official or officious censor on the top of the editor, have played
strange tricks, and have much to answer for. And if they are not to
blame, it may turn out that the author wrote his book twice over, that
you can discover the first jet, the progressive variations, things
added, and things struck out. Next is the question where the writer
got his information. If from a previous writer, it can be
ascertained, and the inquiry has to be repeated. If from unpublished
papers, they must be traced, and when the fountain-head is reached, or
the track disappears, the question of veracity arises. The
responsible writer's character, his position, antecedents, and
probable motives have to be examined into; and this is what, in a
different and adapted sense of the word, may be called the higher
criticism, in comparison with the servile and often mechanical work of
pursuing statements to their root. For a historian has to be treated
as a witness, and not believed unless his sincerity is established #61.
The maxim that a man must be presumed to be innocent until his guilt
is proved, was not made for him.

For us, then, the estimate of authorities, the weighing of
testimony, is more meritorious than the potential discovery of
new matter #62. And modern history, which is the widest field of
application, is not the best to learn our business in; for it is
too wide, and the harvest has not been winnowed as in antiquity,
and further on to the Crusades. It is better to examine what has
been done for questions that are compact and circumscribed, such
as the sources of Plutarch's Pericles, the two tracts on Athenian
government, the origin of the epistle to Diognetus, the date of
the life of St. Antony; and to learn from Schwegler how this
analytical work began. More satisfying because more decisive has
been the critical treatment of the medieval writers, parallel