nsequence attained any marked superiority as scholars or historians:
some, indeed, have been known for their incompetence or mediocrity in
these capacities. In this there is nothing that need surprise us. Who
would think of postponing original research in chemistry, mathematics,
the sciences proper, until he had studied the methods employed in those
sciences? Historical criticism! Yes, but the best way to learn it is to
apply it; practice teaches all that is wanted.[6] Take, too, the extant
works on historical method, even the most recent of them, those of J. G.
Droysen, E. A. Freeman, A. Tardif, U. Chevalier, and others; the utmost
diligence will extract from them nothing in the way of clear ideas
beyond the most obvious and commonplace truisms.[7]

We willingly recognise that this manner of thinking is not entirely
wrong. The great majority of works on the method of pursuing historical
investigations and of writing history--what is called _Historic_ in
Germany and England--are superficial, insipid, unreadable, sometimes
ridiculous.[8] To begin with, those prior to the nineteenth century, a
full analysis of which is given by P. C. F. Daunou in the seventh volume
of his _Cours d'etudes historiques_,[9] are nearly all of them mere
treatises on rhetoric, in which the rhetoric is antiquated, and the
problems discussed are the oddest imaginable.[10] Daunou makes merry
over them, but he himself has shown good sense and nothing more in his
monumental work, which at the present time seems little better, and
certainly not more useful, than the earlier treatises.[11] As to the
modern ones, it is true that not all have been able to escape the two
dangers to which works of this character are exposed--that of being
obscure on the one hand, or commonplace on the other. J. G. Droysen's
_Grundriss der Historik_ is heavy, pedantic, and confused beyond all
imagination.[12] Freeman, Tardif, and Chevalier tell us nothing but what
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 cra