292 



unless it can be sliown that he was in possession of materials of 

 an historical character, and was not drawing from mere myths 

 and legends. 3. That before it is possible to arrive at his- 

 torical truth, the testimony of ancient writers must be care- 

 fully weighed, their sources of information ascertained, and 

 their prejudices allowed for. 4. That the history of most 

 ancient nations, prior to the birth of contemporaneous litera- 

 ture, consists of two portions; one in which the events are 

 entirely mythic and legendary, and another in which a certain 

 number of historical facts are intermixed with myths and 

 legends. 5. That even in those periods in which the historical 

 element largely predominates, myths and legends occasionally 

 intrude themselves. It is remarkable that, even in these modern 

 times of journalism, we have narrowly escaped from the intro- 

 duction of at least one great myth into history. I allude to 

 Barrere's mendacious fiction of the sinking of the Veuc/eur in 

 Earl Howe^s victory. It was even commemorated by a modern 

 model of the sinking ship. The great majority of French 

 writers have reported it as an historical fact. Alison, Carlyle, 

 and I know not what other English historians, followed suit. 

 It had all but taken the rank of an unquestionable fact, when 

 it was found to have been an audacious falsehood. The gradual 

 discovery of authentic documents proves that this is no solitary 

 case in the history of the first French Revolution. If such 

 fictions can all but enter history in modern times, with all their 

 superior advantages of testing the accuracy of events, what must 

 be the probability that they have frequently done so in ancient 

 times, when none cf our machinery existed for the diffusion of 

 information ? I need hardly say that the application of sound 

 critical principles to the history of the first French Revolution 

 is rendering the position of many a demigod on his pedestal 

 extremely precarious. 



The critical method of Niebuhr consisted of two portions ; 

 one of which was destructive, having for its object the elimina- 

 tion of fiction from history; the other constructive. The 

 destructive method was based on the great principle, that 

 nothing can he accepted as an historical fact for which some 

 form of contemporaneous testimony cannot be adduced. This 

 is unquestionably sound. What constitutes such testimony I 

 shall inquire presently. Applied to the history of Rome, it 

 proved that by far the larger proportion of the events prior to 

 the capture of the city by the Gauls rested on no trustworthy 

 historical foundation ; and that the same was true with respect 

 to the earlier portions of Grecian history ; and that even 

 for a considerable period afterwards myths and legends are 

 largely intermixed with facts. In one word, the period of 



