what we would fain call new is not skin deep; the earth is not yet stained by it.  It is not the fertile ground which we walk on, but the leaves which flutter over our heads.  The newest is but the oldest made visible to our senses.  When we dig up the soil from a thousand feet below the surface, we call it new, and the plants which spring from it; and when our vision pierces deeper into space, and detects a remoter star, we call that new also.  The place where we sit is called Hudson,—­once it was Nottingham,—­once —­

We should read history as little critically as we consider the landscape, and be more interested by the atmospheric tints and various lights and shades which the intervening spaces create, than by its groundwork and composition.  It is the morning now turned evening and seen in the west,—­the same sun, but a new light and atmosphere.  Its beauty is like the sunset; not a fresco painting on a wall, flat and bounded, but atmospheric and roving or free.  In reality, history fluctuates as the face of the landscape from morning to evening.  What is of moment is its hue and color.  Time hides no treasures; we want not its then, but its now.  We do not complain that the mountains in the horizon are blue and indistinct; they are the more like the heavens.

Of what moment are facts that can be lost,—­which need to be commemorated?  The monument of death will outlast the memory of the dead.  The pyramids do not tell the tale which was confided to them; the living fact commemorates itself.  Why look in the dark for light?  Strictly speaking, the historical societies have not recovered one fact from oblivion, but are themselves, instead of the fact, that is lost.  The researcher is more memorable than the researched.  The crowd stood admiring the mist and the dim outlines of the trees seen through it, when one of their number advanced to explore the phenomenon, and with fresh admiration all eyes were turned on his dimly retreating figure.  It is astonishing with how little co-operation of the societies the past is remembered.  Its story has indeed had another muse than has been assigned it.  There is a good instance of the manner in which all history began, in Alwakidis’ Arabian Chronicle:  “I was informed by Ahmed Almatin Aljorhami, who had it from Rephaa Ebn Kais Alamiri, who had it from Saiph Ebn Fabalah Alchatquarmi, who had it from Thabet Ebn Alkamah, who said he was present at the action.”  These fathers of history were not anxious to preserve, but to learn the fact; and hence it was not forgotten.  Critical acumen is exerted in vain to uncover the past; the past cannot be presented; we cannot know what we are not.  But one veil hangs over past, present, and future, and it is the province of the historian to find out, not what was, but what is.  Where a battle has been fought, you will find nothing but the bones of men and beasts; where a battle is being fought, there are hearts beating.  We will sit on a mound and muse, and not try to make these skeletons stand on their legs again.  Does Nature remember, think you, that they were men, or not rather that they are bones?