i8o THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



specific statement in the sources. Yet a point is not proved by two or 

 three bits of favorable evidence if the available sources are such that 

 ten or twelve confirmations might be expected. Or the available source 

 material may be so scanty that it does not offer sufficient basis for any 

 positive conclusions. One should try to determine not only how much 

 evidence there is on the point in question and in what degree it bears 

 upon that point, but also how much there ought to be. The quantity of 

 evidence pro and con must be measured not only absolutely, but also in 

 proportion to the available source material, and further with regard to 

 the source material which is missing. 



After adopting and working out in full detail through practise the 

 method of research which has here been but suggested, historians will 

 still have the duty of showing others, not only their results but the 

 solid foundations on which these rest and the process by which they 

 were attained. This obligation is recognized to-day to the extent that a 

 historical work without bibliography, footnotes or references to the 

 sources is not considered scholarly. But this is not enough. A list 

 of the books that the historian has used is far from fulfilling the re- 

 quirement which science makes of a complete analysis of the source 

 material. It gives little idea of the character, scope, applicability and 

 reliability of the source material, even though some word of comment 

 be attached to each title. Fault may be found, moreover, with the foot- 

 note as a means of proof. And here is criticized the footnote at its best, 

 rather than when, with pretentiously long quotations in foreign tongues 

 and with superfluity of scholarly digression and learned small talk, it 

 degenerates from a pillar by which science supports its results into a 

 pedestal upon which erudition poses; or when, instead of bearing upon 

 the main point, it gives specific references merely for some accompany- 

 ing illustrative detail which proves nothing. At its best the footnote 

 less actually proves a point than furnishes indications how one can set 

 about proving it for oneself. Then, owing to the erroneous notion 

 about " facts " of history, each footnote attaches itself to some one point 

 in the text. Thus all the notes taken together supply means for verify- 

 ing particular statements, but do not substantiate general truths nor 

 lead us to scientific propositions. That must be done in the text, if at 

 all. But here is a third disadvantage that the proof contained in the 

 notes, besides being subdivided there and so losing the strength of union, 

 is further detached from the proof in the text. Yet the very existence 

 of the footnote bears witness that the literary method of presentation at 

 present employed in the text is unsatisfactory for scientific purposes, 

 testifying that the whole would become even clumsier and more con- 

 fused were the attempt made to embody the notes in the text. 



The remedy is a presentation primarily scientific, a unified and un- 

 interrupted presentation of the complete historical process from raw 

 material to finished product. The historian will reveal his investiga- 

 tions as well as their results. After stating and defining his problem 



