Introduction to the Study of History

at is elementary and obvious. Their followers may still be observed discussing at interminable length idle questions, such as : whether history is a science or an art; what are the duties of history; what is the use of history; and so on. On the other hand, there is incontestable truth in the remark that nearly all the specialists and historians of to-day are, as far as method goes, self-taught, with no training except what they have gained by practice, or by imitating and associating with the older masters of the craft. But though many works on the principles of method justify the distrust with which such works are generally regarded, and though most professed historians have been able, apparently with no ill results, to dispense with reflection upon historical method, it would, in our opinion, be a strained inference to conclude that specialists and historians (especiallythose of the future) have no need to make themselves acquainted with the processes of historical work. The literature of methodology is, in fact, not without its value : gradually there has been formed a treasury of subtle observations and precise rules, suggested by experience, which are something more than mere common sense.1 And, admitting the existence of those who, without having over learnt to reason, always reason well, by a gift of nature, it would be easy to set against these exceptions innumerable cases in which ignorance of logic, the use of irrational methods, want of reflection on the ...