I have nothing revolutionary or even novel to offer.
Everyone agrees to that; but when we come to define truth, dissension starts.
Every historian with professional standards speaks or writes what he believes to be true.
Historical methodology, as I see it, is a product of common sense applied to circumstances.
Skepticism is an important historical tool. It is the starting point of all revision of hitherto accepted history.
If a lecturer, he wishes to be heard; if a writer, to be read. He always hopes for a public beyond that of the long-suffering wife.
Any child knows that history can only be a reduced representation of reality, but it must be a true one, not distorted by queer lenses.
Intellectual honesty is the quality that the public in free countries always has expected of historians; much more than that it does not expect, nor often get.
The same contingencies of time and space that force a statesman or soldier to make decisions, impel the historian, though with less urgency, to make up his mind.
Too rigid specialization is almost as bad for a historian's mind, and for his ultimate reputation, as too early an indulgence in broad generalization and synthesis.