day, there are persons who have advanced a hypothesis, which they say is 
superior to the Newtonian theory. It does not follow, nowever, that the 
Newtonian 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 of 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 difficulty, 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 same thing, 
therefore, goes on in the same w^ay in both cases, though there is this differ- 
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 Roman 
Commonwealth and the growth of the Roman 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 modem history, — because even that 
must be constructed upon 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 
historian, who makes it not a mere chronology, but a history. That is my view 
of history, and it seems to differ from that of Mr. Row. 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 differ- 
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 and actions than a man who lived 
