FOOTNOTES:
[121:1] The works prepared by the Record Commission, whether it be true or not that it has failed to fulfil the services expected from so large an expenditure of the public money, present the sources of British history on a very different scale from that in which they appeared before Hume; and if he had lived in the present day, he would not have attempted to write the history of the first fourteen centuries in less than three years; or, attempting it, would have palpably overlooked materials which, in his own time, he could not have found access to. Among such sources may be viewed, Domesday Book, the Rotuli Hundredorum, the many records of the various courts of justice, the "Parliamentary writs, or writs of military summons, together with the records and muniments relating to the suit and service due and performed to the king's high court of parliament and the councils of the realm, as affording evidence of attendance given at parliaments and councils;" the remains of Anglo-Saxon legislation, collected under the name of "Ancient laws and institutions of England," and the "Ancient laws and institutes of Wales."
To these must be added the many antiquarian labours of private individuals or societies, such as the county histories, the works circulated by the numerous book clubs, and the inquiries into the early ecclesiastical history, which the controversies on church polity, for which this age is becoming peculiar, have excited. The publication of charters and other documents connected with private rights has opened a means of becoming acquainted with contemporary habits and institutions, slow certainly but sure. Besides his labours in the Record Commission, Sir Francis Palgrave has excavated much curious but not attractive matter, of which the world will never know the value till some Hume shall arise to give it shape and symmetry.
It has been a usual practice to rank those who, by such critical inquiries, ascertain the truth regarding minute historical propositions, in the category of "harmless drudges." But perhaps the character has been applied to the really useful workers in this field, as inaptly as it was appropriated by Dr. Johnson to the race of Lexicographers, in a moment of bitter cynicism. Antiquarianism, archæology, palæology, or whatever name it may receive, is a field in which there are many paltry workers; and these are sometimes, from adventitious circumstances, conspicuous enough to give a tone in popular estimation to the science. Dates are but one, and perhaps an inferior branch, of the subject; yet the labours of Petau, of Antine Durand and Clemencet the authors of the "Art de vérifier les dates," of Newton, Hailes, and Nicolas, would be enough to vindicate the dignity of this species of inquiry. It is, indeed, an essential one to history; and where it has been vaguely or unscientifically applied, the foundations of historical speculation are rotten. The prevalent failing of antiquaries is the inability to distinguish the important from the trifling; to perceive that the labour which might be necessary to fix the era of the restoration of the study of the civil law in Europe, would be ill bestowed on an inquiry into the foundation of some inconsiderable rectorship, or the birth of some undistinguished landed proprietor. But there is perhaps as much worthless historical Speculation as trifling Antiquarianism extant in literature. But it does not follow in either case, from the defects of the injudicious, that the able and accomplished followers of the subject were ill employed. A late and signal instance may be adduced of the intimate connexion of the speculative and the minute departments of history. Dr. Allen, in his "Inquiry into the rise and progress of the royal prerogative," maintaining that the older kings of England did not perform public acts until they had taken the coronation oath of fidelity to the people, found that there was just one exception, in the case of Richard II. which disconcerted his theory. It was subsequently shown by Sir Harris Nicolas, in his "Chronology of History," that in "Rymer's Fœdera," and other public documents, the regnal years of that reign had been by mistake antedated a year.
But while it does not follow that the one occupation is less dignified than the other, it is pretty clear that they cannot, to any great extent, be both followed by the same person. The limits of human capacity, and the shortness of human life, seem to forbid such an union; for literature has produced no one who unites the qualities of a Camden, a Mabillon, and a Montfouçon, with those of a Hume and a Montesquieu, though Gibbon and Niebuhr have perhaps come nearest to the union. Mr. D'Israeli says, (Curiosities of Literature, ii. 182,) "The time has perhaps arrived, when antiquaries may begin to be philosophers, and philosophers antiquaries. The unhappy separation of erudition from philosophy, and of philosophy from erudition, has hitherto thrown impediments in the progress of the human mind, and the history of man." But unless that author has himself achieved the united title, by showing that James I. was a man of great mind, and by characterizing political economy as a mere "confusion of words," the combination appears not to have yet been accomplished; and indeed the simple physical impossibility of the same person who brings the fabric to perfection, having time to produce the raw materials, seems to render it necessary that in all such histories as that which Hume undertook, the antiquary shall precede the historian.
[129:1] It does not appear that even the surreptitious fragments of Voltaire's work were printed earlier than the year in which the first volume of the "History of the Stuarts" was published—1754. In the Essai, Voltaire thus contrasts Hume's sagacity as an historian with the propagators of monkish legends. "Les moines Frédegaire et Aimoin le disent: mais ces moines, sont-ils des De Thou et des Humes?" Edit. 1785, vol. i. p. 235.
[132:1] MS. R.S.E.
[133:1] It must be observed, that this method of referring to authorities and collating them, is, even by Hume's account of it, one which a scrupulous investigator would call slovenly. The admission of any authorities at second hand is, to the extent to which it may be carried, a breach of the historian's duty. To make sure that he had rightly estimated their meaning on a first perusal, he should have collated all his references in proof.
[134:1] MS. R.S.E.