Sometimes it will be enoughto have analysed the text mentally : it is not alwaysnecessary to put down in black and white the wholecontents of a document ; in such cases we simplyenter the points of which we intend to make use.But against the ever-present danger oi substitutingone's personal impressions for the text there is onlyone real safeguard ; it should be made an invariablerule never on any account to make an extract froma document, or a partial analysis of it, without

By bringing the statementstogether we learn the extent of our information onthe fact; the definitive conclusion depends on therelation between the statements.

Experience here, as in the tasksof critical scholarship,^ has decided in favour of thesystem of slips.

The analysis of documents —The method of slips—Complete-ness necessary

The second is the fact that, formany persons, the tasks of critical scholarship arenot without their charm; nearly every one findsin them a singular satisfaction in the long runand some have confined themselves to these taskswho might, strictly speaking, have aspired to higherthings.

In the two first cases the expediency of a divisionof labour does not come in question. But take thethird case. A man of abihty discovers that thedocuments which are necessary for the treatmentof a point of history are in a very bad conditionthey are scattered, corrupt, and untrustworthy. Hemust take his choice ; either he must abandon thesubject, having no taste for the mechanical opera-tions which he knows to be necessary, but which,as he foresees, would absorb the whole of his energy ;or else he resolves to enter upon the preparatorycritical work, without concealing from himself thatin all probability he will never have time to utilisethe materials he has verified, and that he will there-fore be working for those who will come after him.

Such was the opinion of Mark Pattison,who said, History cannot he written from manuscripts,which is as much as to say : " It is impossible fora man to write history from documents which heis obliged to put for himself into a condition inwhich they can be used."

We need not interpret in the Jewish oretymological sense the dictum of Renan : " I do notthink it possible for any one to acquire a clearnotion of history, its limits, and the amount ofconfidence to be placed in the different categoriesof historical investigation, unless he is in the habitof handling original documents." ^

There is only one argumentfor the legitimacy and honourable character ofthe obscure labours of erudition, but it is a de-cisive argument: it rests on their indispensability.No erudition, no history. " Non sunt contemnendaquasi parva" says St. Jerome, ''sine quihus magnaconstare non possunt"

In the absence of a predetermined logical order, and when thechronological order is not suitable, it is sometimes an advantage toprovisionally group the documents (that is, the slips) in the alpha-betical order of the words chosen as headings {Scfdagworter). Thisis what is called the *' dictionary system."

if there is occasion for it, and a heading^ in anycase; to multiply cross-references and indices; tokeep a record, on a separate set of slips, of all thesources utilised, in order to avoid the danger ofhaving to work a second time through materialsaheady dealt with. The regular observance of thesemaxims goes a great way towards making scientifichistorical work easier and more solid.

arranged according to their subject-matter ;" that" epigraphic monuments belonging to the sameterritory mutually explain each other when placedside by side ;" and, lastly, that " while it is all butimpossible to range in order of subject-matter ahundred thousand inscriptions nearly all of whichbelong to several categories ; on the other hand,each monument has but one place, and a verydefinite place, in the geographical order."

The systematic order, or arrangement by sub-jects, is not to be recommended for the compilationof a Corpus or of regesta.

Here wehave the four categories of time, place, species, andform ; by superposing, then, we obtain divisions ofsmaller extent. We may undertake, for example, tomake a group of all the documents having a givenform, of a given country, and lying between twogiven dates (French royal charters of the reignof Phihp Augustus) ; or of all the documents of agiven form (Latin inscriptions) ; or of a given species(Latin hymns) ; of a given epoch (antiquity, themiddle ages).

It would be very interesting to have information on the methodsof work of the great scholars, particularly those who undertooklong tasks of collection and classification. Some information ofthis kind is to be found in their papers, and occasionally in theircorrespondence. On the methods of Du Cange, see L. Feugfere, Mudesur la vie et les ouvrages de Du Gomge (Paris, 1858, 8vo), pp. 62 sqq_,

We distinguish between the historian whoclassifies verified documents for the purposes ofhistorical work, and the scholar who compiles" Regesta'' By the words " Regesta " and " Corpus ''we understand methodically classified collections ofhistorical documents. In a " Corpus " documentsare reproduced in extenso ; in " Regesta " they areanalysed and described.

of private librarianship which make up the half ofscientific work." ^

It isrecommended to use slips of uniform size and toughmaterial, and to arrange them at the earliest oppor-tunity in covers or drawers or otherwise.

Again, in virtue of their very detachability,the slips, or loose leaves, are liable to go astray ; andwhen a slip is lost how is it to be replaced ? Tobegin with, its disappearance is not perceived, and,if it were, the only remedy would be to go rightthrough all the work already done from beginningto end. But the truth is, experience has suggesteda variety of very simple precautions, which we neednot here explain in detail, by which the drawbacksof the system are reduced to a minimum.

The method of slips is not without its drawbacks.

Each slip ought to be furnished with precise refer-ences to the source from which its contents havebeen derived ; consequently, if a document has beenanalysed upon fifty different slips, the same refer-ences must be repeated fifty times. Hence a slightincrease in the amount of writing to be done. Itis certainly on account of this trivial complicationthat some obstinately cling to the inferior notebooksystem.

the method of slips is the only one mechanicallypossible for the purpose of forming, classifying, andutiUsing a collection of documents of any greatextent. Statisticians, financiers, and men of letterswho observe, have now discovered this as well asscholars.

The notes from each document are entered upon aloose leaf furnished with the precisest possible in-dications of origin. The advantages of this artificeare obvious : the detachability of the slips enablesus to group them at will in a host of different com-binations ; if necessary, to change their places : it iseasy to bring texts of the same kind together, andto incorporate additions, as they are acquired, in theinterior of the groups to which they belong. As fordocuments which are interesting from several pointsof view, and which ought to appear in several groups,it is sufficient to enter them several times over ondifferent slips ; or they may be represented, as oftenas may be required, on reference-slips.

Every one admits nowadays that it is advisable tocollect materials on separate cards or slips of paper.

tions will not always fit without inconvenience intotheir proper place ; and the scheme of classification,once adopted, is rigid, and can only be modifiedwith difficulty. Many librarians used to draw uptheir catalogues on this plan, which is now uni-versally condemned.

There is a still more barbarous method, whichneed not receive more than passing mention. Thisis simply to register documents in the memorywithout taking written notes. This method hasbeen used. Historians endowed with excellentmemories, and lazy to boot, have indulged thiswhim, with the result that their quotations andreferences are mostly inexact. The human memoryis a delicate piece of registering apparatus, but it isso little an instrument of precision that such pre-sumption is inexcusable.

The materials collected must be classifiedsooner or later

Thefirst impulse of most men who have to utilise anumber of texts is to make notes from them, oneafter another, in the order in which they studythem. Many of the early scholars (whose paperswe possess) worked on this system, and so do mostbeginners who are not warned beforehand ; the latterkeep, as the former kept, notebooks, which thgy fillcontinuously and progressively with notes on thetexts they are interested in. This method is utterlywrong.

The first half of the book has been wi'itten byM. Langlois, the second by M. Seignobos; but thetwo collaborators have constantly aided, consulted,and checked each other.^Paris, August 1897.^ M. Langlois wrote Book I., Book II. as far as Chapter VI., thesecond Appendix, and this Preface ; M. Seignobos the end ofBook II., Book III., and the first Appendix. Chapter I. in thesecond book, Chapter V. of the third book, and the Conclusion,were written in common.

As for the public, which reads the works of histo-rians, is it not desirable that it should know howthese works are produced, in order to be able tojudge them better?We do not, therefore, like Professor Bernheim,write exclusively for present and future specialists,but also for the public interested in history.

The system of slips the best — Its drawbacks — Means ofobviating them^The advantage of good "private librarian-ship"

Importance of classification —The first impulse wrong—Thenote-book system not the best—Nor the ledger-systemNor the " system " of trusting the memory

Professor Ernst Bernheim, of the University ofGreifswald, has worked through nearly all themodern works on historical method, and the fruitof his labours is an arrangement under appropriateheadings, most of them invented by himself, of agreat number of reflections and selected references.His Lehrhuch der historischen Methode^ (Leipzig, 1894,8vo) condenses, in the manner of German Lehrhiicher,the special literature of the subject of which ittreats.

The best work that has hitherto been published (in French) onhistorical method is a pamphlet by MM. Ch. and V. Mortet, LaScience de Vhistoire (Paris, 1894, 8vo), 88 pp., extracted from vol. xx.of the Grande Encyclopidie

The present "Introduction to the Study of History''is thus intended, not as a summary of ascertained factsor a system of general ideas on universal history, butas an essay on the method of the historical sciences.