"FERDINAND AND ISABELLA"--PRESCOTT'S STYLE
The _History of Ferdinand and Isabella_ is best regarded as Prescott's
initiation into the writing of historical literature. It was a
_prolusio_, a preliminary trial of his powers, in some respects an
apprenticeship to the profession which he had decided to adopt. When he
began its composition he had published nothing but a few casual reviews.
He had neither acquired a style nor gained that self-confidence which
does so much to command success. No such work as this had as yet been
undertaken by an American. How far he could himself overcome the
peculiar difficulties which confronted him was quite uncertain. Whether
he had it in him to be at once a serious investigator and a maker of
literature, he did not know. Therefore, the _Ferdinand and Isabella_
shows here and there an uncertainty of touch and a lack of assured
method such as were quite natural in one who had undertaken so ambitious
a task with so little technical experience.
In the matter of style, Prescott had not yet emancipated himself from
that formalism which had been inherited from the eighteenth-century
writers, and which Americans, with the wonted conservatism of
provincials, retained long after Englishmen had begun to write with
naturalness and simplicity. Even in fiction this circumstance is
noticeable. At a time when Scott was thrilling the whole world of
English readers with his vivid romances, written hastily and often
carelessly, in a style which reflected his own individual nature, Cooper
was producing stories equally exciting, but told in phraseology almost
as stilted as that which we find in _Rasselas_. This was no less true in
poetry. The great romantic movement which in England found expression in
Byron and Shelley and the exquisitely irregular metres of Coleridge had
as yet awakened no true responsive echo on this side of the Atlantic.
Among the essay-writers and historians of America none had summoned up
the courage to shake off the Addisonian and Johnsonian fetters and to
move with free, unstudied ease. Irving was but a later Goldsmith, and
Bancroft a Yankee Gibbon. The papers which then appeared in the _North
American Review_, to whose pages Prescott himself was a regular
contributor, give ample evidence that the literary models of the time
were those of an earlier age,--an age in which dignity was supposed to
lie in ponderosity and to be incompatible with grace.
Prescott's nature was not one that had the slightest sympathy with
pedantry. No more spontaneous spirit than his can be imagined. His
joyousness and gayety sometimes even tended toward the frivolous. Yet in
this first serious piece of historical writing, he imposed upon himself
the shackles of an earlier convention. Just because his mood prompted
him to write in an unstudied style, all the more did he feel it
necessary to repress his natural inclination. Therefore, in the text of
his history, we find continual evidence of the eighteenth century
literary manner,--the balanced sentence, the inevitable adjective, the
studied antithesis, and the elaborate parallel. Women are invariably
"females"; a gift is a "donative"; a marriage does not take place, but
"nuptials are solemnized"; a name is usually an "appellation"; a crown
"devolves" upon a successor; a poet "delivers his sentiments"; a king
"avails himself of indeterminateness"; and so on. A cumbrous sentence
like the following smacks of the sort of English that was soon to pass
away:--
"Fanaticism is so far subversive of the most established principles
of morality that under the dangerous maxim 'For the advancement of
the faith all means are lawful,' which Tasso has rightly, though
perhaps undesignedly, derived from the spirits of hell, it not only
excuses but enjoins the commission of the most revolting crime as a
sacred duty."[24]
And the following:--
"Casiri's multifarious catalogue bears ample testimony to the
emulation with which not only men but even females of the highest
rank devoted themselves to letters; the latter contending publicly
for the prizes, not merely in eloquence and poetry, but in those
recondite studies which have usually been reserved for the other
sex."[25]
The style of these sentences is essentially the style of the old _North
American Review_ and of eighteenth-century England. The particular
chapter from which the last quotation has been taken was, in fact,
originally prepared by Prescott for the _North American_, as already
mentioned,[26] and was only on second thought reserved for a chapter of
the history.
The passion for parallel, which had existed among historical writers
ever since the time of Plutarch, was responsible for the elaborate
comparison which Prescott makes between Isabella and Elizabeth of
England.[27] It is worked out relentlessly--Isabella and Elizabeth in
their private lives, Isabella and Elizabeth in their characters,
Isabella and Elizabeth in the selection of their ministers of State,
Isabella and Elizabeth in their intellectual power, Isabella and
Elizabeth in their respective deaths. Prescott drags it all in; and it
affords evidence of the literary standards of his countrymen at the
time, that this laboured parallel was thought to be the very finest
thing in the whole book.
If, however, Prescott maintained in the body of his text the rigid
lapidary dignity which he thought to be appropriate, his natural
liveliness found occasional expression in the numerous foot-notes, which
at times he wrote somewhat in the vein of his private letters from
Pepperell and Nahant. The contrast, therefore, between text and notes
was often thoroughly incongruous because so violent. This led his
English reviewer, Mr. Richard Ford,[28] to write some rather acrid
sentences that in their manner suggest the tone which, in our days, the
_Saturday Review_ has always taken with new authors, especially when
they happen to be American. Wrote Mr. Ford of Prescott:--
"His style is too often sesquipedalian and ornate; the stilty,
wordy, false taste of Dr. Channing without his depth of thought;
the sugar and sack of Washington Irving without the half-pennyworth
of bread--without his grace and polish of pure, grammatical,
careful Anglicism. We have many suspicions, indeed, from his
ordinary quotations, from what he calls in others 'the cheap
display of school-boy erudition,' and from sundry lurking sneers,
that he has not drunk deeply at the Pierian fountains, which taste
the purer the higher we track them to their source. These, the
only sure foundations of a pure and correct style, are absolutely
necessary to our Transatlantic brethren, who are unfortunately
deprived of the high standing example of an order of nobility, and
of a metropolis where local peculiarities evaporate. The elevated
tone of the classics is the only corrective for their unhappy
democracy. Moral feeling must of necessity be degraded wherever the
multitude are the sole dispensers of power and honour. All
candidates for the foul-breathed universal suffrage must lower
their appeal to base understandings and base motives. The authors
of the United States, independently of the deteriorating influence
of their institutions, can of all people the least afford to be
negligent. Far severed from the original spring of English
undefiled, they always run the risk of sinking into provincialisms,
into Patavinity,--both positive, in the use of obsolete words, and
the adoption of conventional village significations, which differ
from those retained by us,--as well as negative, in the omission of
those happy expressions which bear the fire-new stamp of the only
authorised mint. Instances occur constantly in these volumes where
the word is English, but English returned after many years'
transportation. We do not wish to be hypercritical, nor to strain
at gnats. If, however, the authors of the United States aspire to
be admitted _ad eundem_, they must write the English of the 'old
country,' which they will find it is much easier to forget and
corrupt than to improve. We cannot, however, afford space here for
a _florilegium Yankyense_. A professor from New York, newly
imported into England and introduced into real _good_ society, of
which previously he can only have formed an abstract idea, is no
bad illustration of Mr. Prescott's _over-done_ text. Like the
stranger in question, he is always on his best behaviour, prim,
prudish, and stiff-necky, afraid of self-committal, ceremonious,
remarkably dignified, supporting the honour of the United States,
and monstrously afraid of being laughed at. Some of these
travellers at last discover that bows and starch are not even the
husk of a gentleman; and so, on re-crossing the Atlantic, their
manner becomes like Mr. Prescott's _notes_; levity is mistaken for
ease, an un-'pertinent' familiarity for intimacy, second-rate
low-toned 'jocularities' (which make no one laugh but the retailer)
for the light, hair-trigger repartee, the brilliancy of high-bred
pleasantry. Mr. Prescott emulates Dr. Channing in his text, Dr.
Dunham and Mr. Joseph Miller in his notes. Judging from the facetiae
which, by his commending them as 'good,' have furnished a gauge to
measure his capacity for relishing humour, we are convinced that
his non-perception of wit is so genuine as to be organic. It is
perfectly allowable to rise occasionally from the ludicrous into
the serious, but to descend from history to the bathos of
balderdash is too bad--_risu inepto nihil ineptius_."
This passage, which is an amusing example of an overflow of High Tory
bile, does not by any means fairly represent the general tone of Ford's
review. Prescott had here and there indulged himself in some of the
commonplaces of republicanism such as were usual in American writings of
that time; and these harmlessly trite political pedantries had rasped
the nerves of his British reviewer. To speak of "the empty decorations,
the stars and garters of an order of nobility," to mention "royal
perfidy," "royal dissimulation," "royal recompense of ingratitude," and
generally to intimate that "the people" were superior to royalty and
nobility, roused a spirit of antagonism in the mind of Mr. Ford. Several
of Prescott's semi-facetious notes dealt with rank and aristocracy in
something of the same hold-cheap tone, so that Ford was irritated into a
very personal retort. He wrote:--
"These pleasantries come with a bad grace from the son, as we learn
from a full-length dedication, of 'the _Honourable_ William
Prescott, _LL.D._' We really are ignorant of the exact value of
this titular potpourri in a _soi-disant_ land of equality, of these
noble and academic plumes, borrowed from the wing of a professedly
despised monarchy."
Although Ford's characterisation of Prescott's style had some basis of
truth, it was, of course, grossly exaggerated. Throughout the whole of
the _Ferdinand and Isabella_, one is conscious of a strong tendency
toward simplicity of expression. Many passages are as easy and
unaffected as any that we find in an historical writer of to-day.
Reading the pages over now, one can see the true Prescott under all the
starch and stiffness which at the time he mistakenly regarded as
essential to the dignity of historical writing. In fact, as the work
progressed, the author gained something of that ease which comes from
practice, and wrote more and more simply and more after his own natural
manner. What is really lacking is sharpness of outline. The narrative is
somewhat too flowing. One misses, now and then, crispness of phrase and
force of characterisation. Prescott never wrote a sentence that can be
remembered. His strength lies in his _ensemble_, in the general effect,
and in the agreeable manner in which he carries us along with him from
the beginning to the end. This first book of his, from the point of view
of style, is "pleasant reading." Its movement is that of an ambling
palfrey, well broken to a lady's use. Nowhere have we the sensation of
the rush and thunder of a war-horse.
Ford's strictures made Prescott wince, or, as Mr. Ticknor gently puts
it, "disturbed his equanimity." They caused him to consider the question
of his own style in the light of Ford's very slashing strictures. In
making this self-examination Prescott was perfectly candid with himself,
and he noted down the conclusions which he ultimately reached.
"It seems to me the first and sometimes the second volume afford
examples of the use of words not so simple as might be; not
objectionable in themselves, but unless something is gained in the
way of strength or of colouring it is best to use the most simple,
_unnoticeable_ words to express ordinary things; _e.g._ 'to send'
is better than 'to transmit'; 'crown descended' better than
'devolved'; 'guns fired' than 'guns discharged'; 'to name,' or
'call,' than 'to nominate'; 'to read' than 'peruse'; 'the term,' or
'name,' than 'appellation,' and so forth. It is better also not to
encumber the sentence with long, lumbering nouns; as,'the
relinquishment of,' instead of 'relinquishing'; 'the embellishment
and fortification of,' instead of 'embellishing and fortifying';
and so forth. I can discern no other warrant for Master Ford's
criticism than the occasional use of these and similar words on
such commonplace matters as would make the simpler forms of
expression preferable. In my third volume, I do not find the
language open to much censure."
He also came to the following sensible decision which very materially
improved his subsequent writing:--
"I will not hereafter vex myself with anxious thoughts about my
style when composing. It is formed. And if there be any ground for
the imputation that it is too formal, it will only be made worse in
this respect by extra solicitude. It is not the defect to which I
am predisposed. The best security against it is to write with less
elaboration--a pleasant recipe which conforms to my previous views.
This determination will save me trouble and time. Hereafter what I
print shall undergo no ordeal for the style's sake except only the
grammar."
Some other remarks of his may be here recorded, though they really
amount to nothing more than the discovery of the old truth, _le style
c'est l'homme_.
"A man's style to be worth anything should be the natural
expression of his mental character.... The best undoubtedly for
every writer is the form of expression best suited to his peculiar
turn of thinking, even at some hazard of violating the conventional
tone of the most chaste and careful writers. It is this alone which
can give full force to his thoughts. Franklin's style would have
borne more ornament--Washington Irving could have done with
less--Johnson and Gibbon might have had much less formality, and
Hume and Goldsmith have occasionally pointed their sentences with
more effect. But, if they had abandoned the natural suggestions of
their genius and aimed at the contrary, would they not in mending a
hole, as Scott says, have very likely made two?... Originality--the
originality of nature--compensates for a thousand minor
blemishes.... The best rule is to dispense with all rules except
those of grammar, and to consult the natural bent of one's genius."
Thereafter Prescott held to his resolution so far as concerned the first
draft of what he wrote. He always, however, before publication, asked
his friends to read and criticise what he had written, and he used also
to employ readers to go over his pages with great minuteness, making
notes which he afterwards passed upon, rejecting most of the
suggestions, but nevertheless adopting a good many.
From the point of view of historical accuracy, _Ferdinand and Isabella_
is a solid piece of work. The original sources to which Prescott had
access were numerous and valuable. Discrepancies and contradictions he
sifted out with patience and true critical acumen. He overlooked
nothing, not even those "still-born manuscripts" whose writers recorded
their experiences for the pure pleasure of setting down the truth. Ford
very justly said, regarding Prescott's notes: "Of the accuracy of his
quotations and references we cannot speak too highly; they stamp a
guarantee on his narrative; they enable us to give a reason for our
faith; they furnish means of questioning and correcting the author
himself; they enable readers to follow up any particular subject suited
to their own idiosyncrasy." It is only in that part of the book which
relates to the Arab domination in Spain that Prescott's work is
unsatisfactory; and even there it represents a distinct advance upon his
predecessors, both French and Spanish. At the time when he wrote, it
would, indeed, have been impossible for him to secure greater accuracy;
because the Arabic manuscripts contained in the Escurial had not been
opened to the inspection of investigators; and, moreover, a knowledge of
the language in which they were written would have been essential to
their proper use. In default of these sources, Prescott gave too much
credence to Casiri, and especially to Conde's history which had appeared
not long before, but which had been hastily written, so that it
contained some serious misstatements and inconsistencies. Conde,
although he professed to have gone to the original records in Arabic,
had in reality got most of his information at second hand from Cardonne
and Marmol. Hence, Prescott's chapters on the Arabs in Spain, although
they appear to the general reader to represent exact and solid
knowledge, are in fact inaccurate in parts. In other respects, however,
the most modern historical scholarship has detected no serious flaws in
_Ferdinand and Isabella_. Such defects as the book possesses are
negative rather than positive, and they are really due to the author's
cast of mind. Prescott, was not, and he never became, a philosophical
historian. His gift was for synthesis rather than for analysis. He was
an industrious gatherer of facts, an impartial judge of evidence, a
sympathetic and accurate narrator of events. He could not, however,
firmly grasp the underlying causes of what he superficially, observed,
nor penetrate the very heart of things. His power of generalisation was
never strong. There is a certain lack also, especially in this first one
of his historical compositions, of a due appreciation of character. He
describes the great actors in his drama,--Ferdinand, Isabella, Columbus,
Ximenes, and Gonsalvo de Cordova,--and what he says of them is eminently
true; yet, somehow or other, he fails to make them live. They are
stately figures that move in a majestic way across one's field of
vision; yet it is their outward bearing and their visible acts that he
makes us know, rather than the interplay of motive and temperament which
impelled them. His taste, indeed, is decidedly for the splendid and the
spectacular. Kings, princes, nobles, warriors, and statesmen crowd his
pages. Perhaps they satisfied the starved imagination of the New
Englander, whose own life was lived amid surroundings antithetically
prosaic. Certain it is, that, in dwelling upon a memorable epoch, he
omitted all consideration of a stratum of society which underlay the
surface which alone he saw. A few more years, and the fifteenth-century
_picaro_, the common man, the trader, and the peasant were destined to
emerge from the humble position to which the usages of chivalry had
consigned them. The invention of gunpowder and the use of it in war soon
swept away the advantage which the knight in armour had possessed as
against the humble foot-soldier who followed him. The discovery of
America and the opening of new lands teeming with treasures for their
conquerors roused and stimulated the consciousness of the lower orders.
Before long, the man-at-arms, the musketeer, and the artilleryman
attained a consequence which the ordinary fighting man had never had
before. After these had gone forth as adventurers into the New World,
they brought back with them not only riches wrested from the helpless
natives whom they had subdued, but a spirit of freedom verging even upon
lawlessness, which leavened the whole stagnant life of Europe. Then, for
the first time, such as had been only pawns in the game of statesmanship
and war became factors to be anxiously considered. Even literature then
takes notice of them, and for the first time they begin to influence the
course of modern history. A philosophical historian, therefore, would
have looked beyond the _ricos hombres_, and would have revealed to us,
at least in part, the existence and the mode of life of that great mass
of swarming humanity with which the statesman and the feudal lord had
soon to reckon.
As it was, however, Prescott saw the obvious rather than the recondite.
Within the field which he had marked out, his work was admirably done.
He delineated clearly and impartially the events of a splendid epoch
wherein the kingdoms of Castile and Aragon were united under two
far-seeing sovereigns, and wherein the power of Spanish feudalism was
broken, the prestige of France and Portugal brought low, the Moors
expelled, and Spain consolidated into one united kingdom from the
Pyrenees to the Mediterranean, while a new and unknown world was opened
for the expansion and enrichment of the old. He well deserved the praise
which a Spanish critic and scholar[29] gave him of having written in a
masterly manner one of the most successful historical productions of the
century in which he lived.