See  - -—-—~  — 

OLD AND NEW WAYS OF TREATING HISTORY 23 
spirit proper for history is the spirit proper for science. 
The two are identical. The word “history” is a 
Greek word, originally meaning “inquiry.” Aristotle 
named one of his great works “a history concerning 
animals,” whence from Pliny and in modern usage we 
often hear of “natural history.” It is the business of 
the historian to inquire into the past experience of the 
human race, in order to arrive at general views that 
are correct, in which case they will furnish lessons 
useful for the future. It is a task of exceeding deli- 
cacy, and the dispassionate spirit of science is needed 
for its successful performance. Science does not love 
or hate its subjects of investigation; the historian 
must exercise like self-control. I do not mean that he 
should withhold his moral judgment; he will respect 
intelligence and bow down to virtue, he will expose 
stupidity and denounce wickedness, wherever he en- 
counters them, but he will not lose sight of the ulti- 
mate aim to detect the conditions under which certain 
kinds of human actions thrive or fail; and that is a 
scientific aim. 
Yet another difference between old and new methods 
invites our attention. The old-fashioned history, still 
retaining the marks of its barbaric origin, dealt with 
little save kings and battles and court intrigues. It 
consisted mainly of details concerning persons. Since 
the middle of the eighteenth century more attention 
has been paid to the history of commerce and finance, 
to geographical circumstances, to the social conditions 
of peoples, to the changes in beliefs, to the progress of 
literature and art. A modern book which is remark- 
able for the skill with which it follows all the threads 
in the story of national progress simultaneously, and in 
