Allow me to give you an illustration. Leopold Ranke has written a History of the Popes. He makes an assertion about some of them that arouses our suspicion. In support of his statement, however, he quotes a document purporting to belong to the time and matter in question, and supposed by the writer to be quite correct. We wish to know whether Ranke's statement is true. There is no other way of satisfying ourselves than by having recourse to the document, to the sources, and examining the witness he brings forward in its favor. We must find out whether the document is authentic and free from error, whether it is correctly interpreted by the writer, whether it has the proper credentials to give it weight and authority.

A few words about each of these points. First: Is the document authentic; has it been tampered with or changed in any way? A document is said to be authentic when it really belongs to that particular time and century and author to whom it is commonly ascribed. Thus I am writing a history of the Civil War; I quote a document of General Lee to substantiate an opinion I may hold in regard to some particular battle. If this is really General Lee's document, if it belongs to the time the battle took place, it is an authentic document. Moreover, we cannot trust a document unless it is whole and entire, quoted just as it was written by the author, without mutilation or addition. Hence, before we can place confidence in a document we must be sure not only of its identity, but that it is without flaw.

To put it in another way: A note containing some important information is brought to us by a messenger, a stranger to us, sent by a supposedly. reliable correspondent. If there is the slightest ground for doubt about the identity and integrity of the messenger, or of him who has employed him, we will, if we are prudent, leave nothing undone to assure ourselves of the identity of the messenger, or of him who employs him; we will examine carefully the note to see that it really came from the person whose name it bears, and that it has been delivered as it was written, unchanged. Now the historical documents we SO frequently run across in our reading or study are like the messenger and the note. They are attributed to the pen of some person, a contemporary of the facts they contain. But before trust

ing them entirely there must be no reasonable doubt about their genuineness and their integrity, and of this we must assure ourselves either by personal research, or by the aid of others wiser than ourselves, and in whom we can confide.

Secondly: Has the document quoted by the historical writer been properly understood? A lawyer's skill is best shown by the way he can worm out of the witness on the stand all that is in him bearing on the case. Some witnesses are very enigmatical and obscure. One cannot seize just what they mean. Such oftentimes are the documents the historical writer has to deal with in his researches, and it requires great patience and dogged perseverance to get out of them their real meaning.

We all know that the use of language varies. It is so with our own vernacular. The phraseology of Chaucer is not that of Tennyson. Certain peculiar expressions are adopted for a time, and then drop out and are forgotten. For these reasons the writer of history cannot be too careful when studying his sources to learn what they mean. It is because of neglect in this point that serious mistakes are made, and men, nations, and religions are charged with deeds of which they were never guilty.

It is easy to give a document a meaning it has not. Sometimes the document is garbled in the quotation; sometimes it is taken from the context, and only partially given, when the whole passage should be studied and given in order to be properly understood.

Illustrations could be multiplied to a very high figure in which documents or texts have been misinterpreted, or made to say what they never contained. This fact alone impresses on the teachers of history the supreme importance of being on their guard against accepting too readily any and every document cited in an historical work to bolster up misstatements or opinions. If we have reason to suspect, and very often we have reason, especially in matters touching our holy religion, then we must suspend judgment until we have made the proper and necessary investigations either by ourselves or through others.

Lastly, students of history will be on the watch in their reading to see what authority or weight the document may have as a proof of the writer's statement or opinion. Do not forget that

every document or text quoted by an author is like a witness. Hence, serious students of history when they meet such texts in their reading, will ask themselves: Has the witness, called upon to testify, a reliable knowledge of the fact concerning which he has to pronounce his testimony? Has he been perfectly sincere in his deposition of the fact? In other words, was the witness alive at the time and in the place or on the spot where the fact he testifies to occurred; was he in such a favorable position so as to be able to take it in well? Or, at least, if not this, then has the witness got his information from a good and reliable source? The more guarantees we have on this point, the more credit and authority will the witness have.

I am spending my vacation in a country place, hitherto unknown to me. I hear some one say: "The present year is one of great abundance for this part of the State. For a long time the harvests have never been richer." Before acquiescing to what the speaker says, I should inquire who is talking to me. If he is a man of years, a well-to-do land owner in the neighborhood, his interests, his profession, his tastes, and a long experience furnish him with the means of being well up in the subject. He knows what he is talking about, and I may yield my judgment to his. His testimony has weight and authority. If, however, the speaker is a traveler, who rarely passes through the country, and then only on business that has no connection with agriculture, his testimony is worth little. It has little weight or value.

The notes of tourists on the character and manners of a nation through which they pass like ships in the night, often have this mask of levity and rashness of judgment, which take away all weight or value from what they may have to say. Some of them are hidebound by a narrow spirit of nationality, and thus are incapable of appreciating institutions and customs so very different from their own. Other some, nervous creatures, cannot refrain from filling the pages of their journal, with the agreeable or disagreeable impressions made upon them by the state of the weather, their own emotions and other incidents of equal importance. What these writers give about the country through which they travel is generally and necessarily very superficial,

and no prudent or judicious readers of history are going to let these writers serve them with gossip when they can get serious and sound historic information from witnesses closer home and more familiar with their subject.

We had a very modern instance of this superficial and inaccurate traveler witness only a few years ago. A certain gentleman, in high position in his church, and of corresponding influence among his fellowmen, made a trip to Manila. When he came back he was immediately interviewed by the ubiquitous and inquisitive reporters. The returned traveler gave his views and impressions without reserve. And if the reported narration is correct as it appeared in the New York dailies, then the great majority of priests and religious in the Philippine Islands ought to be in prison as robbers, extortioners and hypocrites. But what, as a matter of fact and truth, was this clergyman's testimony worth? His assertions were taken up and examined into by one who had spent years in the islands, and who knew the priests and the people well from coming in constant contact with them. It was discovered that the traveler witness had passed but three or four days in Manila, and that in his hurried tour he had met only those whose interest it was to malign and blacken everything Catholic, priestly or religious. Beware of such witnesses as these when you confront them in your reading. What I have said thus far about the handling of the sources of history applies to material and written records. As for popular tradition that requires a special treatment of its own. One cannot help noticing the striking analogy between the characteristics of oral tradition, as described a while ago, and the characteristics of public rumor. For both there is the same crowd of intermediate witnesses quite unknown, all generally agreeing on the substance of the fact, but frequently at variance over details. In both again is observed the same ignorance concerning the primitive witnesses; in both too one meets a multitude of cases in which the report is believed to be true, while in a multitude of others it is completely denied.

Now how does a prudent man act, says a newspaper man, when he learns from public rumor that some important event has occurred in a far off land? He gathers up eagerly the

various reports brought to him; he compares them; he notices on what points they agree or disagree. He is in no hurry to draw conclusions. He endeavors to get the official reports; writes for information, in fact uses every means in his power to sift the rumor to the bottom to find what residue of fact or of fiction there is in it.

In pretty much the same way must the historical writer act in the presence of a popular tradition. He will neither accept it nor reject it, until he has made every possible investigation concerning it. And if he cannot determine for lack of data whether to reject it or not, he will give it for what it is worth, no more than a rumor.

As a final word let me sum up what has been said. The sources of history are the records of the past, giving us the testimony concerning the events of the past in written and material documents and in popular tradition. To handle these documents in such a way as to be able to determine their authenticity, their integrity, and their veracity, to sift them so as to make the light of truth flash from them, require a certain sagacity which is the result only of long and habitual practice. When, therefore, I said that the students and teachers of history should know the sources of history and how they are to be studied effectually, I do not mean that they should be adepts and experts. All that I would ask of you is the knowledge that such sources exist, that they are frequently quoted and referred to, and that when any doubt arises in your mind about quotations or references, or when writers assert anything that arouses your suspicion, shocks your sense of justice or your faith, you have recourse to the Sources yourselves, to consult and verify, verify and consult; or that you apply to some one capable of helping you in your difficulty, to consult and verify, verify and consult.

DISCUSSION.

REV. MATTHEW WALSH, C. S. C.: After he able and interesting paper of Father Woods there can be little doubt in our minds as to the meaning and importance of the sources of history. There is room, however, for at least some general observations. In the teaching of history, perhaps more than in any other branch of educational work, the teacher is forced to rely on things outside himself. He must produce the materials with which he