Simeon of Durham.

Complex Deri

vations.

fortune of the battle to those who believed in him, and unutterable anguish to those who despised him. King Adelwlf then was the glorious victor."

Simeon of Durham extends the account with purely literary embellishment. The sources of his facts are clearly evident, although one cannot decide from this paragraph whether he borrowed from Florence or from Asser.

"In the same year a great army of pagans came with 350 ships into the mouth of the river Thames. Who laid waste Dorobernia, i. e., the city of the Kentish men, and put to flight Berhtulf king of the Mercians with all his army, who had come to do battle against them."

"After this the Danes became more bold, and all their army was drawn together in Surrey. Which the warlike Ethelwlf king of the Saxons hearing, both he and his son Ethelbald with him collected a large army in a place which is called Aclea, that is, in the field of the oak. And when the pride of the English nation shone with glancing arms, the English fought a very long time with the Danes; bravely striving against them, because they saw that their king fought fiercely, therefore they became braver than their enemies in war. And when they had manfully striven for a very long time, and both sides fought with much sharpness and spirit, the greatest part of the pagan throng was thoroughly cut off and slain, so that never in any land, in one day, before or after did so many fall. The Christians, however on that same day honourably gained the victory and were masters of the field of death, giving thanks to the Lord in hymns and confessions."

Numerous complications may meet the investigator who is trying to find the source of an author's

information. The early compilers were not necessarily subtle in attempting to conceal their quotations, but owing to the simple fact that they appropriated anything wanted from the most convenient source it may be uncertain from whom it was obtained. For example, two writers may be indebted to the same predecessor in at least three different ways:

1. Roger the original may be drawn upon by Matthew and by William independently of each other.

2. Matthew may quote Roger direct and William afterward may take the same matter from Matthew.

3. The quotation may be in the reverse order of the last. William may first draw upon Roger and Matthew then follow William.

4. Matthew and William quoting from Roger may each be drawn upon by a separate group of followers, thus expanding into different families. The result is to complicate further the route of search back to the original source.

Many other combinations are not only possible but have actually been found. In case one or more of the documents is anonymous, or if the time or origin of any of them is obscure, the problem is at once rendered more difficult. But it is practically impossible to formulate a list of possibilities or general rules to meet every case. The investigator must resolve each difficulty as it appears.'

1

1 Bernheim has attempted to provide a list of possible forms of citation and to suggest rules by which relationship may be determined, but the exceptions are so numerous that the rules are of little value except as hypotheses for further inquiry.

Valuation of
Materials.

CHAPTER XI

THE SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH

Up to this point attention has been devoted chiefly to description of the various kinds of historical material and the processes by which the genuineness of these may be tested. Although historical inferences have been called into use they have been applied only to the external facts about the sources. It is obvious that this procedure must take place first in all good historical work. The document or relic must be shown to be genuine before we begin to take evidence from it, but external criticism does not attempt to determine the facts in the case, nor does the proof of the genuineness of a document prove that it tells the truth. The failure to observe that axiom wrought great havoc in medieval history. The inclination to accept everything written, not only as genuine, but true because written, perpetuated the errors as well as the falsehoods of the past. There exists even yet the temptation to accept the words of predecessors without sufficiently weighing their value.

The logical processes by which an historical narrative is constructed from the genuine materials begin with the valuation of the separate parts. We inquire whether the source is of a kind from

which truth is to be derived, or how far it is capable of rendering evidence. A relic will furnish one kind of information, a chronicle another. Where the source is clearly an unconscious relic there is no difficulty in drawing inferences. The stone hammer and the Greek vase enable us at once to perceive the relative artistic instincts of the two periods from which they emanate, and, indeed, a large part of relic material permits us to enter at once upon the process of interpretation. The difficulties appear at the point where the document approaches the line of consciously transmitted information. A business contract between two private citizens may be purely a relic of the epoch; a contract between a citizen and a government may be intended to justify a political movement; while a contract between two governments may be a treaty which contains the history of an episode or a period. It is the first duty of internal criticism, therefore, to mark the distinctions between materials and to determine their relative value in evidence.

The first conclusion in regard to the two great Relics alone divisions of sources is that relics alone are insuffi- insufficient. cient. The consciously transmitted narrative provides the connecting links in the story. We come therefore immediately to the fact that in the pursuit of historical truth we have to do with persons and their characteristics. Only in rare instances do historical writers report on events which they have actually seen or experienced. They are obliged to use the eyes of others. Witnesses are called in to give their impressions. In a long history there will

Natural
Science.

Personality.

be many different personalities to testify to the parts
they have played or witnessed. The documents
are not the witnesses. They are simply the records
of those persons who took part in the events. The
records are the impressions of the man or group of
men who witnessed the occurrence.
In many
instances there are no records by immediate partici-
pants, and we are obliged to get what truth we can
from the impression made on the reporter by some
one else. Thucydides wrote partly from observa-
tion, partly from what other observers told him,
and partly from documents which others left
behind. In the written materials of history, there-
fore, the personality of the author is a constant
factor to be dealt with. In the natural sciences
there is no such element to be taken into account.
Every observer or experimenter can obtain genuine
materials at first hand and is not obliged to consider
the observations of others, yet, when the chemist
is following the development of human knowledge
concerning a given phenomenon he needs to follow
the reports of others. When the physicist attempts
to trace the story of the discovery and use of elec-
tricity he becomes a historian and must make use of
the reports of others. The historian of human
affairs cannot recreate his phenomena, but must
study the impressions made by past events on others.
History therefore is a reasoning science, and attempts
to find out what made these impressions.

The chief factor in the problem is the human being. This being has a well understood constitution, but shows a wide variety of individual char