Carl Lotus Becker

“ The critical review is occupied not so much with books for themselves, as with the general trend of historical thought and investigation, and with the relation of history to other branches of knowledge ”

“ It would seem, therefore, that historians should be pre eminent in this species of writing. But the fact is they are little given to it, and when they attempt it not infrequently just fall short of something first rate. It sometimes happens, indeed, that the very historian who exhibits breadth of view and originality, sound judgment, and a certain constructive power in his own work fails in just these respects when he is concerned to estimate critically the work of another. ”

“ And this devotion to method, which is the secret of M. Aulard's failure, may perhaps explain in part why our historical reviews contain excellent bibliographical information but very little genuine criticism. A natural reaction from the futile rhetoric which characterized much of the writing of the romantic historians has carried us somewhat too far in the opposite direction. We wish not to be classed with theorists and literary people. We wish to be thought Substantial and scientific. We are bound to have our work very solid even if it prove very heavy. ”

“ Doubtless it is impossible for any one journal to make a complete record of all the books and articles that appear in the field of history, but I believe the record could be made much more complete than it now is ”

“ The reason is that the historical book review still maintains the traditions of the essay in criticism. The reviewer is expected to put his best pen for ward, and, besides giving all necessary bibliographical information, to make some remarks of a general nature appropriate to the occasion. Knowing what is expected, the faithful fellow does his best ”

“ Osgood, have been published in the last decade. I am sure that some one who is thoroughly familiar with all this work might write an instructive, an illuminating critical essay about it, noting the changing attitude of both British and American scholars toward our colonial history, and attempting to find an explanation for this change in those present-day conditions that are determining the trend of historical scholarship generally, and, more particularly, that are bringing about, in England and tho United States, a marked revival of interest in colonial policy. ”

“ For by dint of patiently picking out and methodically chronicling error after error, monotonously, without haste, without rest, chapter after chapter, through 300 pages, the reader is left with the impression that Taine must have been either a very superficial charlatan or an imbecile. Criticism should render us the form and portrait of a man in right perspective. M. Aulard has collected all the surface imperfections, the moles and the warts, the scars ”