SCIENCE OF HISTORY. 



«>s 



tain as any contingent judgment re- 

 specting historical events can be, that 

 if there had been no Themistocles 

 there would have been no victory of 

 Salamis ; and had there not, where 

 would have been all our civilisation ? 

 How different again would have been 

 the issue if Epaminondas or Timo- 

 leon, or even Iphicrates, instead of 

 Chares and Lysicles, had commanded 

 at Chaeroneia. As is well said in the 

 second of two essays on the Study of 

 History* — in my judgment the sound- 

 est and most philosophical productions 

 which the recent controversies on 

 this subject have called forth — his- 

 torical science authorises not abso- 

 lute, but only conditional predictions. 

 General causes count for much, but 

 individuals also " produce great 

 changes in history, and colour its 

 whole complexion long after their 

 death. . . . No one can doubt that 

 the Roman republic would have sub- 

 sided into a military despotism if 

 Julius Caesar had never lived ; " 

 (thus much was rendered practically 

 certain by general causes;) "but is 

 it at all clear that in that case Gaul 

 would ever have formed a province of 

 the empire ? Might not Varus have 

 lost his three legions on the banks of 

 the Rhone ? and might not that river 

 have become the frontier instead of 

 the Rhine? This might well have 

 happened if Caesar and Crassus had 

 changed provinces ; and it is surely 

 impossible to say that in such an event 

 the venue (as lawyers say) of Euro- 

 pean civilisation might not have been 

 changed. The Norman Conquest in 

 the same way was as much the act of 

 a single man as the writing of a 

 newspaper article ; and knowing as 

 we do the history of that man and his 

 family, we can retrospectively predict 

 with all but infallible certainty that 

 no other person" (no other in that 

 age, I presume, is meant) "could 

 have accomplished the enterprise. If 

 it had not been accomplished, is there 

 any ground to suppose that either our 



* In the Comhill Magazine for June and 

 July iS6i. 



history or our national character 

 would have been what they are ? " 



As is most truly remarked by the 

 same writer, the whole stream of 

 Grecian history, as cleared up by Mr. 

 Grote, is one series of examples how 

 often events on which the whole des- 

 tiny of subsequent civilisation turned 

 were dependent on the personal char- 

 acter for good or evil of some one in- 

 dividual. It must be said, however, 

 that Greece furnishes the most extreme 

 example of this nature to be found 

 in history, and is a very exaggerated 

 specimen of the general tendency. It 

 has happened only that once, and will 

 probably never happen again, that the 

 fortunes of mankind depended upon 

 keeping a certain order of things in 

 existence in a single town, or a country 

 scarcely larger than Yorkshire ; cap- 

 able of being ruined or saved by a 

 hundred causes, of very slight magni- 

 tude in comparison with the general 

 tendencies of human affairs. Neither 

 ordinary accidents nor the characters 

 of individuals can ever again be so 

 vitally important as they then were. 

 The longer our species lasts and the 

 more civilised it becomes, the more, 

 as Comte remarks, does the influence 

 of past generations over the present, 

 and of mankind en masse over every 

 individual in it, predominate over other 

 forces : and though the course of affairs 

 never ceases to be susceptible of altera- 

 tion both by accidents and by personal 

 qualities, the increasing preponderance 

 of the collective agency of the species 

 over all minor causes is constantly 

 bringing the general evolution of the 

 race into something which deviates 

 less from a certain and preappointed 

 track. Historical science, therefore, 

 is always becoming more possible ; 

 not solely because it is better studied, 

 but because, in every generation, it 

 becomes better adapted for study. 



