586 THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA 



are out of the reckoning) the question, "Did you see or hear that your- 

 self, or from whom did you learn it ?" How many times in the past 

 week, or month, or year ? He may have asked it once this day, and 

 maybe not. He may have asked it once in the past week or month 

 and maybe not. Doubtless he will have asked it a number of times 

 within a year. But in this day and week and month and year how 

 many hundreds and thousands of statements by trustworthy asso- 

 ciates has he received and acted upon without this question, and trans- 

 acted the business of the day and week and month and year with 

 essential correctness ? In the case of trustworthy informants he 

 asks the question only in very exceptional instances where he believes 

 that he has special reasons to doubt the correctness of a statement. 

 If he asked the question systematically concerning every statement 

 made in his hearing, he would be excluded from ordinary life and inter- 

 course. If every person systematically asked the question concerning 

 every statement made in his hearing all useful activity and intercourse 

 in the ordinary sense would come to a stand-still. The same is 

 true of the corresponding practice and principle in historical activity. 

 The treatment of records outlined in part (a) of this concluding section 

 is scientific because it rests on the general and ordinary practice and 

 principles of actual trustworthy intercourse and produces in historical 

 activity, as in that intercourse, essentially correct results. The syste- 

 matic application of the above practice and principle in the present 

 method is unscientific because it rests on an exceptional feature of 

 trustworthy intercourse, and, applied systematically, whether in 

 actual intercourse or in historical activity, it will bring either to a 

 stand-still. Scepticism toward existing trustworthy narratives, and 

 inability to produce their like, go hand-in-hand as the natural results 

 of this principle; but the devotee of the present method bows sub- 

 missively to the one and struggles vainly against the other. In the 

 words of Professor Dunning, "The mantle of scepticism has enveloped 

 the whole historical gild so that only the hardiest of the fraternity 

 dares venture a commonplace without the original source as a foot- 

 note to sustain him." 



Thucydides has no foot-notes. The books of his day being on 

 rolls and not paged did not admit of them. Neither has he sustained 

 himself occasionally by mentioning in the narrative itself some of the 

 sources of his statements. And yet Thucydides is accounted not only 

 a good, but the best, and greatest, historian. Interruptions for the 

 above purpose would have been a blot upon the narrative. And had 

 he in fact named his sources, upon what scientific ground could 

 the bare names add now to our confidence ? Our security would 



