236 
truth, still the chances might be infinite against their all agree- 
ing in the same falsehood” (Rhetoric, pt.i. ch. ii. sec. 4). And 
in his Philosophy of Rhetoric , Dr. Campbell says : l( It 
deserves likewise to be attended to on this subject, that in a 
number of concurrent testimonies (in cases wherein there 
could have been no previous concert) there is a probability dis- 
tinct from that which may be termed the sum of the proba- 
bilities resulting from the testimonies of the witnesses, a 
probability which would remain even though the witnesses were 
of such a character as to merit no faith at all. This proba- 
bility arises purely from the concurrence itself. That such a 
concurrence should spring from chance is as one to infinite ; 
that is, in other words, morally impossible.” Lord Mansfiel 
once said, with reference to the credit to be given to certain 
reporters, <f It is objected that these are books of no autho- 
rity, but if both the'reporters were the worst that ever reported, 
if substantially they report a case in the same way, it is demon- 
stration of the truth of what they report or they could not 
agree” ( R . v. George , 1 Cowp. 16). 
Generally speaking, the silence of contemporary writers as 
to a fact throws strong suspicion on its genuineness. But this 
test is not conclusive, for we may have overpowering evidence 
aliunde of its truth. Lord Macaulay says : “ We have read books 
called histories of England under the reign of George II. m which 
the rise of Methodism is not even mentioned.” And Varnhagen 
von Ense mentions in his Diary that Humboldt had adduced 
“ three important and perfectly undeniable matters of fact as to 
which no evidence is to be found where it would be most anti- 
cipated. In the archives of Barcelona no trace of the triumphal 
entry of Columbus into that city ; in Marco Polo no allusion to 
the Chinese Wall ; in the archives of Portugal nothing about 
the vovages of Amerigo Vespucci in the service of that crown 
But notwithstanding this, the silence of contemporary authority 
is one of the notes of falsehood with respect to an alleged his- 
torical fact. How do we know that the story of William leli 
and his shooting an arrow at an apple on his son s head is 
untrue ? Because we do not find it m contemporary history ; 
and the first mention of it as a Swiss legend occurs m the chro- 
nicle of Melchior Russ, registrar at Lucerne, some two hundred 
years later. But, in addition, we find that the same story is 
told in Saxo Grammaticus, who wrote in the twelfth century, ol 
a Danish hero; a similar tale was current in Ireland; and in 
the Bilkinsaga it is told of the mythical Eigil, the brother of 
Wieland, the smith. It also occurs in the legendary fables of 
Holstein, Norway, and other countries ; and although it is 
impossible to trace the origin of the story, it is certain that no 
