256 
wrote. Our first step then must be to examine the genuineness of the 
books which profess to give us an account of what happened — in times past. 
But the presence in ancient histories of much which we are unable to 
accept, does not necessarily invalidate the whole. Often under very fable 
lies a substantial truth, as in the history of the 7 , -n Psammetichus. It 
is the province of the student of history to exercise 3 ^acuity of discrimination, 
to separate the substantial facts from the accidental and sometimes fabulous 
anecdotes by which they are accompanied, and to be careful to weigh the 
relative importance of different parts’ of a narrative. It may be doubtful 
whether Wellington at Waterloo used the words, “Up guards and at 
them ” ; but there is no doubt that the battle of Waterloo was fought and 
was decided by a final charge of the British Guards. Anecdote sometimes 
is purely ornamental, sometimes it illustrates in a semi-poetical form the 
historical fact to which it is attached. The historian must distinguish 
between these two classes of anecdotes, and be upon his guard against view- 
ing every part of a narrative as of equal consequence, and so confounding anec- 
dote with history. — Were certain books really written by the historians whose 
names they bear 1 This generally depends on the recognition of those works 
by a series of writers from a very early time. We must then examine 
as to whether it was probable that the historian had access to information 
which might be derived from contemporary sources. After this we must 
examine the character of the historian, and see whether he was likely to be 
honest, or whether there were any motives to induce him to disguise the facts ; 
and then we must see whether he had the faculty of really understanding 
and interpreting the documents which he examined. The laws of evidence, 
therefore, require us to see first, what sources were open to the historian ; 
secondly, whether he was capable of making proper use of these sources ; 
thirdly, whether his character was such as to lead us to suppose that 
he would use them with ability and honesty, and on this point we must judge 
in a great measure from the internal evidence supplied by the books them- 
selves. Then, fourthly, we must examine the facts themselves, and see 
if they are such as seem to be consistent with what followed upon them. Do 
they give a good account of institutions that rise up in consequence, and are 
they consistent among themselves ? Fifthly, we must see, if possible, whether 
there is any concurrent testimony. These seem to me to be the leading points 
which affect the laws of evidence with reference to history. (Cheers.) 
The Right Hon. Stephen Cave, M.P.— I have not had the same advantage 
which the Master of the Charterhouse had, in seeing the paper before I came 
here ; but still I should like to make a few observations on the subject. I 
think that a great deal of what has fallen from Dr. Currey is true criticism, 
but I also think that he has rather underrated the value of anecdote in 
history. (Cheers.) The fact is, if you go back to the Old Testament, 
the oldest of all histories, you find it is made up of anecdote ; and history 
generally, as accepted by the bulk of the people, is one mass of anecdotes, 
some of which are most valuable. That, I think, is a point which Mr. 
Forsyth intended to bring out in his paper ; at all events, it struck me. We 
