292 
unless it can be shown that he was in possession of materials of 
an historical character, and w r as 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 largety predominates, myths and legends occasionally 
intrude themselves. It is remarkable that, even in these modern 
times of journalism, w r e 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 Vengeur 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 of 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 be 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 arc 
largely intermixed with facts, In one word, the period of 
