LXVI THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA 



let them agree as to general methods, and let them be as free from pre- 

 judice as is possible for poor humanity, yet will they not tell you exactly 

 the same tale. On some points they will agree, but not in all. "History", 

 it has lately been said by an able writer, Prof. Henri Berr of the Univer- 

 sity of Toulouse, "is applied psychology." Each of us has his own 

 psychology, that is to say his own conceptions as to how the mind of 

 man works, as to the relative force of motives, the inward significance of 

 outward actions. These conceptions we bring to bear on our understand- 

 ing of the present, and these we also apply, with a certain allowance for 

 historical parallax, to our interpretation of the past. 



This is practically Emerson's view of the matter. The fact nar- 

 rated, he says, must correspond to something in ourselves before it can 

 be credible or intelligible to us. He holds that there is no age or state 

 of society or mode of action to which there is not something correspon- 

 dent in the life of each of us. The business of history is to bring this 

 correspondence to light. As the psychologies of men differ, so will the 

 versions they give us of past events differ. Is this a disadvantage? If 

 it were there would still be no help for it; but fortunately we need not 

 so regard it. On the contrary, if different interpretations are given to 

 us, our minds gain in flexibility, in sympathy, in breadth, by entertain- 

 ing, or at least considering, each in turn; nor are we by so doing, debarred 

 from finally adopting the one that suits our own psychology best. 



But is it not important, it may be asked, that we should know ex- 

 actly how things happened ? Is it not possible to get the truth without 

 any admixture of personal elements? It is to be feared not. In the 

 language of the apostle "Habemus thesaurum istum in vasis fictilibus" 

 — "we have this treasure in earthen vessels." Give us some sublimated 

 spirit, free from all earthly limitations and passions, to write history 

 for us, and perhaps you might get what you want, and yet after all how 

 could spirits of that kind, who knew nothing of human passion, deal 

 with history that is full of human passion? 



Very different views of the function and the value of history have 

 been taken by different eminent persons. The great Bossuet, in the 

 introduction to his "Discours sur l'Histoire Universelle," written, it will 

 be remembered, for the instruction of the Dauphin, son of Louis XIV, 

 says that, even if history were of little advantage to ordinary people, it 

 should still be taught to princes, as the best means of enlightening 

 them as to the passions and interests of men, as to times and seasons, 

 and the respective effects of good and evil counsels. All that history 

 contains seems to be for their special benefit and guidance. It was Lord 

 Bolingbroke, half a century later, who uttered the maxim that history 

 was philosophy teaching by example. The Abbé Sièyes, on the other 

 hand, had no faith in what he called "the alleged truths of history" — 



