HISTORY. 



751 



fall within the province of the historian, we shall 

 now say a few words upon the mode in which he 

 is to give them. When the historian is called upon 

 for facts, what is the meaning of the demand ? Of 

 course, he is to give no wilful misstatements. What 

 then is meant '? That he should confine himself 

 to a bare register of events, and make his work 

 a chronological table, or, at best, a book of annals ? 

 This might suit the purposes of those who wish to 

 prevent the true causes of events and the true char- 

 acter of periods from being seen, but it would not com- 

 port with the character of history. The historian is to 

 give facts, but he is to give them with all their attend- 

 ant circumstances, showing both the causes from 

 which they sprung and the consequences to which they 

 gave rise ; otherwise, he is no better than a chronicler. 

 In the daily occurrences of private life, how much 

 explanation is necessary to enable us to form a just, 

 estimate of actions and events ! If we say that A 

 killed B, without stating whether in self-defence or 

 with malice prepense, who can estimate rightly the 

 conduct of A ? It is the same in history. In the 

 testimony which the historian bears to the character 

 of the past, before the tribunal of posterity, he is bound 

 to state not merely "the truth," but "the whole 

 truth." That Henry IV. was killed by Ravaillac May 

 4, 16 10, is a historical fact ; but the explanation of the 

 conduct of Ravaillac involves a consideration of the 

 whole political state of France at the time. It is a 

 very common mistake to suppose that a historian, by 

 confining himself to facts, might satisfy all parties, 

 in the same manner as a mathematical demonstration 

 is equally convincing to every one. Take, for in- 

 stance, the French revolution. There exist several 

 enumerations of all the laws which were passed, and 

 all the memorable events which happened during 

 that period, chronologically arranged. These, of 

 course, if faithfully drawn up, ought to be equally 

 acceptable to royalists and republicans. But is this 

 history ? Are these statements of facts such as are 

 required of the historian ? He is not to tire us, 

 indeed, by arguments or declamations, but he is 

 bound to give the whole connected series of facts, 

 not the broken links of the chain. Therefore, in this 

 case, he must set forth the causes of the revolution, 

 found in the previous state of France. At this 

 point, of course, different views will immediately 

 arise. Some writers will think they discern the 

 causes of the revolution as early as the time of Louis 

 XIV., in his profligate administration, and concen- 

 tration of all power in himself, and will show how 

 these causes gradually acquired their fearful energy ; 

 whilst others will insist that the revolution was mere- 

 ly the work of a set of factious men. Thus we see 

 how groundless is the expectation of writing history 

 so as to satisfy every body. If the daily occurrences 

 of life are viewed in very different lights by equally 

 intelligent persons, how can it be otherwise with the 

 past ! The demand that the historian should confine 

 himself to facts, is so far correct, that he should not 

 colour his statements of events to adapt them to his 

 own theories. Nothing is more seducing, and, at 

 the same time, more dangerous, than leading ideas 

 in history, to which the facts have been too often 

 made subservient. 



We now come to a more particular consideration 

 of the arduous duties of a historian. If truth is his 

 greatest object, justice is his first duty. He must 

 have the rare power of renouncing his private feel- 

 ings, and, whilst he investigates or writes as a his- 

 torian, must elevate himself above his country, sect, 

 and age, so as not only to be willing to acknowledge 

 the faults of his own party, and the merits of his 

 adversaries, but, what is far more difficult, he must 

 divest himself of the peculiar views of his age, or 



country, or sect, and be able to enter into those 

 of others, and not measure them by his own standard. 

 If lie is a republican, he must not carry his republi- 

 can dislike of royalty with him when lie studies the 

 history of monarchy, but must unbiasedly investigate 

 the monarchy with all its circumstances, and the 

 series of events which affected it, and then judge 

 of its value. He must not carry democratic princi- 

 ples into the study of the middle ages, nor his 

 notions of modern society into his investigations of 

 the character of the ancients. The conclusions 

 which he draws must be those of a philosopher, 

 uninfluenced by the circumstances which immedi- 

 ately surround him. Nothing is more inconsistent 

 with the true duty of the historian, than to measure 

 other times by the conceptions and views of his own 

 age. So much for the duty of a historian. 



As to his qualifications, he must be endowed by 

 nature both with that power of the poet, which can 

 conceive the character of great men and great 

 periods, totally different from his own, and with that 

 acuteness and soundness of judgment, which can 

 detect truth through the clouds of falsehood and 

 prejudice. He must also have received from nature 

 that unrelaxing zeal, which does not shrink from the 

 most toilsome and long continued labour. As to his 

 acquirements, they must be of the most extensive 

 character. He must be possessed of extensive 

 philological knowledge, as a key to the various 

 sources of information. To the historian of modern 

 times, the principal languages of modern Europe are 

 indispensable. Secondly, he must have an encyclo- 

 pedian knowledge of the sciences and arts in general 

 (and under this head, philology returns as one of the 

 most important branches of knowledge), because all 

 are essentially connected with the progress of man- 

 kind ; and without such knowledge, the historian will 

 not be capable of understanding the multiplied modes 

 of human improvement, and will be liable to present 

 narrow views of the state of society at any given 

 period. A careful examination of all historical sources 

 remains a labour as necessary as it is gigantic. 

 The Germans, always foremost where zeal and 

 erudition, as well as liberal criticism, are required, 

 have also opened the path in this direction. We 

 admire the vast knowledge of historical writers, dis- 

 played, for instance, by Ruhs ; but the great end of 

 history seems to us to be particularly promoted by 

 the method followed by professor Ranke, in his 

 contribution to the criticism of modern historians, 

 Berlin, 1824, (Zur Kritik neuerer Geschichtschreiber], 

 in which he endeavours to determine the degree of 

 confidence we owe to, and the degree of information 

 contained in, the chief sources for the beginning 

 of modern history. He justly remarks in the 

 preface, " As one would feel on entering a numerous 

 collection of antiquities, in which the genuine and 

 spurious, the beautiful and repulsive, the magnificent 

 and mean, belonging to various nations and ages, 

 are mingled, thus would he feel, who should be at 

 once brought to all the various records of modern 

 history. They speak to us in a thousand voices; 

 they present the greatest variety of character ; they 

 are clad in all colours. Some strut in a solemn 

 gait ; they wish to represent ; they think they take 

 the path of the ancients. Others strive to draw 

 lessons of wisdom for future ages from the past; 

 many wish to defend or to accuse ; not a few endea- 

 vour to explain events from the hidden springs of 

 conduct which lie deep in the heart. There are 

 some, whose only object is, to relate simply what 

 has happened. Documents, genuine and counter- 

 feit, lie in crowds before us. The most important 

 question is, Who, in this multitude of witnesses, 

 is possessed of original knowledge ; who can really 



