[3] The history of the attempts which have been made to understand and explain philosophically the history of humanity has been undertaken, as is well known, by Robert Flint. Mr. Flint has already given the history of the Philosophy of History in French-speaking countries: "Historical Philosophy in France and French Belgium and Switzerland," Edinburgh and London, 1893, 8vo. It is the first volume of the expanded re-edition of his "History of the Philosophy of History in Europe," published twenty-five years ago. Compare the retrospective (or historical) part of the work of N. Marselli, _La scienza della storia_, i., Torino, 1873. The most important original work which has appeared in France since the publication of the analytical repertory of R. Flint is that of P. Lacombe, _De l'histoire considérée comme science_, Paris, 1894, 8vo. Cf. _Revue Critique_, 1895, i. p. 132. [4] _Revue Critique d'histoire et de littérature_, 1892, i. p. 164. [5] _Revue Critique d'histoire et de littérature_, 1888, ii. p. 295. Cf. _Le Moyen Age_, x. (1897), p. 91: "These books [treatises on historical method] are seldom read by those to whom they might be useful, amateurs who devote their leisure to historical research; and as to professed scholars, it is from their masters' lessons that they have learnt to know and handle the tools of their trade, leaving out of consideration the fact that the method of history is the same as that of the other sciences of observation, the gist of which can be stated in a few words. [6] In accordance with the principle that historical method can only be taught by example, L. Mariani has given the humorous title _Corso pratico di metodologia della storia_ to a dissertation on a detail in the history of Fermo. See the _Archivio della Società romana di storia patria_, xiii. (1890), p. 211. [7] See an account of Freeman's work, "The Methods of Historical Study," in the _Revue Critique_, 1887, i. p. 376. This work, says the critic, is empty and commonplace. We learn from it "that history is not so easy a study as many fondly imagine, that it has points of contact with all the sciences, and that the historian truly worthy of the name ought to know everything; that historical certitude is unattainable, and that, in order to make the nearest approach to it, it is necessary to have constant recourse to the original sources; that it is necessary to know and use the best modern historians, but never to take their word for gospel. That is all." He concludes: Freeman "without a doubt taught historical method far better by example than he ever succeeded in doing by precept."