Thursday, Part II
On Belloc: his historical method is often derided for its vague and unscientific character. But it is interesting, anyway, to apply that test so favored in science nowadays, of evaluating predictions. On the one hand, what sort of predictions were the respectable, scientific historians making in the late 1920's? It is hard to believe that they predicted anything other than puerile nonsense, but perhaps I am wrong. On the other hand, read the "New Arrivals" section in "Survivals and New Arrivals"; there is not a thing in it, that looks silly in light of actual events.
Reading Belloc does not tell you much about the matter of history, that is true enough - but as regards the form of history, he is suberb. I would say, in general, that he is of little use as an instructor, but he helps one to organize what one has already learned, and to see it in a new light. He also, of course, has his literary delights - under the heading of "materialism" in his "Survivals" section is a queer comic gem that is pure Belloc. Or so it strikes me; your results may vary.
Reading Belloc does not tell you much about the matter of history, that is true enough - but as regards the form of history, he is suberb. I would say, in general, that he is of little use as an instructor, but he helps one to organize what one has already learned, and to see it in a new light. He also, of course, has his literary delights - under the heading of "materialism" in his "Survivals" section is a queer comic gem that is pure Belloc. Or so it strikes me; your results may vary.
