THE CONCEPTION AND METHODS OF HISTORY 



BY JAMES HARVEY ROBINSON 



[James Harvey Robinson, Professor of History, Columbia University, since 1895. 

 b. June 29, 1863, Bloomington, Illinois. A.B. Harvard, 1887; A.M. ibid. 1888; 

 Ph.D. Freiburg-im-Br. 1890. Lecturer in European History, University of Penn- 

 sylvania, 1891-92; Associate Professor, ibid. 1892-95; Acting Dean of Bar- 

 nard College, 1900-01. Author of The German Bundesrath, Philadelphia, 1891; 

 Petrarch, the First Modern Scholar; An Introduction to the History of Western 

 Europe; Readings in European History; and numerous historical papers.] 



THE topic assigned to me by the distinguished scholars who planned 

 the programme of the historical department of this congress is " The 

 Conception and Methods of History," a theme so vast and intricate 

 that its mere definition and delimitation would alone more than 

 occupy the time allotted for this morning's session. I have therefore, 

 with their permission, confined myself in this paper to one only of 

 the many lines of thought suggested by the general title; or, rather, 

 I have given a specific trend to the general discussion, which remains 

 very general nevertheless. I propose to consider only the rather 

 singular relations between history and literature, a question by no 

 means either simple or isolated, but one which is closely bound up 

 both with the current conceptions of history and with the methods 

 of dealing with it. 



The close alliance of history and literature is so natural and 

 intimate, reaching back as it does, perhaps, to the very beginnings of 

 both, that to question its legitimacy seems at once gratuitous and 

 perverse. It would seem that history, at any rate, had no cause to 

 complain of the union, since literature, if it be not responsible for 

 history's very existence, has at least tenderly nurtured it and assured 

 it both permanence and renown. Without literature history would 

 never have had its muse, and would at best have led an obscure, 

 ignoble, and precarious existence. The union has been a long and 

 happy one. Until recently no one has suspected its perfect pro- 

 priety nay, inevitability, or thought of putting asunder what 

 appeared to be divinely conjoined. 



Yet had history been less subservient than it has always shown 

 itself and more fully conscious of its high mission, it could never have 

 made the sacrifices of independence and good faith necessary to avoid 

 constant bickerings and misunderstandings with its mate, for it 

 would be difficult to find two companions more widely at variance in 

 their essential spirit and purpose than history and literature. It is 

 the purpose of this paper to determine the nature and extent of this 

 incompatibility which may some day lead to a divorce, or at least to 

 a separation; when, if justice be done, history should be assigned 



