
OLD AND NEW WAYS OF TREATING HISTORY 25 
and actions of men, it is these that the historian must 
study, and that as causal agencies a Cromwell or a 
Luther may count for more than a million ordinary 
men; but after all, our ultimate source of enlighten- 
ment still lies in the study of the general conditions 
under which the activity of our Cromwell or Luther 
was brought forth. Most minds find pleasure in per- 
sonal incidents, while a few have the knowledge and 
the capacity for sustained thinking that are needed 
for penetrating to the general causes. There is a type 
of mind that is interested chiefly in what is unusual or 
catastrophic; but it is a more scientific type that is 
interested in tracing the silent operation of common 
and familiar facts. By this latter method physical 
science has prospered in recent days as never before, 
and the same has been the case with the study of 
history. 
Allusion has been made to the useful lessons that 
may be found in the study of the past. In searching 
for such lessons great care must be taken to avoid the 
fallacy of reasoning from loose analogies. This com- 
mon fallacy is injured by the pernicious habit of 
arguing from words without stopping to consider the 
things to which the words are applied. For example, 
many Americans seem to suppose that our govern- 
ment is like that of France because both are called 
republics, and unlike that of England because the lat- 
ter is represented by a hereditary sovereign. In point 
of fact, the government of France is substantially the 
same, whether it is called an empire or a republic; in 
neither case do the French people have self-govern- 
ment; the resemblances to the United States are super- 
ficial and the differences are fundamental. Whereas, 
