Professor Emerton's Lecture.

Yesterday morning, Prof. Emerton lectured to the students in history, 20, on the "Sources of Historical Investigation." The following is the substance of his lecture : What are the original sources accessible to students of history? What are the misconceptions of the word history? History is a record of the lives of men in groups. History is not the philosophy of history. Many believe that history is all in the books. In this they are much mistaken-as much as they would be if they should refer natural science and language to books. If one should learn history he must go the original sources. There are the conscious and the unconscious sources. The primitive American knew nothing of his relations to the past and the future, but by his acts he unwittingly has given us facts of his existence, as is shown by the relics to be found everywhere on this continent. We can gain but little knowledge of the less civilized nations from the conscious sources. The muse of history was once portrayed with a scroll and pen. The modern Clio should be armed with a spade. The historian to day has to dig for his parts. The study of unconscious sources begins with buildings, vases, irons, etc., but it soon advances to the inscriptions on tombs, coins, obelisks. The purpose of these inscriptions was not historic, but such is their use today. The rhetorical panegyric conveys history, although its object is to magnify some popular hero. Letters have been saved from a dim sense of their future use. The separation of the Germans and the French after the dismemberment of the Empire of Charlemagne is shown unconsciously by a treaty between Louis and Charles, his grandchildren, which was sanctioned by an oath repeated by each sovereign in the language of the other. Thus was shown that two nations had arisen. The German of the one was clear and distinct from the French of the other. This fact comes to us through the Eatin chronicler, who unconsciously has given a record of the separation of a people once united. There is another unconscious source in historical study, and that is the report of ambassadors at foreign courts. Light on political combinations especially is shown by these reports.

Conscious sources are very difficult. Why should men write that the future may read? The only solution is the literary impulse which has always existed with greater or less power. In ancient and mediaeval times notices of sacred days contained appendices of the important events which had occurred since the last notifications. Unfortunately, most of the annalists of the middle ages were unintelligent. Most of the original sources of the history of this era have now been printed, through the energy of the modern German scholars. This brings up the invention of printing, the great value of which it is difficult to estimate.

The value of historical sources must be viewed through the motives of the writers. A letter written for publication is quite different from one of a private nature. This question, fortunately, is not often a difficult one. There remains the question of the comparative value of an unconscious and a conscious record. The former is a record, pure and simple the latter is apt to be influenced by personal considerations. It cannot, therefore, be so untrustworthy.