THE LATER HISTORIANS.
New Materials. George Grote. History of Greece. Lord Macaulay. History
of England. Its Faults. Thomas Carlyle. Life of Frederick II. Other
Historians.
NEW MATERIALS.
Nothing more decidedly marks the nineteenth century than the progress of
history as a branch of literature. A wealth of material, not known before,
was brought to light, increasing our knowledge and reversing time-honored
decisions upon historic points. Countries were explored and their annals
discovered. Expeditions to Egypt found a key to hieroglyphs; State papers
were arranged to the hand of the scholar; archives, like those of
Simancas, were thrown open. The progress of Truth, through the extension
of education, unmasked ancient prescriptions and prejudices: thus, where
the chronicle remained, philosophy was transformed; and it became evident
that the history of man in all times must be written anew, with far
greater light to guide the writer than the preceding century had enjoyed.
Besides, the world of readers became almost as learned as the historian
himself, and he wrote to supply a craving and a demand such as had never
before existed. A glance at the labors of the following historians will
show that they were not only annalists, but reformers in the full sense of
the word: they re-wrote what had been written before, supplying defects
and correcting errors.
GEORGE GROTE.--This distinguished writer was born near London, in 1794. He
was the son of a banker, and received his education at the Charter House.
Instead of entering one of the universities, he became a clerk in his
father's banking-house. Early imbued with a taste for Greek literature, he
continued his studies with great zeal; and was for many years collecting
the material for a history of Greece. The subject was quietly and
thoroughly digested in his mind before he began to write. A member of
Parliament from 1832 to 1841, he was always a strong Whig, and was
specially noted for his championship of the vote by ballot. There was no
department of wholesome reform which he did not sustain. He opposed the
corn laws, which had become oppressive; he favored the political rights of
the Jews, and denounced prescriptive evils of every kind.
HISTORY OF GREECE.--In 1846 he published the first volume of his _History
of Greece from the Earliest Period to the Death of Alexander the Great_:
the remaining volumes appeared between that time and 1856. The work was
well received by critics of all political opinions; and the world was
astonished that such a labor should have been performed by any writer who
was not a university man. It was a luminous ancient history, in a fresh
and racy modern style: the review of the mythology is grand; the political
conditions, the manners and customs of the people, the military art, the
progress of law, the schools of philosophy, are treated with remarkable
learning and clearness. But he as clearly exhibits the political condition
of his own age, by the sympathy which he displays towards the democracy of
Athens in their struggles against the tenets and actions of the
aristocracy. The historian writes from his own political point of view;
and Grote's history exhibits his own views of reform as plainly as that of
Mitford sets forth his aristocratic proclivities. Thus the English
politics of the age play a part in the Grecian history.
There were several histories of Greece written not long before that of
Grote, which may be considered as now set aside by his greater accuracy
and better style. Among these the principal are that of JOHN GILLIES,
1747-1836, which is learned, but statistical and dry; that of CONNOP
THIRLWALL, born 1797, Bishop of St. David's, which was greatly esteemed by
Grote himself; and that of WILLIAM MITFORD, 1744-1827, to correct the
errors and supply the deficiencies of which, Grote's work was written.
LORD MACAULAY.--Thomas Babington Macaulay was born at Rothley, in
Leicestershire, on the 25th of October, 1800. His father, Zachary
Macaulay, a successful West Indian merchant, devoted his later life to
philanthropy. His mother was Miss Selina Mills, the daughter of a
bookseller of Bristol. After an early education, chiefly conducted at
home, he was entered at Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1818, where he
distinguished himself as a debater, and gained two prize poems and a
scholarship. He was graduated in 1822, and afterwards continued his
studies; producing, during the next four years, several of his stirring
ballads. He began to write for the Edinburgh Review in 1825. In 1830 he
entered Parliament, and was immediately noted for his brilliant oratory in
advocating liberal principles. In 1834 he was sent to India, as a member
of the Supreme Council; and took a prominent part in preparing an Indian
code of laws. This code was published on his return to England, in 1838;
but it was so kind and considerate to the natives, that the martinets in
India defeated its adoption. From his return until 1847, he had a seat in
Parliament as member for Edinburgh; but in the latter year his support of
the grant to the Maynooth (Roman Catholic) College so displeased his
constituents, that in the next election he lost his seat.
During all these busy years he had been astonishing and delighting the
reading world by his truly brilliant papers in the _Edinburgh Review_,
which have been collected and published as _Miscellanies_. The subjects
were of general interest; their treatment novel and bold; the learning
displayed was accurate and varied; and the style pointed, vigorous, and
harmonious. The papers upon _Clive_ and _Hastings_ are enriched by his
intimate knowledge of Indian affairs, acquired during his residence in
that country. His critical papers are severe and satirical, such as the
articles on _Croker's Boswell_, and on _Mr. Robert Montgomery's Poems_.
His unusual self-reliance as a youth led him to great vehemence in the
expression of his opinions, as well as into errors of judgment, which he
afterwards regretted. The radicalism which is displayed in his essay on
_Milton_ was greatly modified when he came to treat of kindred subjects in
his History.
THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND.--He had long cherished the intention of writing
the history of England, "from the accession of James II. down to a time
which is within the memory of men still living." The loss of his election
at Edinburgh gave him the leisure necessary for carrying out this purpose.
In 1848 he published the first and second volumes, which at once achieved
an unprecedented popularity. His style had lost none of its brilliancy;
his reading had been immense; his examination of localities was careful
and minute. It was due, perhaps, to this growing fame, that the electors
of Edinburgh, without any exertion on his part, returned him to Parliament
in 1852. In 1855 the third and fourth volumes of his History appeared,
bringing the work down to the peace of Ryswick, in 1697. All England
applauded the crown when he was elevated to the peerage, in 1857, as Baron
Macaulay of Rothley.
It was now evident that Macaulay had deceived himself as to the magnitude
of his subject; at least, he was never to finish it. He died suddenly of
disease of the heart, on the 28th of December, 1859; and all that remained
of his History was a fragmentary volume, published after his death by his
sister, Lady Trevelyan, which reaches the death of William III., in 1702.
ITS FAULTS.--The faults of Macaulay's History spring from the character of
the man: he is always a partisan or a bitter enemy. His heroes are angels;
those whom he dislikes are devils; and he pursues them with the ardor of a
crusader or the vendetta of a Corsican. The Stuarts are painted in the
darkest colors; while his eulogy of William III. is fulsome and false. He
blackens the character of Marlborough for real faults indeed; but for such
as Marlborough had in common with thousands of his contemporaries. If, as
has been said, that great captain deserved the greatest censure as a
statesman and warrior, it is equally true, paradoxical as it may seem,
that he deserved also the greatest praise in both capacities. Macaulay has
fulminated the censure and withheld the praise.
What is of more interest to Americans, he loses no opportunity of
attacking and defaming William Penn; making statements which have been
proved false, and attributing motives without reason or justice.
His style is what the French call the _style coupé_,--short sentences,
like those of Tacitus, which ensure the interest by their recurring
shocks. He writes history with the pen of a reviewer, and gives verdicts
with the authority of a judge. He seems to say, Believe the autocrat; do
not venture to philosophize.
His poetry displays tact and talent, but no genius; it is pageantry in
verse. His _Lays of Ancient Rome_ are scholarly, of course, and pictorial
in description, but there is little of nature, and they are theatrical
rather than dramatic; they are to be declaimed rather than to be read or
sung.
In society, Macaulay was a great talker--he harangued his friends; and
there was more than wit in the saying of Sidney Smith, that his
conversation would have been improved by a few "brilliant flashes of
silence."
But in spite of his faults, if we consider the profoundness of his
learning, the industry of his studies, and the splendor of his style, we
must acknowledge him as the most distinguished of English historians. No
one has yet appeared who is worthy to complete the magnificent work which
he left unfinished.
THOMAS CARLYLE.--A literary brother of a very different type, but of a
more distinct individuality, is Carlyle, who was born in Dumfries-shire,
Scotland, in 1795. He was the eldest son of a farmer. After a partial
education at home, he entered the University of Edinburgh, where he was
noted for his attainments in mathematics, and for his omnivorous reading.
After leaving the university he became a teacher in a private family, and
began to study for the ministry, a plan which he soon gave up.
His first literary effort was a _Life of Schiller_, issued in numbers of
the _London Magazine_, in 1823-4. He turned his attention to German
literature, in the knowledge of which he has surpassed all other
Englishmen. He became as German as the Germans.
In 1826 he married, and removed to Craigen-Puttoch, on a farm, where, in
isolation and amid the wildness of nature, he studied, and wrote articles
for the _Edinburgh Review_, the _Foreign Quarterly_, and some of the
monthly magazines. His study of the German, acting upon an innate
peculiarity, began to affect his style very sensibly, as is clearly seen
in the singular, introverted, parenthetical mode of expression which
pervades all his later works. His earlier writings are in ordinary
English, but specimens of _Carlylese_ may be found in his _Sartor
Resartus_, which at first appalled the publishers and repelled the general
reader. Taking man's clothing as a nominal subject, he plunges into
philosophical speculations with which clothes have nothing to do, but
which informed the world that an original thinker and a novel and curious
writer had appeared.
In 1834 he removed to Chelsea, near London, where he has since resided. In
1837, he published his _French Revolution_, in three volumes,--_The
Bastile_, _The Constitution_, _The Guillotine_. It is a fiery, historical
drama rather than a history; full of rhapsodies, startling rhetoric,
disconnected pictures. It has been fitly called "a history in flashes of
lightning." No one could learn from it the history of that momentous
period; but one who has read the history elsewhere, will find great
interest in Carlyle's wild and vivid pictures of its stormy scenes.
In 1839 he wrote, in his dashing style, upon _Chartism_, and about the
same time read a course of lectures upon _Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the
Heroic in History_, in which he is an admirer of will and impulse, and
palliates evil when found in combination with these.
In 1845 he edited _The Letters and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell_, and in
his extravagant eulogies worships the hero rather than the truth.
FREDERICK II.--In 1858 appeared the first two volumes of _The Life of
Frederick the Great_, and since that time he has completed the work. This
is doubtless his greatest effort. It is full of erudition, and contains
details not to be found in any other biography of the Prussian monarch;
but so singularly has he reasoned and commented upon his facts, that the
enlightened reader often draws conclusions different from those which the
author has been laboring to establish. While the history shows that, for
genius and success, Frederick deserved to be called the Great, Carlyle
cannot make us believe that he was not grasping, selfish, a dissembler,
and an immoral man.
The author's style has its admirers, and is a not unpleasing novelty and
variety to lovers of plain English; but it wearies in continuance, and one
turns to French or German with relief. The Essays upon _German
Literature_, _Richter_, and _The Niebelungen Lied_ are of great value to
the young student. Such tracts as _Past and Present_, and _The Latter-Day
Pamphlets_, have caused him to be called the "Censor of the Age." He is
too eccentric and prejudiced to deserve the name in its best meaning. If
he fights shams, he sometimes mistakes windmills and wine-skins for
monsters, and, what is worse, if he accost a shepherd or a milkmaid, they
at once become _Amadis de Gaul_ and _Dulcinea del Toboso_. In spite of
these prejudices and peculiarities, Carlyle will always be esteemed for
his arduous labors, his honest intentions, and his boldness in expressing
his opinions. His likes and dislikes find ready vent in his written
judgments, and he cares for neither friend nor foe, in setting forth his
views of men and events. On many subjects it must be said his views are
just. There are fields in which his word must be received with authority.
OTHER HISTORIANS OF THE LATEST PERIOD.
_John Lingard_, 1771-1851: a Roman Catholic priest. He was a man of great
probity and worth. His chief work is _A History of England_, from the
first invasion of the Romans to the accession of William and Mary. With a
natural leaning to his own religious side in the great political
questions, he displays great industry in collecting material, beauty of
diction, and honesty of purpose. His history is of particular value, in
that it stands among the many Protestant histories as the champion of the
Roman Catholics, and gives an opportunity to "hear the other side," which
could not have had a more respectable advocate. In all the great
controversies, the student of English history must consult Lingard, and
collate his facts and opinions with those of the other historians. He
wrote, besides, numerous theological and controversial works.
_Patrick Fraser Tytler_, 1791-1849: the author of _A History of Scotland
from Alexander III. to James VI. (James I. of England)_, and _A History of
England during the reigns of Edward VI. and Mary_. His _Universal History_
has been used as a text-book, and in style and construction has great
merit, although he does not rise to the dignity of a philosophic
historian.
_Sir William Francis Patrick Napier_, 1785-1866: a distinguished soldier,
and, like Cæsar, a historian of the war in which he took part. His
_History of the War in the Peninsula_ stands quite alone. It is clear in
its strategy and tactics, just to the enemy, and peculiar but effective in
style. It was assailed by several military men, but he defended all his
positions in bold replies to their strictures, and the work remains as
authority upon the great struggle which he relates.
_Lord Mahon_, Earl of Stanhope, born 1805: his principal work is a
_History of England from the Peace of Utrecht to the Peace of Versailles_.
He had access to much new material, and from the Stuart papers has drawn
much of interest with reference to that unfortunate family. His view of
the conduct of Washington towards Major André has been shown to be quite
untenable. He also wrote a _History of the War of Succession in Spain_.
_Henry Thomas Buchle_, 1822-1862: he was the author of a _History of
Civilization_, of which he published two volumes, the work remaining
unfinished at the time of his death. For bold assumptions, vigorous style,
and great reading, this work must be greatly admired; but all his theories
are based on second principles, and Christianity, as a divine institution,
is ignored. It startled the world into admiration, but has not retained
the place in popular esteem which it appeared at first to make for itself.
He is the English _Comte_, without the eccentricity of his model.
_Sir Archibald Alison_, 1792-1867: he is the author of _The History of
Europe from the Commencement of the French Revolution to the Restoration
of the Bourbons_, and a continuation from 1815 to 1852. It may be doubted
whether even the most dispassionate scholar can write the history of
contemporary events. We may be thankful for the great mass of facts he has
collated, but his work is tinctured with his high Tory principles; his
material is not well digested, and his style is clumsy.
_Agnes Strickland_, born 1806: after several early attempts Miss
Strickland began her great task, which she executed nobly--_The Queens of
England_. Accurate, philosophic, anecdotal, and entertaining, this work
ranks among the most valuable histories in English. If the style is not so
nervous as that of masculine writers, there is a ready intuition as to the
rights and the motives of the queens, and a great delicacy combined with
entire lack of prudery in her treatment of their crimes. The library of
English history would be singularly incomplete without Miss Strickland's
work. She also wrote _The Queens of Scotland_, and _The Bachelor Kings of
England_.
_Henry Hallam_, 1778-1859: the principal works of this judicious and
learned writer are _A View of Europe during the Middle Ages_, _The
Constitutional History of England_, and _An Introduction to the Literature
of Europe_ in the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries. With
the skill of an advocate he combines the calmness of a judge; and he has
been justly called "the accurate Hallam," because his facts are in all
cases to be depended on. By his clear and illustrative treatment of dry
subjects, he has made them interesting; and his works have done as much to
instruct his age as those of any writer. Later researches in literature
and constitutional history may discover more than he has presented, but he
taught the new explorers the way, and will always be consulted with
profit, as the representative of this varied learning during the first
half of the nineteenth century.
_James Anthony Froude_, born 1818: an Oxford graduate, Mr. Froude
represents the Low Church party in a respectable minority. His chief work
is _A History of England from the Fall of Wolsey to the Death of
Elizabeth_. With great industry, and the style of a successful novelist in
making his groups and painting his characters, he has written one of the
most readable books published in this period. He claimed to take his
authorities from unpublished papers, and from the statute-books, and has
endeavored to show that Henry VIII. was by no means a bad king, and that
Elizabeth had very few faults. His treatment of Anne Boleyn and Mary Queen
of Scots is unjust and ignoble. Not content with publishing what has been
written in their disfavor, with the omniscience of a romancer, he asserts
their motives, and produces thoughts which they never uttered. A race of
powerful critics has sprung forth in defence of Mary, and Mr. Froude's
inaccuracies and injustice have been clearly shown. To novel readers who
are fond of the sensational, we commend his work: to those who desire
historic facts and philosophies, we proclaim it to be inaccurate,
illogical, and unjust in the highest degree.
_Sharon Turner_, 1768-1847: among many historical efforts, principally
concerning England in different periods, his _History of the Anglo-Saxons_
stands out prominently as a great work. He was an eccentric scholar, and
an antiquarian, and he found just the place to delve in when he undertook
that history. The style is not good--too epigrammatic and broken; but his
research is great, his speculations bold, and his information concerning
the numbers, manners, arts, learning, and other characters of the
Anglo-Saxons, immense. The student of English history must read Turner for
a knowledge of the Saxon period.
_Thomas Arnold_, 1795-1832: widely known and revered as the Great
Schoolmaster. He was head-master at Rugby, and influenced his pupils more
than any modern English instructor. Accepting the views of Niebuhr, he
wrote a work on _Roman History_ up to the close of the second Punic war.
But he is more generally known by his historical lectures delivered at
Oxford, where he was Professor of Modern History. A man of original views
and great honesty of purpose, his influence in England has been
strengthened by the excellent biography written by his friend Dean
Stanley.
_William Hepworth Dixon_, born 1821: he was for some time editor of _The
Athenæum_. In historic biography he appears as a champion of men who have
been maligned by former writers. He vindicates _William Penn_ from the
aspersions of Lord Macaulay, and _Bacon_ from the charges of meanness and
corruption.
_Charles Merivale_, born 1808: he is a clergyman, and a late Fellow of
Cambridge, and is favorably known by his admirable work entitled, _The
History of the Romans under the Empire_. It forms an introduction to
Gibbon, and displays a thorough grasp of the great epoch, varied
scholarship, and excellent taste. His analyses of Roman literature are
very valuable, and his pictures of social life so vivid that we seem to
live in the times of the Cæsars as we read.