312 



clay, there are persons who have advanced a hypothesis, which they say is 

 superior to the Newtonian theory. It does not follow, nowever, that the 

 -Ne^^■tonian theory is false. It is said that there are no verifications in the 

 case of history, as there are in the case of science. It is true, as I remarked 

 before, that there are not "the same exact means of verification," but still there 

 are verifications o£ no inconsiderable weight with regard to history. Is not 

 Niebuhr's system a system full of verifications ? All through his works you 

 find him labouring on the same plan, bringing this fact and that fact together, 

 and showing how they bear upon his theory, and then he says : " This is my 

 hypothesis. See how thoroughly the facts support it. It falls in with this fact, 

 solves that difiicult}^, and so on." In much the same way Newton struck 

 out the theory of gravitation. It flashed across him suddenly, as these things 

 do, but before he propounded it to the world he tried it on this planet and 

 on that planet, by this observation and that, and then he said : " See how 

 all these observations concur and bear out the theory." The sam^ thing, 

 therefore, goes on in the same way in both cases, though there is this difi'er- 

 ence, that the province of history is less exact than that of science. Niebuhr 

 followed this method with regard to the whole construction of the Eoman 

 Commonwealth and the growth of the Eoman constitution, and then his 

 learning enabled him to bring in a vast series of facts, observations, and 

 events, all of which, by means of his hypothesis, he made to work harmoniously 

 together. If we do not allow the historian the use of hypothesis in examin- 

 ing ancient history, or even in examining modern history, — because even that 

 must be constructed u]Don some hypothesis or other — if we do not allow the 

 use of hypothesis, I ask, what does history become ? — a mere chronicle of bare 

 facts, which is really useless until it is moulded into form and life by the 

 histoyian, who makes it not a mere chronology, but a history. That is my view 

 of history, and it seems to difi'er from that of Mr. Kow. With regard to the 

 consideration as to what period of time may be necessary for the details of a 

 particular story to be lost or to become inexact, I do not think it is necessary 

 to go into that question. We know that, in regard to most events, great diff"er- 

 ences and inaccuracies arise in a very short time, but does that really matter ? 

 History is concerned, not with small details, but with great facts. It does 

 not signify what was the precise number of the army of Xerxes — that is a 

 matter of the smallest moment, and so is the number of guns that were fired 

 at the battle of Navarino ; but there still remains the substratum of the 

 great events, and of the causes which led to those events, and the examina- 

 tion of those causes, and their connection with future events, is perfectly 

 within the province of the historian at a long distance of time afterwards, 

 and he is enabled to carry on his investigation with as much accuracy, and 

 sometimes with even more accuracy, than if he had lived at a time nearer 

 to the occurrence of the events themselves. At a distance of time he has 

 before him the actions of nations and peoples, and their laws and constitu- 

 tions, and various other things which enable him to compare one thing with 

 another in a better way, and to have a larger field of comparison ; and in that 

 way he is more capable of judging motives aiid actions than a man who lived 



