full well whereof he spoke. His criticism was somewhat novel then, but the period since its utterance has made the sneer a maxim. In his time, to the common mind all history was alike: the legends of Livy and the personal observations of Tacitus, the gossip of Suetonius and Cæsar's record of his campaigns, all were equally true and equally sacred. To question them was well-nigh heresy. But to-day is the age of the iconoclasts. Under their blows our old idols are crumbling to powder. They dig up the musty records from which history has been made; they search into the lives of the historians to find out what were their sources of information, and they seek further to find out why they wrote. True science is exact, for it is founded on laws which are immutable; true poetry is immortal, for its breath is inspiration; but history is like the work of the photographer, it depends for its accuracy upon the material, the workman, the focus, and the atmosphere. No wonder if the scholar rises from his task to say with Walpole, as to much of it, that "it must be false."

It was Voltaire, as Buckle has pointed out, who first brought secular history to the bar of human reason. By attacking the early fables of Greece and Rome he laid open the broad domains of the past to the fearless. seekers after truth. What they have done as to the classics is known to every schoolboy. We have seen a host of great scholars, led by the audacious Niebuhr, reconstructing Roman history; we have seen another army sifting the grains of truth from the fairy tales of the Greek historians; while, almost to-day, an indefatigable explorer exhumes the walls of ancient Troy, and shows

to the world that Homer was no writer of mere ro

mance.

But it is not ancient history alone that our scholars are rearranging. Everywhere, in almost every land, they are delving among the records, getting at the truth of modern history. It is not easy to realize how difficult this task has been until a recent date. Every one has heard of the French chronicler who was charged with treason by Richelieu for having in his works told some distasteful truths about a king who, for two centuries, had slumbered in his grave. That, we say, was long ago. So were the actions of Louis XIV., who withdrew a pension from one historian for some impertinent remarks about taxation, kept Fénelon in banishment for a supposed criticism of his reign in the romance of "Telemachus," and threw another author into the Bastile for innocently revealing a state secret in a panegyric of himself. This was the custom of the age. Histories written under such auspices would hardly be entitled to much credit.*

But when this danger passed away, and in the last century historians could, in some lands, venture to tell the truth, the question arose, how the truth could be obtained. History, says Carlyle, is "ever more or less the written epitomized synopsis of rumor." It will, of

* Hallam very wisely remarks that the invention of printing was at first detrimental to historical accuracy. When men wrote books only for the use of themselves, their friends, or a limited circle of readers, they could tell what they understood to be the truth. When books came to be printed for general circulation, they could in most countries tell only what was agreeable to the authorities.

course, as to many public events, be simply rumor run mad, unless corrected by official records, diplomatic correspondence, and other state papers which, until very recently, were regarded in all countries as the property of the monarch, and for reasons of state denied to the historian.* One can imagine the position of a writer who sat down to compose a work upon his own or any other country when such material was everywhere kept a secret.

The French Revolution, and the ideas which followed in its train, first developed the modern theory that official documents are for the public good, and that as to past events the public will be best served by being told the truth. How much has been brought to light since the archives of some of the old monarchies have been unlocked is a familiar story even to those acquainted only with the works of our own Prescott and Motley, who led the van in this department of investigation. But while France, Spain, Holland, and other countries have been aiding the historian, conservative England has been one of the last powers in Europe to open its records to the public, and even now has not done so fully. How this has affected American history can be readily understood.

In 1841, John Romeyn Brodhead was sent to Eu

*This theory and practice still prevail at Rome. The pope has always been the depositary of valuable state secrets. It is well known that in the archives of the Vatican repose documents which would solve many historical problems of great interest. If they are ever thrown open to examination, numerous points in history will doubtless have to be revised.

rope by the State of New York to procure copies of documents relating to its colonial history, from the public offices of England, France, and Holland. He went as an accredited agent from a friendly power, supported by all the influence of the general government. It was known that the State Paper Office of England contained a mass of correspondence of the royal governors, minutes of the Board of Trade, and other documents which would throw much light on early American affairs. In Holland were supposed to be valuable papers relating to the Dutch period, and in France others connected with Canadian relations. Such proved to be the case, and in each of the latter countries the New York agent was treated with the greatest courtesy. He was allowed to examine all the colonial records, was aided in every manner, and furnished with copies of such documents as he selected.

In England he met with a very different reception. Lord Palmerston replied to his application to look over the colonial records by saying that if he would designate the particular paper which he wished to see, it would be officially examined, and then, if there were no objection, he could obtain a copy at the customary rates. As Mr. Brodhead knew nothing of the documents, and wished to look them over to find out which were valuable, this proposition of the noble Secretary was a virtual denial of his request. Thus matters stood for about a year, when a new Liberal ministry came into power. Under its regulations he was at length permitted to examine the original records, and was furnished with copies of such as he selected, although

annoyed by petty harassing restrictions, and charged exorbitant fees. There the theory still existed that such papers formed part of the monarch's private library, access to which could be obtained only through royal favor.*

Lest some uncharitable reader might suppose that this was exceptional treatment, extended to an American by his English cousins on account of their near relationship, let me cite another example. In 1844, C. M. Davies, an Englishman, published the last volume of a valuable history of Holland. In preparing his work he desired to consult the correspondence of the English ambassador at The Hague, from 1750 to 1780. This correspondence was kept in the same office with the papers relating to American affairs. The Englishman, less fortunate than the American, was not allowed to see the papers at all, and was compelled to send his book to press without their aid.+

The mission of Mr. Brodhead to Europe accomplished a great result. He brought back with him a large collection of documents relating to American history, many of which never before had seen the light. Those in French and Dutch were translated, and in 1856 the whole were published by the State in ten large volumes, entitled "Documents Relating to the Colonial History of New York." So far as public events are concerned, these are not rumors, but true material for

* See report of Mr. Brodhead, "Documents Relating to the Colonial History of New York," vol. i.

+ Davies's "Holland," iii. 607.