CONCEPTION AND METHODS OF HISTORY 47 



we should find that the burial of Alaric, or the way in which Hugh 

 Capet became king, would appear in faint, scarce legible letters of 

 whose purport we could not be certain, while the first meeting of the 

 French Convention or the abdication of Napoleon would be sharply 

 defined and unmistakable. 



One of the most important and hopeful results of the modern 

 critical spirit is the special attention which for some decades has been 

 given to the origin and composition of the sources. The monk of 

 St. Gall occupies a very different place from what he did a century 

 ago, and no one would any longer rank William of Tyre with Fulcher 

 of Chartres as an authority for the First Crusade. The development 

 of Qudlenkritik is perhaps the most important form which the incipi- 

 ent revolt of history against literature has yet taken. It is the most 

 scientific phase of historical investigation, both in its spirit and results, 

 and is now properly considered an essential part of the training for 

 those who propose to devote themselves to historical work. Yet as a 

 leaven it works slowly and imperfectly; slowly because of a singular 

 lethargy, due to manifold causes, which makes the perpetuation of an 

 ancient error so much easier than its rectification. In a recent work 

 on the history of classical scholarship one may find the exploded 

 legend of the portentous year One Thousand appearing once more, 

 although in the footnotes the author has inserted references to the 

 various contributions which render the hypothesis wholly untenable. 

 Sybel, in the second edition of his critical discussion of the sources 

 of the First Crusade, is encouraged to note that during the forty years 

 which had elapsed since he issued his first edition most scholars had 

 come to accept his results, and he expresses the not unreasonable 

 hope that in the course of another forty years his corrections may 

 find their way into our popular manuals. This does not seem too 

 optimistic. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that Voltaire 

 discarded the notion, which goes back at least to Luther's time, that 

 the classical Renaissance began with the fall of Constantinople and 

 the dispersion of the Greek scholars. So tenacious, however, are 

 rooted historic misapprehensions that only the other day a classical 

 scholar of repute unhesitatingly elaborated the old view before an 

 intelligent audience. It will require some decades still before an 

 explanation of such obvious literary charm will be permitted to go 

 the way of Pope Joan and of William Tell. 



Quellenkritik works imperfectly, as well as slowly, because, at pre- 

 sent at least, a great part of our historical material lies outside its 

 range. A few sources, like the life of St. Columban, which, with many 

 other lives of the saints, has been acutely analyzed by Bernard 

 Krusch, may be shown to be the result of accretions belonging to 

 different ages. In the field of recensions and false attributions Quel- 

 lenkritik is at its best. I think that I am right, however, in saying 



