Referring to a particular phase of this memorable combat, Mr. Kinglake
wrote: "The question is not ripe for conclusive decision; some of those
who, as is supposed, might throw much light upon it, have hitherto
maintained silence." It was in 1868 that the fourth volume--the
Balaclava volume--of Mr. Kinglake's History was published. Since he
wrote, singularly few of those who could throw light on obscure points
of the battle have broken silence. Lord George Paget's Journal
furnished little fresh information, since Mr. Kinglake had previously
used it extensively. There is but a spark or two of new light in Sir
Edward Hamley's more recent compendium. As the years roll on the number
of survivors diminishes in an increasing ratio, nor does one hear of
anything valuable left behind by those who fall out of the thinning
ranks. The reader of the period, in default of any other authority,
betakes himself to Kinglake. There are those who term Kinglake's
volumes romance rather than history--or, more mildly, the romance of
history. But this is unjust and untrue. It would be impertinent to
speak of his style; that gift apart, his quest for accurate information
was singularly painstaking, searching, and scrupulous. Yet it cannot be
said that he was always well served. He had perforce to lean on the
statements of men who were partisans, writing as he did so near his
period that nearly all men charged with information were partisans.
British officers are not given to thrusting on a chronicler tales of
their own prowess. But _esprit de corps_ in our service is so
strong--and, spite of its incidental failings that are almost merits
what lover of his country could wish to see it weakened?--that men of
otherwise implicit veracity will strain truth, and that is a weak
phrase, to exalt the conduct of their comrades and their corps. No
doubt Mr. Kinglake occasionally suffered because of this propensity;
and, with every respect, his literary _coup d'oeil_, except as regards
the Alma where he saw for himself, and Inkerman where no _coup d'oeil_
was possible, was somewhat impaired by his having to make his picture
of battle a mosaic, each fragment contributed by a distinct actor
concentrated on his own particular bit of fighting. If ever military
history becomes a fine art we may find the intending historian, alive
to the proverb that "onlookers see most of the game," detailing capable
persons with something of the duty of the subordinate umpire of a sham
fight, to be answerable each for a given section of the field, the
historian himself acting as the correlative of the umpire-in-chief.
[Illustration: MAP OF BALACLAVA PLAIN.