would prove or disprove them. Thus, while he no doubt made much use of
previous facts, he went far beyond that and succeeded in enlarging the
confines of knowledge. That is a task that can be accomplished only by
the most mature and gifted of men.

The ordinary scholar must also be a collector of facts. But he must be
content to be a receiver rather than a contributor of knowledge; that
is, he must occupy himself mainly with the ideas of other persons, as
presented in books or lectures or conversation. Even when he takes up
the study of nature, or any other field, at first hand, he is
generally under the guidance of a teacher or some text.

Now, how much, if anything, must he add to what is directly presented
to him by others? To what extent must he be a producer in that sense?
Are authors, at the best, capable only of suggesting their thought,
leaving much that is incomplete and even hidden from view? And must
the student do much supplementing, even much _digging_, or severe
thinking of his own, in order to get at their meaning? Or, do authors--at
least the greatest of them--say most, or all, that they wish, and
make their meaning plain? And is it, accordingly, the duty of the
student merely to _follow_ their presentation without enlarging
upon it greatly?

The view will hereafter be maintained that any good author leaves much
of such work for the student to do. Any poor author certainly leaves
much more.

_3. The organization of facts collected, as a third factor in
study._