient_, Supplement for the use of professors, Paris, 1890, 8vo.--[Ch. S.]

[243] I have treated this question in the _Revue universitaire_, 1896, vol. i.--[Ch. S.]

[244] On the organisation of higher education in France at this epoch and on the first reforms, see the excellent work of M. L. Liard, _l'Enseignement supérieur en France_, Paris, 1888-94, 2 vols. 8vo.

[245] E. Lavisse, _Questions d'enseignement national_, p. 12.

[246] Cf. _supra_, p. 55.

[247] _Revue historique_, lxiii. (1897), p. 96.

[248] See the _Revue internationale d'enseignement_, Feb. 1893; the _Revue universitaire_, June 1892, Oct. and Nov. 1894, July 1895; and the _Political Science Quarterly_, Sept 1894.

[249] _Revue historique_, l.c. p. 98. I have developed elsewhere what I have here contented myself with stating. See the _Revue internationale de l'enseignement_, Nov. 1897.--[C. V. L.]