259 
been worn or broken away except five. (Laughter.) Would anybody who 
accepted that anecdote as historical be a good judge of the truth of the 
history of those times ? I think not. I believe it was Walpole who said : 
u Do not read me history, because that must be false,” and there is a certain 
amount of truth in that. You cannot go back to the time when some 
histories were written and find the crass ignorance which then prevailed, 
without feeling a considerable doubt as to what was accepted as history in 
those days, without even taking into account the personal danger incurred 
by those who ventured to take a view opposed to that of the government of 
the day. Perhaps the most reliable evidence in former days is derived from 
the drama, especially from comedy — from Aristophanes down to our own 
day ; plays, which are subjected to contemporary criticism of all parties, 
are most valuable adjuncts to tests of contemporary history. I think we 
ought all to feel very much obliged to Mr. Forsyth for his paper, and also 
to Dr. Currey for the able speech which the paper has called forth from 
him. 
The Chairman. — I hope we shall have the advantage of hearing many 
speakers this evening. We have already had some valuable remarks on 
historic anecdote ; but we must not forget that the subject of the evening is 
upon the rules of evidence. 
The Eev. Prebendary C. A. Kow.— I think the meeting is in considerable 
danger of missing the subject of discussion, which is the rules of evidence 
that are to be applied to the credibility of history. I think Mr. Forsyth 
has pointed out with sufficient distinctness, first, that history must be founded 
on contemporary testimony ; and secondly, that all those things which are 
now called history, but concerning which we- have no knowledge that they 
were founded on contemporary history, must fall to the ground. In a paper 
which I read myself, on the same subject, some twelve months ago,* I confess 
that I failed on one point, and I do not think Mr. Forsyth has supplied the 
defect. I failed from not knowing how to lay down a canon as to how far 
the principle of historical conjecture may be legitimately applied in the re- 
production of history. I satisfied myself that there is a vast amount of con- 
jecture which has been introduced into history without warrant, and has been 
propounded as representing real and positive facts. Dr. Currey mistook me 
on that occasion as absolutely denying that the principle of conjecture is 
applicable to historical inquiry ; but that was far from my view. My point 
was, how far may we go in that direction ? And it is a point of the deepest 
interest, because it is on that ground that all the sceptical criticism of the Old 
and New Testament is based. I have just been reading, with much interest, the 
last published work of Renan ; it is, really, a history of Christianity from the 
year 60 to the year 75, and contains a number of facts, which the author has 
managed to unite by a considerable amount of historical conjecture. But 
this is the point which presents itself to my mind, — How can I dis- 
* Yol. vii. p. 287. 
u 
YOL. VIII. 
