r CHAPTER XXIV THE PRESENTATION THE study of the general causes at work in history is only one part of the collection of data. We are obliged to take account of large matters, possibly casting the eye over long vistas of time to explain a limited period, but the act is yet one of the preliminary processes of construction. We may speculate on the philosophy of human life and the ultimate end of all things, and still be busy with but a single point in the general task. The aim of it all is finally to present a connected account. It is in the nature of our mental operations that the connections between things have been slowly establishing themselves as the preparatory work has proceeded. In attempting to analyze the method we have separated processes which take place simultaneously, because it is best to consider the steps one at a time in order to see their logical value. The crowning act is to get the results of the previous study into an orderly narrative, however long the process may have been approaching completeness. In brief, a practical statement of the case is this: 1. A topic was chosen for investigation. 2. Many authors and documents have been consulted. 3. These have been criticized and the worthless laid aside. 4. From the pertinent sources hundreds of notes have been taken. 5. Small groups of related facts have been placed in order as the work progressed. 6. A study of general physical, economic and social agencies has enlarged the groups of facts and given greater coherency to the groups. 7. It is now in order to combine the parts into a treatise, or a narrative for the public. J Probably the scheme has been forming in the Concentration. mind during the progress of the research. A chronological treatment has its order prescribed in advance, and a topical arrangement will develop at least an hypothesis of results, yet in all cases it is important to stop and review the subject as a whole in order to formulate it in proper proportions. In this connection the first general duty may be summed up in the word "concentration." This has a very practical application at the outset, for as a rule the investigator collects more data than he needs. In the laudable desire to omit nothing of importance relating to his subject he will make note of matters which may be finally discarded. This is the method pursued in every science, and there is no other way of making sure of thorough work, but it does not necessarily follow that all of the material should be used. In historical research it is almost inevitably the case that the matter should be "boiled down." Upon the process of concentration depends the excellence of the product. At the very outset the kind of history about to be written will prescribe the classes of material to be omitted. For constitu Improper Perspective. tional and legal history, for art or religious history, or for biography there will be things omitted which might appear in a general narrative. One might think such an admonition so obvious that it need not be mentioned, but it is a regrettable fact that even the special writer sometimes forgets the boundaries of his own topic. This can arise in the conscientious collection of data in the expectation that the matter will eventually be sifted. To avoid redundance the point of view must be maintained steadily throughout the whole investigation. After the subject itself has determined in a general way the kinds of data that are to be set aside, the next consideration is the relative value of what is left. This is frequently spoken of as finding the "historical perspective," and is a matter not only essential to an agreeable literary style, but also to the truth of history. Notwithstanding the importance of this rule, an enormous budget of grievances can be rolled up against the historians on this very point. Again and again the chapters are loaded with details about comparatively unimportant events or persons, or, what is equally perversive of truth, all parts of the period are given equally extensive treatment. The distant and minor personages are brought into the foreground, the picture is flat, and accordingly the narrative is out of perspective. Herodotus often fails in this respect. While he is reciting the story of Greece he happens to think of an anecdote about some other country, and in the telling of it he is perhaps reminded of another, and before he gets back to the current of his history again the reader may have had a trip to Babylon or Africa. The stories are very entertaining but they do not always contribute to the perspective of Greek history. Another sad example of lack of perspective is in Kopp's "Geschichte der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft." The author was so anxious to exhibit the relations of the confederation to the German Empire that he overloaded the narrative with discussions of imperial documents. Switzerland is almost lost sight of and the work would be more appropriately called a history of the empire. Freeman's Norman Conquest suffers from the overcrowding of details. The account is so minute that the author appears to have found it hard to omit anything he found in the chronicles. The list of delinquents is long indeed. Almost every doctoral dissertation in history contains much that could profitably be left out. The true perspective must be sought at any True Perexpense of selection and concentration. In the spective. first place it must be remembered that the subject investigated by any one man is but a small part of the history of the world and probably only a portion of any one country. A modest conception of his own contribution will help to reduce the compass of the treatise, and, better yet, will indicate the matters to be retained. Only such evidence as will contribute to an understanding of the general development of the country, or the general history of its institutions, should be included in the presentation. Too many books have been written in which it would seem as if the subject were the only thing in า Omissions. the world worth attention. Argument may be necessary to prove a new theory, and all the important facts for that purpose should be included, but here, too, there is likely to be an overestimate of the space required for the demonstration. The literature in each branch of science and in every field of history is so abundant that the new writer is in duty bound, if only for self-preservation, to consider the limits of human acquirement and the brevity of this life. The most successful writers are those who know best what to leave out, yet the process of elimination is not the most agreeable. When one has worked hard to gather his facts, has spent hours and days in getting the substance of a subject, it seems cruel to be obliged to lay aside all those notes and condense the work of weeks into a paragraph, or boil down a page into an adverb. Infanticide is hardly less repugnant, but the weeding must be done and the only question is as to what shall be left standing. For choice we are not left in the dark, or abandoned to the mere desire to be brief. Important guide marks indicate the way. One of these points to the conscientious use of the words and expressions which concentrate in themselves the results of ages or the essence of institutions. These are often words which seem so familiar that no mistake could be made in the meaning, yet a most perilous part of the composition of history lies in the use of the terms which must necessarily be employed in a technical sense to avoid the repetition of long descriptions. Every natural science demands that care be exer |