We have already stated that history is studied from documents, and that documents are the traces of past event This is the place to indicate the consequences involved in this statement and this definition.
Events can be empirically known in two ways only by direct observation while they are in progress and indirectly by the study of the traces which they leave behind them Take an earthquake for example I have a direct knowledge of it if I am present when the phenomenon occurs an indirect knowledge if without having been thus present I observe its physical effects (crevices, ruins) or if after these effects have disappeared I read a description written by some one who has himself witnessed the phenomenon or its effects Now the peculiarity of “historical facts” is this that they are only known indirectly by the help of their traces. Historical knowl edge is essentially indirect know ledge. The methods of historical science ought, therefore to be radically different from those of the direct sciences; that is to say of all the other sciences except geology which are founded on direct observation. Historical science whatever may be said 3 is not a science of observation at all.