F. YORK POWELL.
Oriel College, Oxford, July 1898.
CONTENTS
| Page | |
| To the Reader | [v] |
| [AUTHORS' PREFACE] | |
| What this work is not meant to be—Works on the Philosophyof History | [1] |
| What it is meant to be | [2] |
| Existing works on Historical Methods—Droysen, Freeman,Daunou, &c. | [3] |
| Reasons why the study of method is useful | [7] |
| Bernheim's Lehrbuch—In what way it leaves room for anotherbook | [10] |
| Need of warning to students | [11] |
| The general public | [13] |
| Distribution of the work between the two authors | [13] |
| [BOOK I] | |
| PRELIMINARY STUDIES | |
| [CHAPTER I] | |
| THE SEARCH FOR DOCUMENTS | |
| Documents: their nature, use, necessity | [17] |
| Utility of Heuristic, or the art of discovering documents | [18] |
| The difficulties of Heuristic—Ancient times—H. H. Bancroft—Stateof things at the Renaissance | [19] |
| Growth of libraries—Collectors—Effects of revolutionaryconfiscation in promoting the concentration and theaccessibility of documents | [20] |
| Possible future progress—Need for the cataloguing and indexingof documents | [27] |
| Students and bibliographical knowledge—Effect of presentconditions in deterring men from historical work | [32] |
| The remedies—Official cataloguing of libraries—Activity oflearned societies—of governments | [34] |
| Different kinds of bibliographical works needed by students | [37] |
| Different degrees of difficulty of Heuristic in different parts ofHistory—to be kept in view when choosing a subject ofresearch | [38] |
| [CHAPTER II] | |
| "AUXILIARY SCIENCES" | |
| Documents are raw material, and need a preliminary elaboration | [42] |
| Obsolete views on the historian's apprenticeship—Mably,Daunou | [43] |
| Commonplace and exaggeration on this subject—Freeman—Variousfutilities | [45] |
| The scientific conception of the historian's apprenticeship—Palæography—Epigraphy—Philology—Diplomatic | [48] |
| History of Literature—Archæology | [51] |
| Criticism of phrase "auxiliary sciences"—The subjects not allsciences—None of them auxiliary to the whole of History | [52] |
| This scientific conception is of recent growth—The École desChartes—Modern manuals of Palæography, Epigraphy,&c.—List of the chief of them | [55] |
| [BOOK II] | |
| ANALYTICAL OPERATIONS | |
| [CHAPTER I] | |
| GENERAL CONDITIONS OF HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE | |
| Direct and indirect knowledge of facts | [63] |
| History not a science of direct observation—Its data obtainedby chains of reasoning | [64] |
| Twofold division of Historical Criticism: External, investigatingthe transmission and origin of documents and thestatements in them; Internal, dealing with the contentof the statements and their probability | [66] |
| Complexity of Historical Criticism | [67] |
| Necessity of Criticism—The human mind naturally uncritical | [68] |
| [SECTION I.—EXTERNAL CRITICISM] | |
| [CHAPTER II] | |
| TEXTUAL CRITICISM | |
| Errors in the reproduction of documents: their frequencyunder the most favourable conditions—Mistakes ofcopyists—"Sound" and "corrupt" texts | [71] |
| Necessity of emendation—The method subject to fixed rules | [73] |
| Methods of textual criticism: (a) original preserved; (b) asingle copy preserved, conjectural emendation; (c) severalcopies preserved, comparison of errors, families of manuscripts | [75] |
| Different degrees of difficulty of textual criticism: its resultsnegative—The "emendation game"—What still remainsto be done | [83] |
| [CHAPTER III] | |
| CRITICAL INVESTIGATION OF AUTHORSHIP | |
| Natural tendency to accept indications of authorship—Examplesof false attributions—Necessity of verification—Applicationof internal criticism | [87] |
| Interpolations and continuations—Evidence of style | [92] |
| Plagiarism and borrowings by authors from each other—Thefiliation of statements—The investigation of sources | [93] |
| Importance of investigations of authorship—The extreme ofdistrust to be avoided—Criticism only a means to an end | [98] |
| [CHAPTER IV] | |
| CRITICAL CLASSIFICATION OF SOURCES | |
| Importance of classification—The first impulse wrong—Thenote-book system not the best—Nor the ledger-system—Northe "system" of trusting the memory | [101] |
| The system of slips the best—Its drawbacks—Means ofobviating them—The advantage of good "private librarianship" | [103] |
| Methods of work vary according to the object aimed at—Thecompiling of Regesta or of a Corpus—Classification bytime, place, species, and form | [105] |
| Chronological arrangement to be used when possible—Geographicalarrangement best for inscriptions—When thesefail, alphabetical order of "incipit"—Logical order usefulfor some special purposes—Not for a Corpus or for Regesta | [107] |
| [CHAPTER V] | |
| CRITICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND SCHOLARS | |
| Different opinions on the importance and dignity of externalcriticism—It is justified by its necessity—But is onlypreliminary to the higher part of historical work | [112] |
| Distinction between "historians" and "critical scholars" [Fr."érudite">[—Expediency, within limits, of the division oflabour in this respect—The exceptional skill acquired byspecialists—Difference of work the corollary of differenceof natural aptitudes | [115] |
| The natural aptitudes required for external criticism—Fondnessfor the work, which is distasteful to the creativegenius—The puzzle-solving instinct—Accuracy and itsopposite—"Froude's Disease"—Patience, order, perseverance | [121] |
| The mental defects produced by devotion to external criticism—Itsparalysing effect on the over-scrupulous—Hypercriticism—Dilettantism | [128] |
| The "organisation of scientific labour" | [135] |
| The harshness of judgment attributed to scholars, not alwaysrightly—Much of it a proper jealousy for historic truth—Badwork nowadays soon detected | [136] |
| [SECTION II.—INTERNAL CRITICISM] | |
| [CHAPTER VI] | |
| INTERPRETATIVE CRITICISM (HERMENEUTIC) | |
| Internal criticism deals with the mental operations whichbegin with the observation of a fact and end with thewriting of words in a document—It is divided into twostages: the first concerned with what the author meant,the second with the value of his statements | [141] |
| Necessity of separating the two operations—Danger of readingopinions into a text | [143] |
| The analysis of documents—The method of slips—Completenessnecessary | [145] |
| Necessity of linguistic study—General knowledge of a languagenot enough—Particular variety of a language as used at agiven time, in a given country, by a given author—Therule of context | [146] |
| Different degrees of difficulty in interpretation | [149] |
| Oblique senses: allegory, metaphor, &c.—How to detect them—Formertendency to find symbolism everywhere—Moderntendency to find allusion everywhere | [151] |
| Results of interpretation—Subjective inquiries | [153] |
| [CHAPTER VII] | |
| THE NEGATIVE INTERNAL CRITICISM OF THE GOOD FAITHAND ACCURACY OF AUTHORS | |
| Natural tendency to trust documents—Criticism originally dueto contradictions—The rule of methodical doubt—Defectivemodes of criticism | [155] |
| Documents to be analysed, and the irreducible elementscriticised separately | [159] |
| The "accent of sincerity"—No trust to be placed in impressionsproduced by the form of statements | [161] |
| Criticism examines the conditions affecting (1) the compositionof the document as a whole; (2) the making of each particularstatement—In both cases using a previously madelist of possible reasons for distrust or confidence | [162] |
| Reasons for doubting good faith: (1) the author's interest;(2) the force of circumstances, official reports; (3) sympathyand antipathy; (4) vanity; (5) deference to publicopinion; (6) literary distortion | [166] |
| Reasons for doubting accuracy: (1) the author a bad observer,hallucinations, illusions, prejudices; (2) the author notwell situated for observing; (3) negligence and indifference;(4) fact not of nature to be directly observed | [172] |
| Cases where the author is not the original observer of thefact—Tradition, written and oral—Legend—Anecdotes—Anonymousstatements | [177] |
| Special reasons without which anonymous statements are notto be accepted: (1) falsehood improbable because (a) thefact is opposed to interest or vanity of author, (b) the factwas generally known, (c) the fact was indifferent to theauthor; (2) error improbable because the fact was too bigto mistake; (3) the fact seemed improbable or unintelligibleto the author | [185] |
| How critical operations are shortened in practice | [189] |
| [CHAPTER VIII] | |
| THE DETERMINATION OF PARTICULAR FACTS | |
| The conceptions of authors, whether well or ill founded, arethe subject-matter of certain studies—They necessarilycontain elements of truth, which, under certain restrictions,may sometimes be inferred from them | [191] |
| The statements of authors, taken singly, do not rise aboveprobability—The only sure results of criticism are negative—Toestablish facts it is necessary to compare differentstatements | [194] |
| Contradictions between statements, real and apparent | [198] |
| Agreement of statements—Necessity of proving them to beindependent—Perfect agreement not so conclusive asoccasional coincidence—Cases where different observationsof the same fact are not independent—General factsthe easiest to prove | [199] |
| Different facts, each imperfectly proved, corroborate eachother when they harmonise | [204] |
| Disagreement between documents and other sources of knowledge—Improbablestatements—Miracles—When scienceand history conflict, history should give way | [205] |
| [BOOK III] | |
| SYNTHETIC OPERATIONS | |
| [CHAPTER I] | |
| GENERAL CONDITIONS OF HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTION | |
| The materials of Historical Construction are isolated facts,of very different kinds, of very different degrees ofgenerality, each belonging to a definite time and place,of different degrees of certainty | [211] |
| Subjectivity of History | [214] |
| The facts learnt from documents relate to (1) living beingsand material objects; (2) actions, individual and collective;(3) motives and conceptions | [217] |
| The facts of the past must be imagined on the model of thoseof the present—Danger of error especially in regard tomental facts | [219] |
| Some of the conditions of human life are permanent—Thestudy of these provides a framework into which detailstaken from documents are to be fitted—For this purposesystematic lists of questions are to be used, drawn upbeforehand, and relating to the universal conditions of life | [224] |
| Outline of Historical Construction—The division of labour—Historiansmust use the works of their colleagues andpredecessors, but not without critical precautions | [228] |
| [CHAPTER II] | |
| THE GROUPING OF FACTS | |
| Historical facts may be classified and arranged either accordingto their time and place, or according to their nature—Schemefor the logical classification of general historicalfacts | [232] |
| The selection of facts for treatment—The history of civilisationand "battle-history"—Both needed | [236] |
| The determination of groups of men—Precautions to beobserved—The notion of "race" | [238] |
| The study of institutions—Danger of being misled by metaphors—Thequestions which should be asked | [241] |
| Evolutions: operations involved in the study of them—Theplace of particular facts (events) in evolution—Importantand unimportant facts | [244] |
| Periods—How they should be defined | [249] |
| [CHAPTER III] | |
| CONSTRUCTIVE REASONING | |
| Incompleteness of the facts yielded by documents—Cautionsto be observed in filling up the gaps by reasoning | [252] |
| The argument from silence—When admissible | [254] |
| Positive reasoning based on documents—The general principlesemployed must enter into details, and the particularfacts to which they are applied must not be taken inisolation | [256] |
| [CHAPTER IV] | |
| THE CONSTRUCTION OF GENERAL FORMULÆ | |
| History, like every science, needs formulæ by which the factsacquired may be condensed into manageable form | [262] |
| Descriptive formulæ—Should retain characteristic features—Shouldbe as concrete as possible | [264] |
| Formulæ describing general facts—How constructed—Conventionalforms and realities—Mode of formulating anevolution | [266] |
| Formulæ describing unique facts—Principle of choice—"Character"of persons—Precautions in formulatingthem—Formulæ describing events | [270] |
| Quantitative formulæ—Operations by which they may beobtained: measurement, enumeration, valuation, sampling,generalisation—Precautions to be observed in generalising | [274] |
| Formulæ expressing relations—General conclusions—Estimationof the extent and value of the knowledge acquired—Imperfectionof data not to be forgotten in construction | [279] |
| Groups and their classification | [282] |
| The "solidarity" of social phenomena—Necessity of studyingcauses—Metaphysical hypothesis—Providence—Conceptionof events as "rational"—The Hegelian "ideas"—Thehistorical "mission"—The theory of the generalprogress of humanity | [285] |
| The conception of society as an organism—The comparativemethod—Statistics—Causes cannot be investigateddirectly, as in other sciences—Causation as exhibited inthe sequence of particular events | [288] |
| The study of the causes of social evolution must look beyondabstractions to the concrete, acting and thinking men—Theplace of hereditary characteristics in determiningevolution | [292] |
| [CHAPTER V] | |
| EXPOSITION | |
| Former conceptions of history-writing—The ancient andmediæval ideal—The "history of civilisation"—Themodern historical "manual"—The romantic ideal at thebeginning of the century—History regarded as a branchof literature up to 1850 | [296] |
| The modern scientific ideal—Monographs—Right choice ofsubject—References—Chronological order—Unambiguoustitles—Economy of erudition | [303] |
| General works—A. meant for students and specialists—Worksof reference or "repertories" and scientific manuals ofspecial branches of history—Their form and style—Collaborationin their production—Scientific generalhistories | [307] |
| B. Works intended for the public—The best kind of popularisation—Theinferior kind—Specialists who lower theirstandard when they write for the public—The literarystyle suitable for history | [311] |
| [CONCLUSION] | |
| Summary description of the methods of history—The futureof history | [316] |
| The utility of history—Not directly applicable to present conditions—Affordsan explanation of the present—Helps(and is helped by) the social sciences—A means of intellectualculture | [319] |
| [APPENDIX I] | |
| THE SECONDARY TEACHING OF HISTORY IN FRANCE | |
| Late introduction of history as a subject of secondary instruction—Defectivemethods employed up to the end of theSecond Empire | [325] |
| The reform movement—Questions involved relating to generalorganisation—Choice of subjects—Order of teaching—Methodsof instruction—These questions to be answeredin the way that will make history most useful as a meansof social culture | [328] |
| Material aids—Engravings—Books—Methods of teaching | [332] |
| [APPENDIX II] | |
| THE HIGHER TEACHING OF HISTORY IN FRANCE | |
| The different institutions—The Collège de France—TheFaculties of Letters—The École Normale—The École desChartes—The École pratique des hautes Études | [335] |
| Reform of the Faculties—Preparation for degrees—TheExamination question—Principles on which it is to besolved—The Diplôme d'études supérieures | [340] |
| Influence of the movement on the other institutions—Co-operationof the institutions | [345] |
| [INDEX OF PROPER NAMES] | [347] |
| [FOOTNOTES] | |