Part 4 (1/2)

[9] ”The Collected Works of Charles Lever.” Downey & Co.

[10] A New Library Edition of the novels of Wilkie Collins has just been published by Chatto and Windus.

CHAPTER III

The Historians

The reign of Victoria has been pre-eminently the reign of the historian in our literature. Greater poets we had seen in the reigns of the Georges, greater essayists in the reign of Anne. But Grote and Carlyle, Macaulay and Gardiner, Bishop Stubbs and Dr Freeman, had no counterparts in an earlier age--always excepting the one great name of Gibbon. Before them there were chroniclers of contemporary events and pamphleteers under the guise of historians, but little more. Goldsmith's histories are the laughing-stock of those to whom the modern methods of research are familiar, and even Hume had little of the spirit of the genuine student. Hallam and Lingard were the pioneers in this branch of literature, although both of them had done their work before Queen Victoria came to the throne.

=Henry Hallam (1777-1859)= was born at Windsor, where his father held a canonry. His first great work, ent.i.tled ”View of the State of Europe during the Middle Ages,” was published in 1818, and his ”Const.i.tutional History of England, from the Accession of Henry VII. to the Death of George II.,” in 1827. In 1838 he produced his ”Introduction to the Literature of Europe in the Fifteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeenth Centuries.” Of these three works the first and the last are valuable mainly for their stimulus to the more philosophical and imaginative work of later writers, but the ”Const.i.tutional History” remains the text-book for the period which it covers. Macaulay praised it highly, possibly because of the Whiggism which undoubtedly underlies some of the more debatable propositions in the book; but Macaulay and many other writers have disputed the correctness of many of Hallam's judgments. To write the const.i.tutional history of England from the earliest period to the year 1485, where Hallam begins, was a far more difficult undertaking than to deal with the reigns of the Tudors and the Stuarts. This work devolved on Dr Stubbs.

=William Stubbs (1825- )=, who was appointed Bishop of Oxford in 1889, was born at Knaresborough, and was educated at Ripon Grammar School and at Christ Church, Oxford. In 1850 he became vicar of Navestock, in Ess.e.x, and in 1862 he was made librarian at Lambeth Palace. His editions of mediaeval chronicles were well calculated to smooth the path of any future historian, and the critical introductions showed the profound scholars.h.i.+p of the editor. Probably no one man has done so much to throw light on the obscure by-ways of history, and as Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford, a post he accepted in 1866, he gave so great a stimulus to historical study that many brilliant writers have since been proud to call him ”master.” In 1870 he published his ”Select Charters,”

of which the ”Introductions” are also invaluable, and between 1874 and 1878 he wrote his great work, ”The Const.i.tutional History of England in its Origin and Development,” the three volumes of which carry us down to the death of Richard III. The book is profoundly scientific in its method, but it is a mistaken, although popular, belief which cla.s.ses Dr Stubbs among Dryasdust investigators. The work glows with life and interest, and is full of suggestive parallels for modern political society.

The work of tracing the growth of the English const.i.tution, which had been so worthily begun by Hallam, and continued in so wise and scholarly a fas.h.i.+on by Bishop Stubbs, was carried on by =Sir Thomas Erskine May (1815-1886)=, who, a few days before his death, was created Baron Farnborough. After a long official career in connection with the House of Commons, he was appointed Clerk to the House in 1871. In addition to several publications dealing with Parliamentary forms, and a book on ”Democracy in Europe,” he wrote a ”Const.i.tutional History since the Accession of George III.,” thus continuing the work from the point at which Hallam had dropped it, and completing a continuous history of the English Const.i.tution.

When we turn to what is more popularly understood by the history of a country, the political and social life of peoples, and the wars and conquests of nations, we are not less fortunate in the results attained.

=John Lingard (1771-1851)= had, it is true, written his great work before 1837. ”The History of England, from the First Invasion by the Romans to the Commencement of the Reign of William III.,” appeared in eight volumes between 1819 and 1830. Lingard was the son of a Winchester carpenter. He was for some time the Professor of Moral Philosophy at a Roman Catholic College. His religious views doubtless affected, in considerable measure, his judgment of events, especially in the reign of Henry VIII., but he is a fairly impartial historian. He confesses that he has been more anxious to arrive at the facts than troubled as to the garb in which those facts were presented to the public, and his work is really very dull in consequence. A contemporary of Lingard, who covered much of the same historic ground, was Sharon Turner (1768-1847), and yet another was =John Mitch.e.l.l Kemble (1807-1857)=, whose ”Saxons in England” (1849) still fills a useful place. Another distinguished writer, of what we may term the earlier school of historical research, was =Sir Francis Palgrave (1788-1861)=, one of whose accomplished sons, Francis Turner Palgrave, is still living (born 1824), whilom Professor of Poetry at Oxford and the friend of Tennyson, the author of excellent verse, and, moreover, the editor of that incomparable volume, the ”Golden Treasury of Songs and Lyrics.” Sir Francis was the son of a Jewish stockbroker named Cohen, and changed his name on becoming a Christian. His best book, the ”History of Normandy and of England,” lost much of its value by the publication of Freeman's monumental work, ”The History of the Norman Conquest.”

=Edward Augustus Freeman (1823-1892)= was born at Harborne, in Staffords.h.i.+re, and educated at Trinity College, Oxford. His first work was a ”History of Architecture,” published in 1849. In 1863 he issued the first volume of a ”History of Federal Government.” The ”History of the Norman Conquest,” in five large volumes, appeared between 1867 and 1876, and the ”Reign of William Rufus, and Accession of Henry I.,” in 1882. His ”Old English History” was a most delightful collection of the primitive stories which have always had a great fascination for beginners in history. There was scarcely any period of European history with which the author of the ”Norman Conquest” did not show a thorough familiarity. No historian has had a keener grasp of hard solid facts, or is more able to make common-sense deductions from them. ”I am quite unable,” he candidly confessed, ”to appreciate physical or metaphysical works in any language,” and he hated literary discussion, which he contemptuously termed ”Chatter about Harriet,” in reference to the debatable question of Sh.e.l.ley's treatment of his wife. Perhaps this lack of breadth did not materially spoil him for his work. Of his many volumes of histories and essays, those on the ”Norman Conquest” must be given the first place. It has been said, indeed, that the work takes as long to read as the event took to achieve, but it is worth reading nevertheless. The battle of Hastings, or, as Mr Freeman would say, of Senlac, was a turning-point in our national history, and we have here the most complete description of that great struggle. Since Freeman's death some attempt has been made to question his accuracy and his scholars.h.i.+p; but it has not amounted to very much. When Dr Stubbs, with whom difference of political views has in no way impaired a lifelong friends.h.i.+p, was appointed Bishop of Chester in 1884, Mr Freeman succeeded him as Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford, where he was followed on his death by Mr Froude.

It would be hard to find a greater contrast, both in method and in manner, than between Edward Freeman and James Anthony Froude. Freeman's style, though clear and trenchant, was never brilliant; Froude's language compares with that of the best artists in literature. Freeman was always scrupulously exact, never at fault in a fact or a date; Froude was notoriously careless, and slipped at every turn. Freeman cared nothing for theories; Froude was never so happy as when he stopped abruptly in a description to discourse on the mysteries of Providence or the follies of mankind. Between men of such opposite natures no friends.h.i.+p was possible, and in the _Sat.u.r.day Review_ and other periodicals Freeman commented vigorously, and not always fairly, on the other's inaccuracy.

=James Anthony Froude (1818-1894)= was one of three gifted brothers, another being William Froude (1810-1879), the mathematician and engineer; and the third, Richard Hurrell Froude (1803-1836), a leader of the Tractarian movement, whose ”Literary Remains” were published after his death by Keble and Newman. Froude was educated at Oriel College, Oxford, and for a time came under the influence of the movement of which his elder brother was a leading spirit, but ultimately he abandoned supernatural Christianity altogether, subst.i.tuting for it a kind of poetic Theism which he partly adopted from Carlyle. In 1847 he published anonymously two novels, ”The Spirit's Trials” and ”The Lieutenant's Daughter,” which contained some not very generous criticisms on his brother and former friends. His ”Nemesis of Faith,” which appeared in 1848, was a further criticism of the doctrines which he had abandoned.

Between the years 1856 and 1869 he published the twelve volumes of his great work, ”The History of England, from the Fall of Wolsey to the Defeat of the Spanish Armada,” which achieved a great and, in many respects, a well-deserved popularity. Rarely indeed has history been written with so much brilliancy and picturesque power. The earlier volumes have been much discredited among historical students: yet we would not willingly miss such delightful word-painting as his description of the Pilgrimage of Grace and other scenes in the career of the Eighth Henry, whom he selected for rehabilitation. It was, of course, a vain and impossible task to remove the odium which has settled upon the name of Henry VIII.; but it was as well that the attempt should be made. Henry had appeared to the ma.s.s of modern Englishmen as an old-world ogre, and Mr Froude has at least enabled them to see that he was after all a man. Mr Freeman, himself the most conscientious and laborious of writers, expressed his hearty contempt for an author who professed in the preface to his history that he took up the subject because he had ”nothing better to do.” As, however, Froude warmed to his work his book increased in value, and there are few who will deny the most sterling worth to his ”Edward VI.,” ”Mary,” and ”Elizabeth.” His escape from Tractarianism had made him unfriendly to all kindred movements, and his views of the struggle between Catholicism and Evangelicalism in the sixteenth century are more worthy of a Puritan divine than of an academic writer of our own day. But we can forgive all this, and much more, to one who has described with so much delicate fancy the adventurous life of Drake and Hawkins, the intrigues of the Scottish Queen, and the restless fickleness and untruthfulness of Elizabeth. His exquisite literary style and general breadth of sympathy are shown in such pa.s.sages as his sketch of the rise of Protestantism and the execution of More and Fisher:--

”Whilst we exult in that chivalry with which the Smithfield martyrs bought England's freedom with their blood, so we will not refuse our admiration to those other gallant men whose high forms, in the sunset of the old faith, stand transfigured on the horizon, tinged with the light of its dying glory.”[11]

Inaccuracy and tactlessness, however, seemed to haunt Mr Froude like evil spirits. He wrote a series of articles on Thomas a Becket, but the numerous mistakes and misstatements brought down on him once again the strictures of Mr Freeman. He wrote a biography of Carlyle, to whom he acted as literary executor, and the whole of the literary world was in arms at the revelations of Carlyle's somewhat unamiable relations with his wife, and of his too contemptuous sentiments about many personal friends. Still, Mr Froude's great literary faculty will secure to this biography a far greater permanence than will fall to the lot of the thousand-and-one memoirs which have appeared during the reign. Even should Carlyle's writings cease to be generally studied, it is not improbable that Froude's ”Life of Carlyle” will always be read as an important chapter in literary history. In this connection I cannot do better than quote from an unpublished letter from Sir Fitz James Stephen, Mr Froude's co-executor, to Mr Froude:--

”For about fifteen years I was the intimate friend and constant companion of both you and Mr Carlyle, and never in my life did I see any one man so much devoted to any other as you were to him during the whole of that period of time. The most affectionate son could not have acted better to the most venerated father. You cared for him, soothed him, protected him as a guide might protect a weak old man down a steep and painful path. The admiration you habitually expressed for him both morally and intellectually was unqualified. You never said to me one ill-natured word about him down to this day. It is to me wholly incredible that anything but a severe regard for truth, learnt to a great extent from his teaching, could ever have led you to embody in your portrait of him a delineation of the faults and weaknesses which mixed with his great qualities.

”Of him I will make only one remark in justice to you. He did not use you well. He threw upon you the responsibility of a decision which he ought to have taken himself in a plain, unmistakable way. He considered himself bound to expiate the wrongs which he had done to his wife. If he had done this himself it would have been a courageous thing; but he did not do it himself. He did not even decide for himself that it should be done after his death. If any courage was shown in the matter, it was shown by you, and not by him. You took the responsibility of deciding for him that it ought to be done. You took the odium of doing it, of avowing to the world the faults and weaknesses of one whom you regarded as your teacher and master. In order to present to the world a true picture of him as he really was, you, well knowing what you were about, stepped into a pillory in which you were charged with treachery, violation of confidence, and every imaginable base motive, when you were in fact guilty of no other fault than that of practising Mr Carlyle's great doctrine that men ought to tell the truth.”

Mr Froude has other claims to remembrance. In his ”Short Studies on Great Subjects,” many of them essays written for _Fraser's Magazine_, of which he was for a long time editor, are some very wise and thoughtful papers, particularly one on the Book of Job. His ”Life of Bunyan” is characteristic, as is also his ”Life of Caesar.” Carlyle taught him hero-wors.h.i.+p, and from Carlyle also he learnt the disposition which inspired his powerful book, ”The English in Ireland in the Eighteenth Century.”

He also wrote two picturesque books of travel, and three volumes of lectures[12] delivered at Oxford during his occupancy of the chair of history, which had been previously held in succession by his two great rivals, Bishop Stubbs and Dr Freeman.

The historian who devoted himself most earnestly to Mr Froude's chief historical period, and whose writings were in some measure a reply to his, was the =Rev. John Sherren Brewer (1810-1879)=, who for many years was Professor of English Literature at King's College, London.

Brewer's chief work, a ”Calendar of Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII.,” comes down, however, to 1530, the year in which Mr Froude's history commences, and thus Brewer stands alone as an authority on Henry's early reign. A compressed work in one volume, ”The Reign of Henry VIII.,” was published after his death. Mr Froude concludes his narrative at the year 1588, the year of the Spanish Armada, but no recent writer of mark has treated of the closing years of Elizabeth's reign in any detail, although we owe to Major Martin Hume a well-written study ent.i.tled ”The Year after the Armada.” Major Hume, who is the best living authority upon this period, has also written upon ”The Courts.h.i.+ps of Queen Elizabeth,” and has edited for the Public Record Office the Calendar of Spanish State Papers of Elizabeth.

The next great period of English history, that of the Stuart kings, is dealt with by Professor Gardiner. =Samuel Rawson Gardiner (1829- )= was born at Ropley, in Hamps.h.i.+re, and was educated at Winchester and at Christ Church, Oxford. His whole life has been devoted to the most laborious research in the annals of the reigns of James I., Charles I., and the Protectorate of Cromwell. He has not, like Mr Froude, taken up history as a pleasant literary recreation, but has given years of unremitting labour to the production of each separate volume. He is now well into the study of the Protectorate, the first volume of his history of which appeared in 1894. He has written many minor books, one dealing with ”The Gunpowder Plot,” and another with ”Cromwell's Place in History.” Mr Gardiner will not perhaps be counted a brilliant writer. He gives us none of the fire and eloquence, almost bordering on poetry, which we find so abundantly in Froude; but he has been described by Sir John Seeley as the only historian who has trodden the controversial ground of seventeenth-century English political history with absolute fairness and impartiality. James and Charles, Buckingham and Bristol, Strafford and Pym, stand out in clear and well-defined lineaments. There is no hero-wors.h.i.+p to blind us; no flowing rhetoric to atone for insufficient knowledge. We see these men in their weakness and in their strength, neither side monopolising the virtue and the patriotism, but each, on occasion, acting from n.o.ble or ign.o.ble motives. It may be urged that too much attention is devoted to the follies of princes and the intrigues of courtiers, and certainly of the inner life of the nation we get all too little in Mr Gardiner's pages: but it may be fairly said that these books are the safest and best of guides to one of the most important and critical periods in our political history. It is impossible to avoid contrasting Mr Gardiner with a far more popular and more brilliant historian, Lord Macaulay, and the contrast is, in some respects, in favour of the former. Mr Gardiner sees that in dealing with the complexities of human motives we are on very uncertain and delicate ground. We need to pause step by step to weigh probabilities and to qualify our every statement, although such hesitancy and qualification is not conducive to brilliant writing.

The importance of this rhetorical principle was fully grasped by =Thomas Babington Macaulay, (1800-1859)= and, accordingly, in his writings a single definite and distinct motive is seized upon as the guiding principle of every action, and, by the simple plan of ignoring complexities in human character, we are carried along in an easy manner to positive and undoubting opinions. ”I wish,” said Lord Melbourne, ”that I were as c.o.c.k-sure of _anything_ as Tom Macaulay is of everything;” and the remark hit off an undoubted failing, at least from the standpoint of sound and trustworthy workmans.h.i.+p. Macaulay, whose father was a distinguished philanthropist and slavery abolitionist, was born at Rothley Temple, in Leicesters.h.i.+re. From a private school he went to Trinity College, Cambridge. His earliest efforts in literature were articles for Knight's _Quarterly Magazine_, and contributions to the _Edinburgh Review_, the first of which, on ”Milton,” drew from Lord Jeffrey the remark, ”The more I think the less I can conceive where you picked up that style.” Perhaps Macaulay's essays have been more popular even than his history. The extraordinary knowledge they display, the discursive familiarity with all poetry and fiction, ancient and modern, and their enthusiastic interest in historical events, make them a kind of education to men whose reading has been slight, or who are beginners in the art of reading--an art at which Macaulay was such an adept. In 1830 Macaulay entered Parliament as member for Calne, and four years later received the post of member of the Indian Council at Calcutta, with a salary of 10,000 a year. He left India in 1838, having rendered great service to that country by a.s.sisting to frame the Indian penal code. After his return to England he sat in Parliament for many years as member for Edinburgh, and for a short time held a seat in Lord Melbourne's Cabinet. Some of his speeches in the House were among the most eloquent and successful to which that a.s.sembly has listened. In 1849 the first two volumes of his ”History of England from the Accession of James II.” were published. The great success of these and the succeeding volumes made him one of the most popular authors of his day.

In 1857 Macaulay was made a Peer, but he never spoke in the House of Lords. He died in December 1859, before he had finished the ”Reign of William III.,” and was buried in Westminster Abbey. During the later years of Macaulay's life, and for many years after his death, he received the unstinted praise, not only of the great ma.s.s of readers, but even of cultured brother authors. Of late years this has changed; a reaction has set in, and perhaps the time has not yet come to a.s.sign to him his true place in literature. When Sir George Trevelyan's admirable life of his uncle appeared in 1876, a number of eminent writers based upon that book a criticism of Macaulay's work. Mr Gladstone wrote in the _Quarterly Review_, Mr Leslie Stephen in the _Cornhill Magazine_, and Mr John Morley in the _Fortnightly Review_. In each separate case the review was unfavourable. All alike agreed as to his high qualities as a man; his sincerity, generosity, kindliness, and purity, his love of children and his brotherly devotion; but each in turn found matter for censure in his work. One condemned his style, another his Whig partialities, another his boundless optimism, and another his errors of judgment or alleged misstatements of facts. It is true that Macaulay is sometimes inaccurate, that he is not seldom unjust to the characters whom he paints so vividly. It is now a commonplace to say that his history was written, as Carlyle said, ”to prove that Providence was on the side of the Whigs.” It is clear that he was a man of strong literary prejudices, and he undoubtedly owes much of his popularity to the fact that he expresses in grandly rhetorical language the average sentiment of his day, its belief in material prosperity, and its delight in being told that there has been no age of the world so happy as our own. All this is true, and yet it is also true that Macaulay's real services to literature are lost sight of when such an estimate is propounded too harshly.

In spite of obvious deficiencies, Macaulay's history is a great work. It fills up a gap in historical literature, and such incidents as the trial of the seven bishops and the siege of Londonderry excel both in picturesqueness and in accuracy. But Macaulay has claims far beyond his merits as a historian. The critics who condemn him so freely seem to have forgotten their own early years. ”If I am in the wrong,” said Macaulay of his history, ”I shall at least have set the minds of others at work.” He has set the minds of others at work. What cultivated man or woman lives, with whom Macaulay's writings have not been among the first books read, who has not been made to feel that all the great poetry, and fiction, and history to which he alludes so freely must be well worth careful study? What matter if in after-years we discover that Macaulay was unjust to Bacon the man, and was entirely ignorant of Bacon the philosopher; or understand clearly what he meant by saying that such critiques as Lessing's ”Laoc.o.o.n” ”filled him with wonder and despair?”

If we have been encouraged by him to desire a wider knowledge, if we have learnt from him to admire so many great writers, so many famous statesmen, we may surely forgive him much, if indeed there be anything to forgive.

=Earl Stanhope (1805-1875)=, who did most of his historical work when, as an expectant peer, he was known as Lord Mahon, was a great friend of Macaulay's. In 1870 he published a ”History of the Reign of Queen Anne,”