of the intelligent public, at large. The list of names of the men who have held the position of Regius Professor of Modern History, at Oxford and Cambridge respectively, since 1850, is a most striking one,1 and there are few among them who have not, in one way or another, put on record their ideas of the way in which history ought to be written. The list of published "inaugural addresses" which have marked the occupancy of these two chairs, at Oxford and at Cambridge is a noteworthy one, and is, approximately, as follows:

AT OXFORD.

1. Vaughan, Henry Halford. Two general lectures on modern history, delivered on inauguration. Oxford: J. H. and J. Parker. 1849. 2. Smith, Goldwin. Inaugural lecture, in 1859. Printed at p. 5-44 of his volume, "Lectures on the study of history", (Am. ed.), New York: Harper & Bros., 1875. [Published in London by J. H. & J. Parker, 1861.]

3. Stubbs, William. [afterwards Bishop of Oxford.] Inaugural address, Feb. 7, 1867, printed at p. 1-25 of his volume, "Seventeen lectures on the study of medieval and modern history and kindred subjects", Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1886.

4. Freeman, Edward Augustus. Office (The) of the historical professor. Inaugural lecture delivered Oct. 15, 1884. London: Mac

'Below is given a table showing the successive occupants of both the Oxford and Cambridge chairs for the past fifty-six years:

The following persons have held the position of Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford since 1850:

1. Henry Halford Vaughan. Appointed in 1848 Continued till 1858.

2. Goldwin Smith. Appointed in 1859. Continued till 1866.

3. William Stubbs, afterwards Bishop of Oxford. Appointed in 1866. Continued till 1884.

4. Edward Augustus Freeman. Appointed in 1884. Continued till 1892. 5. James Anthony Froude. Appointed in 1892. Continued till 1894. 6. Frederick York-Powell. Continued till 1904.

Appointed in 1894.

7. Charles Harding Firth. Appointed in 1904. Continued to the present time. The following persons have held the position of Regius Professor of Modern History at Cambridge since 1850:

1. Sir James Stephen. Appointed in 1849. Continued till 1860.

2.

8.

Charles Kingsley. Appointed in 1860. Continued till 1869.

Sir John Robert Seeley. Appointed in 1869. Continued till 1895.

4. Lord Acton. Appointed in 1895. Continued till 1902.

5. John Bagnall Bury. Appointed in 1902. Continued to the present time. "The name of Samuel Rawson Gardiner narrowly escaped being in this list. The position was offered to him in 1894, but was declined.

"That here are omissions is very probable, even with utmost care to include all. The inaugural address of Mr. Froude, at Oxford is noticeable by its absence. The term of office of Dr. Thomas Arnold, at Oxford, antedated the period referred to, (1841-42). His "Inaugural lecture," (1841), is at p. 25-9 of his "Introductory lectures," (Am. ed.) New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1845.

millan & Co., 1884. [Also printed at p. 1-40 of his volume, "The methods of historical study,” London: Macmillan & Co., 1886.] Plea (A) for the historical teaching

5. Firth, Charles Harding.

of history. Inaugural lecture delivered on Nov. 9, 1904. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1905.

AT CAMBRIDGE.

1. Kingsley, Charles. Inaugural lecture, 1860. Chapter 1, (p. ixlvi), of his volume, The Roman and the Teuton—a series of lectures before the University of Cambridge. Cambridge: University Press, 1864. 2. Seeley, Sir John Robert. Inaugural lecture, 1869. The teach ing of politics. Printed at p. 306-35 of his volume, "Roman imperialism and other lectures and essays", Boston: Roberts Bros. 1871. [Pub lished in London by Macmillan & Co., 1870.]

3. Acton, Richard Maximilian Dalberg-, Baron Acton. Lecture (A) on the study of history, delivered at Cambridge, June 11, 1895. London: Macmillan & Co., 1895.

4. Bury, John Bagnall. Inaugural lecture delivered in the Divinity School, Cambridge, on January 26, 1903, Cambridge: University Press, 1903.1

In this country a scarcely less noteworthy series of expositions of historical method is to be found in the "President's addresses", delivered in successive years, before the American Historical Association. These addresses, the most of which have been printed in full in the American Historical Review, or in the "Annual report" of the Association, have been delivered by such men as Andrew D. White, George Bancroft, and others.

These addresses may be found in print, as follows:

Address of Andrew Dickson White, as President of the American Historical Association, Sept. 9, 1884, "On studies in general history and the history of civilization", in "Papers" of the American Historical Association, vol. 1, p. 49-72.

1A recent address, of much interest, on the teaching of history is that of Professor Charles Oman, Chichele Professor of History at Oxford, delivered Feb. 7, 1906, and published during the present year, by the Clarendon Press, Oxford. The recommendations of both Firth and Oman are examined in a very incisive review, in the Nation, May 10, 1906, v. 82, p. 388-89.

There are other notable addresses which might be cited in this connection, as, for instance, John Stuart Mill's Inaugural address as Rector of the University of St. Andrew's, Feb. 1, 1867, printed at p. 332-407 of v. 4 of the American reprint of his "Dissertations and discussions," New York: H. Holt & Co., 1874; and W. E. H. Lecky's "Presidential address," on "The political value of history," before the Birmingham and Midland Institute, Oct. 10, 1892, reprinted in this country by D. Appleton & Co., New York, 1893, (57 pages).

That of Andrew Dickson White, Sept. 8, 1885, on "The influence of American ideas upon the French Revolution", (read only by abstract and so printed), in "Papers", vol. 1, p. 429-33.

That of George Bancroft, April 27, 1886, on "Self-government", in "Papers", vol. 2, p. 7-13.

That of Justin Winsor, May 21, 1887, on "Manuscript sources of American history;-the conspicuous collections extant", in "Papers", vol. 3, p. 9-27.

That of William Frederick Poole, Dec. 26, 1888, on "The early Northwest", in "Papers", vol. 3, p. 277-300.

That of Charles Kendall Adams, Dec. 28, 1889, on "Recent historical work in the colleges and universities of Europe and America”, in "Annual report" of the American Historical Association, 1889, p. 19-42.

That of John Jay, Dec. 29, 1890, on "The demand for education in American history," in "Annual report", 1890, p. 15-36.

That of William Wirt Henry, Dec. 29, 1891, on "The causes which produced the Virginia of the Revolutionary period", in "Annual report" 1891, p. 15-29.

That of James Burrill Angell, July 11, 1893, on "The inadequate recognition of diplomatists by historians", in "Annual report", 1893, p. 13-24.

That of Henry Adams, (read in his absence), Dec. 26, 1894, on "The tendency of history", in "Annual report", 1894, p. 17-23.

That of George Frisbie Hoar, Dec. 27, 1895, on "Popular discontent with representative government", in "Annual report", 1895, p. 21-43. That of Richard Salter Storrs, Dec. 29, 1896, on "Contributions to our national development by plain men", in "Annual report", 1896, vol. 1, p. 37-63.

That of James Schouler, Dec. 28, 1897, on "A new federal convention", in "Annual report", 1897, p. 21-34.

That of George Park Fisher, Dec. 28, 1898, on "The function of the historian as a judge of historic persons", in "Annual report", 1898, p. 13-33. [Also issued separately, as a pamphlet.]

That of James Ford Rhodes, Dec. 28, 1899, on "History", in "Annual report", 1899, p. 45-63. [Also printed in the Atlantic Monthly, vol. 85, p. 158-69.]

That of Edward Eggleston, (read in his absence), Dec. 27, 1900, on "The new history", in "Annual report", 1900, p. 35-47. That of Charles Francis Adams,' Dec. 27, 1901, on function", in "Annual report", 1901, vol. 1, p, American Historical Review, vol. 7, p. 203-32.]

" An undeveloped 49-93. [Also in

'Very suggestive comment on historical methods is also to be found in Mr. Adams's address on "The sifted grain and the grain sifters," delivered at Madison, Wis., Oct. 19 1900, American Historical Review, Jan., 1901, v. 6, p. 197-234. See also Mr. James F. Rhodes's paper. "Concerning the writing of history," in the "Annual report" of the American Historical Association, 1900, v. 1, p. 48-65.

That of Alfred Thayer Mahan, Dec. 26, 1902, on "Subordination in historical treatment", in "Annual report", 1902, p. 49-63. [Also in Atlantic Monthly, vol. 91, p. 289-98, with title, "The writing of history."]

That of Henry Charles Lea, Dec. 29, 1903, on "Ethical values in history", in "Annual report", 1903, p. 55-69.

That of Goldwin Smith, Dec. 28, 1904, on "The treatment of history", in "Annual report", 1904, p. 65-78. [Also in American Historical Review, vol. 10, p. 511-20.]

That of John Bach McMaster, Dec. 26, 1905, on "Old standards of public morals", in American Historical Review, (April, 1906), vol. 11, p. 515-28.

It can hardly be said then that there is any dearth of exact and careful instruction, on the one hand, or of thoughtful and suggestive discussion, on the other hand, on this subject of historical method and point of view. Why then have we not, at the present time, at least an approximation to absolute perfection, in the historical writing of our day? That we have not, is too obvious to need extended proof, further than a glance through the critical reviews of the current historical publications, or, better still, through the books themselves. Chiefly, it may be answered does this result from the limitations of human nature. Given, a young man who has before him a collection of historical materials of the widest range; who has been carefully instructed by an enlightened and skilful teacher of history; who has served an extended apprenticeship in the actual "laboratory work" in history at the university; and who, finally, is deeply interested in the study. Have we any absolute assurance that he will not, after he goes out into the world, and begins his life-work, as a writer of history, put forth some unworthy piece of work? Unhappily, none. Two drawbacks to be most carefully guarded against, (as persistently reinvading), are constitutional inaccuracy and traditional prejudice.

A TERTIUM QUID.

It has already been suggested, above, that there may possibly be a "tertium quid",-some point of view which

avoids the extreme of the "literary" and "scientific" advocates, respectively.

This, in short, is the view of the case which has evidently appealed most strongly to Mr. Firth, the English historian, in his recent very suggestive address on historical method.1 The author is the present Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford, and the adddress cited was delivered as his inaugural lecture, November 9, 1904, under the title of "A plea for the historical teaching of history." The language of the title, by the way, is avowedly borrowed from one of the letters of his distinguished predecessor in the same chair, Dr. William Stubbs, Bishop of Oxford.

Men "give opposite answers," says Mr. Firth, "according to their conception of the methods and the objects of the historian. One tells us that history is a science, nothing more and nothing less," (Professor J. B. Bury, p. 7), "another that it is an art,5 and that one only succeeds in it by imagination. To me truth seems to lie between these two extremes. History is neither, but it partakes of the nature of both."

Acting on the above suggestion, we shall first interrogate the literary conception of history. We shall note down in what ways this is favorable, and in what ways unfavorable, to the historical treatment which is required. We shall

1Firth, Charles Henry. "Plea (A) for the historical teaching of history." London. 1904.

'See chronological lists of "Regius Professors of Modern History," above, (p. 363, foot-note 1.)

Firth's Plea, p. 32.

'At p. 264 of W. H. Hutton's "Letters of William Stubbs, Bishop of Oxford." London: Constable. 1904.

"Mr. Firth in using this language plainly conceives of "art" as the antipodes of "science," in the dispute which is under consideration. Other writers, in treating of the antipodes of science regard it as "literature." In either case the contrast is a sufficiently sharp one; and indeed literature itself may not inappropriately be conceived of as a form of art. It surely partakes of the characteristics of art, in its capacity for effective condensation. "M. Angelo," remarks Dr. C. A. L. Richards, "defined sculpture as 'the Art that works by force of taking away.' The art of literary style works in a similar fashion," [The Dial, Chicago, March 1, 1893, v. 14, p. 140.]

"Firth's "Plea," p. 8.