SHOULD HISTORY BE ALSO LITERATURE ?
IT is a century since Macaulay was born, and nearly forty years since he died. Sir Richard Jebb's estimate, so eloquent and yet discriminating, so warm in feeling and yet critical in power, is therefore quite apropos. With that estimate in the main we are inclined to agree. Macaulay's character is easy to read, and his intellect, though powerful, was by no means subtle. His merits have been discussed over and over again. Mr. J. Cotter Morison said with much skill, but also perhaps with a little ill-nature, what was to be said against Macaulay; while such writers as Carlyle and Emerson have hinted that his philosophy of life did not suit them. Taine has done justice to his style and historical learning; Freeman, though of a somewhat different historical school, never omitted an opportunity of paying a tribute to Macaulay. Of the man as distinct from the writer, Sir George Trevelyan has drawn a truthful and attractive portrait in one of the best biographies in the language. On all these points there is nothing more to say. What Sir Richard Jebb's excellent lecture does suggest may be resolved into two questions.
First, was Macaulay justified in writing what has been called a great Whig pamphlet under the guise of a history ? The phenomenon is not by any means unique. Grote, it has been said, produced the most gigantic party pamphlet on record, one long glorification of the Athenian democracy. Louis Blanc gave the world a history of the French Revolu- tion which is largely an apologia for the doctrines of Rousseau. Burnet wrote, like Macaulay, a Whig account of the Revolution, while Mitford produced a now forgotten Tory history of Greece. The phenomenon is not confined to the modern world. Tacitus wrote his history, we might almost say, for the express purpose of impeaching Roman Imperialism. We do not believe in whitewashing the early Emperors as some contemporary writers have done; but it is clear that Tacitus had his point of view, and that his pen was directed by personal and political feeling in those wonderful, mordant studies of the Empire. We might cite many other instances of what may be called personal views of great historic periods, such as those of Thiers, Froude, Carlyle. But what is clear is that some of the most powerful historic works ever produced are characterised by this note—the author is, that is to say, no chronicler, no judge summing up—he has written out of his own heart. Macaulay, therefore, if he errs, errs in good Company.
• But does he err ? Can history be written by a cold, entirely even, impartial mind ? Could we have had a
• real glimpse into the Athens of Pericles without the glow- ing eulogy of the brilliant life of the Athenians which Thucydides puts into the mouth of Pericles? Could we know, as we do, the real Rome of the earlier
Empire were it not for the exaggerated truths of Tacitus, we might add, of Juvenal ? Does not the zeal of Thiers enable us to understand better how it was that Napoleon attained his domination over France? From one point of view we think Froude's account of the Tudors the grossest piece of inaccuracy; but while there is much that is wrong,
what insight there is ! How it explains the spirit and genius of the England of that age ! The strictly impartial and entirely judicial writer would see that there was a Spanish side even to the story of the Netherlands revolt; but would be enable us to pierce into the heart of that great episode as Motley in his brilliant pictures animated by intensest sym- pathy has done ? Mr. Morley has shown that Carlyle's esti- mate of Cromwell must not be accepted whole ; but, after all, it is to Carlyle that we owe our first gleam of insight into the essential truth of Cromwell's character and ideas. In a word, we suggest, in opposition, it may be, to the historical school now in the ascendant, that historical truth is not a mere question of correct narrative, fortified by appalling notes referring us to original authorities. We do not wish by any means to disparage the excellent work done in the domain of original research during the past generation. Many obscure problems have been solved, much light has been thrown on dark corners of history. Many historical periods have been rewritten,—that with which Macaulay deals, among others. But has history as a veritable revelation of the growth of society and institutions been aided in any proportion to the labour expended ? The treatment of a great historic period by a sympathetic mind may furnish the critic with a few errors to correct, a few judgments to modify, but it gives to the reader an intelligent presentation of the past while it enables him to live in it over again, to understand as he never did before its problems, and to per- ceive how it has affected our life of to-day. The powerful and sympathetic point of view, in short, may contain deeper truth than the history informed by strict accuracy, The second point suggested by Macaulay is whether he was right in conceiving that history should be written in a good literary style. How he altered, revised, polished, might not be inferred from his easy style; but it is manifest to the observer of his manuscript as contained in the British Museum. Our contemporary writers on the whole do not seem to.think that the writing of history is or ought in any way to be a part of literature, or to be informed with the literary spirit. We have been so dominated by German methods that we have forgotten that great historical works existed before the German mind began its historical inquiries. In the ancient world the " Dryasdust " view was certainly not held. Herodotus, Thucydides, Plutarch, Xenophon, were all writers of literary power and charm, as also in Rome were Livy, Ctesar, and Tacitus. In the modern world consider the extraordinary literary grace of such a work as Voltaire's "Charles XII." Guicciardini we throw to the literary lions, but one feels the literary power of Machiavelli and the singular charm of Villani's Chronicles. The majesty of Gibbon's form is not only appropriate to, but is an essential part of, his theme. Michelet has not only knowledge and insight, but he expresses himself so that one reads him with pleasure. We must say that we see no particular virtue in a learned work of crabbed style crowded with footnotes. In the great world of history there are doubtless many mansions. We do not doubt that " Dryasdust " has his place, and we know what excellent work has been done by him. But his work is or should be for scholars, for the higher students in our Universities, not for the public. To the latter the historian should, like Macaulay, speak not only from his heart, but with the finest literary grace he can command. His work, on one side a science, is also an art, and he must never forget it. Without "word- painting," or "fine writing," or romantic effects (which are abhorrent), let him yet remember that a historian must at least learn the art of narrative. Whatever Macaulay's failings, he did not fail there.
Previous page
