Making history a science not only involved the expression of a method that historians could ascribe to at will. For history to become a true science, the scientific method had to become a communal method – a mos communis – that would in essence form the very basis of a professional discipline of history. Making the inductive scientific method the method of history would involve a fair amount of disciplinary acts in the form of epistemic boundary maintenance. In the late 1850s and early 1860s, the boundary work of scientific historians seemed to focus on separating their inductive endeavour from Buckle's more philosophical and deductive project. As we have seen, however, historians promoting history's more artistic sensibilities also criticized Buckle's science of history as a way of rejecting history's scientific status entirely. What is more, such historians tended to promote a way of writing and teaching history that was much more popular with students and the reading public than was the fact-based approach advocated by the likes of Stubbs and others.