viii THE ZEMSTVOS DURING THE WAR 
could have been done, for once documents have been labeled “secret” 
few government officials can be found with sufficient courage or ini- 
tiative to break open the seal. Thus vast masses of source material 
essential for the historian were effectively placed beyond his reach, 
although much of it was quite harmless from any point of view. 
While war conditions thus continued to hamper research, and were 
likely to do so for many years to come, some alternative had to be 
found. 
Fortunately such an alternative was at hand in the narrative, 
amply supported by documentary evidence, of those who had played 
some part in the conduct of affairs during the War, or who, as close 
observers in privileged positions, were able to record from first- or 
at least second-hand knowledge the economic history of different 
phases of the Great War, and of its effect upon society. Thus a 
series of monographs was planned consisting for the most part of 
unofficial yet authoritative statements, descriptive or historical, 
which may best be described as about halfway between memoirs and 
blue-books. These monographs make up the main body of the work 
assigned so far. They are not limited to contemporary war-time 
studies ; for the economic history of the War must deal with a longer 
period than that of the actual fighting. It must cover the years of 
“deflation” as well, at least sufficiently to secure some fairer measure 
of the economic displacement than is possible in purely contempo- 
rary judgments. 
With this phase of the work, the editorial problems assumed a new 
aspect. The series of monographs had to be planned primarily with 
regard to the availability of contributors, rather than of source 
material as in the case of most histories; for the contributors them- 
selves controlled the sources. This in turn involved a new attitude 
toward those two ideals which historians have sought to emphasize, 
consistency and objectivity. In order to bring out the chief contri- 
bution of each writer it was impossible to keep within narrowly logi- 
cal outlines; facts would have to be repeated in different settings 
and seen from different angles, and sections included which do not 
lie within the strict limits of history; and absolute objectivity could 
not be obtained in every part. Under the stress of controversy or 
apology, partial views would here and there find their expression. 
But these views are in some instances an intrinsic part of the history 
itself, contemporary measurements of facts as significant as the