1845-1847. AEt. 31-33.
FIRST HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL ESSAYS.--PETER THE GREAT.--NOVELS OF
BALZAC.--POLITY OF THE PURITANS.
Mr. Motley's first serious effort in historical composition was an
article of fifty pages in “The North American Review” for October, 1845.
This was nominally a notice of two works, one on Russia, the other “A
Memoir of the Life of Peter the Great.” It is, however, a narrative
rather than a criticism, a rapid, continuous, brilliant, almost dramatic
narrative. If there had been any question as to whether the young
novelist who had missed his first mark had in him the elements which
might give him success as an author, this essay would have settled the
question. It shows throughout that the writer has made a thorough study
of his subject, but it is written with an easy and abundant, yet
scholarly freedom, not as if he were surrounded by his authorities and
picking out his material piece by piece, but rather as if it were the
overflow of long-pursued and well-remembered studies recalled without
effort and poured forth almost as a recreation.
As he betrayed or revealed his personality in his first novel, so in this
first effort in another department of literature he showed in epitome his
qualities as a historian and a biographer. The hero of his narrative
makes his entrance at once in his character as the shipwright of Saardam,
on the occasion of a visit of the great Duke of Marlborough. The portrait
instantly arrests attention. His ideal personages had been drawn in such
a sketchy way, they presented so many imperfectly harmonized features,
that they never became real, with the exception, of course, of the
story-teller himself. But the vigor with which the presentment of the
imperial ship-carpenter, the sturdy, savage, eager, fiery Peter, was
given in the few opening sentences, showed the movement of the hand, the
glow of the color, that were in due time to display on a broader canvas
the full-length portraits of William the Silent and of John of Barneveld.
The style of the whole article is rich, fluent, picturesque, with light
touches of humor here and there, and perhaps a trace or two of youthful
jauntiness, not quite as yet outgrown. His illustrative poetical
quotations are mostly from Shakespeare,--from Milton and Byron also in a
passage or two,--and now and then one is reminded that he is not
unfamiliar with Carlyle's “Sartor Resartus” and the “French Revolution”
of the same unmistakable writer, more perhaps by the way in which phrases
borrowed from other authorities are set in the text than by any more
important evidence of unconscious imitation.
The readers who had shaken their heads over the unsuccessful story of
“Morton's Hope” were startled by the appearance of this manly and
scholarly essay. This young man, it seemed, had been studying,--studying
with careful accuracy, with broad purpose. He could paint a character
with the ruddy life-blood coloring it as warmly as it glows in the cheeks
of one of Van der Helst's burgomasters. He could sweep the horizon in a
wide general outlook, and manage his perspective and his lights and
shadows so as to place and accent his special subject with its due relief
and just relations. It was a sketch, or rather a study for a larger
picture, but it betrayed the hand of a master. The feeling of many was
that expressed in the words of Mr. Longfellow in his review of the
“Twice-Told Tales” of the unknown young writer, Nathaniel Hawthorne:
“When a new star rises in the heavens, people gaze after it for a season
with the naked eye, and with such telescopes as they may find. . . . This
star is but newly risen; and erelong the observation of numerous
star-gazers, perched up on arm-chairs and editor's tables, will inform
the world of its magnitude and its place in the heaven of”--not poetry in
this instance, but that serene and unclouded region of the firmament
where shine unchanging the names of Herodotus and Thucydides. Those who
had always believed in their brilliant schoolmate and friend at last felt
themselves justified in their faith. The artist that sent this unframed
picture to be hung in a corner of the literary gallery was equal to
larger tasks. There was but one voice in the circle that surrounded the
young essayist. He must redeem his pledge, he can and will redeem it, if
he will only follow the bent of his genius and grapple with the heroic
labor of writing a great history.
And this was the achievement he was already meditating.
In the mean time he was studying history for its facts and principles,
and fiction for its scenery and portraits. In “The North American Review”
for July, 1847, is a long and characteristic article on Balzac, of whom
he was an admirer, but with no blind worship. The readers of this great
story-teller, who was so long in obtaining recognition, who “made twenty
assaults upon fame and had forty books killed under him” before he
achieved success, will find his genius fully appreciated and fairly
weighed in this discriminating essay. A few brief extracts will show its
quality.
“Balzac is an artist, and only an artist. In his tranquil,
unimpassioned, remorseless diagnosis of morbid phenomena, in his
cool method of treating the morbid anatomy of the heart, in his
curiously accurate dissection of the passions, in the patient and
painful attention with which, stethoscope in hand, finger on pulse,
eye everywhere, you see him watching every symptom, alive to every
sound and every breath, and in the scientific accuracy with which he
portrays the phenomena which have been the subject of his
investigation,--in all this calm and conscientious study of nature
he often reminds us of Goethe. Balzac, however, is only an artist
. . . He is neither moral nor immoral, but a calm and profound
observer of human society and human passions, and a minute, patient,
and powerful delineator of scenes and characters in the world before
his eyes. His readers must moralize for themselves. . . . It
is, perhaps, his defective style more than anything else which will
prevent his becoming a classic, for style above all other qualities
seems to embalm for posterity. As for his philosophy, his
principles, moral, political, or social, we repeat that he seems to
have none whatever. He looks for the picturesque and the striking.
He studies sentiments and sensations from an artistic point of view.
He is a physiognomist, a physiologist, a bit of an anatomist, a bit
of a mesmerist, a bit of a geologist, a Flemish painter, an
upholsterer, a micrological, misanthropical, sceptical philosopher;
but he is no moralist, and certainly no reformer.”
Another article contributed by Mr. Motley to “The North American Review”
is to be found in the number for October, 1849. It is nominally a review
of Talvi's (Mrs. Robinson's) “Geschichte der Colonisation von New
England,” but in reality an essay on the Polity of the Puritans,--an
historical disquisition on the principles of self-government evolved in
New England, broad in its views, eloquent in its language. Its spirit is
thoroughly American, and its estimate of the Puritan character is not
narrowed by the nearsighted liberalism which sees the past in the
pitiless light of the present,--which looks around at high noon and finds
fault with early dawn for its long and dark shadows. Here is a sentence
or two from the article:--
“With all the faults of the system devised by the Puritans, it was a
practical system. With all their foibles, with all their teasing,
tyrannical, and arbitrary notions, the Pilgrims were lovers of
liberty as well as sticklers for authority. . . . Nowhere can a
better description of liberty be found than that given by Winthrop,
in his defence of himself before the General Court on a charge of
arbitrary conduct. 'Nor would I have you mistake your own liberty,'
he says. 'There is a freedom of doing what we list, without regard
to law or justice; this liberty is indeed inconsistent with
authority; but civil, moral, and federal liberty consists in every
man's enjoying his property and having the benefit of the laws of
his country; which is very consistent with a due subjection to the
civil magistrate.' . . .
“We enjoy an inestimable advantage in America. One can be a
republican, a democrat, without being a radical. A radical, one who
would uproot, is a man whose trade is dangerous to society. Here is
but little to uproot. The trade cannot flourish. All classes are
conservative by necessity, for none can wish to change the structure
of our polity. . .
“The country without a past cannot be intoxicated by visions of the
past of other lands. Upon this absence of the past it seems to us
that much of the security of our institutions depends. Nothing
interferes with the development of what is now felt to be the true
principle of government, the will of the people legitimately
expressed. To establish that great truth, nothing was to be torn
down, nothing to be uprooted. It grew up in New England out of the
seed unconsciously planted by the first Pilgrims, was not crushed
out by the weight of a thousand years of error spread over the whole
continent, and the Revolution was proclaimed and recognized.”