THE PICTORIAL HISTORY OF ENGL AND^
KEIGHTLEY'S itieTORY OF ENGLAND. IIISTORIES, as hitherto written, have chiefly been of three kinds, or of a composite nature combining something from each. 1. The highest style of history, which, dealing rather with essences than forms, and being chiefly occupied with lofty characters and large events, bears to common life the same relation as epic or tragic poetry ; in which, though specimens of the people may be occasion- ally introduced, it is more for the sake of contrast and variety, than for any intrinsic interest or importance they are supposed to possess in themselves. 2. The minute chronicle,—quaint, pithy, pic- turesque, dry, diffuse, or dull, according to the writer's genius and the nature of his materials ; and where we always gather the truest picture of the manners and character of the age; which in parts and for a short spell are generally the most amusing reading, but become wearisome after a time, even if their diffuseness and number did not render their perusal im- possible to general readers. 3. The dull history, drawn indeed from original sources, but sucked of their sap by the kiln-like dryness of the historians' minds ; and the compilation, varying from the spirited, elegant, and terse abridgment of the classic both in chro- nicle and history, to the mechanical piece of taskwork, put forth by some bookseller's drudge, in which, if the facts and chronology happen to be correct, they are so buried in the writer's commen- tary, that they can only be compared to a skeleton whose uses are lost by swaddling it in clothes. Amongst the better class of compilations, we should place Mr. KEIGHTLEY'S book ; for its materials appear to have been drawn from our standard historians, and tested, when it seemed needful, by a reference to original authorities ; its arrangement and views are not stolen from others, though they may resemble them ; and its manner and method of handling are natural, and peculiar to the author. Dividing the history of England into two parts, Mr. KEIGHTLEY characterizes the period terminating with the end of the house of PLANTAGENET, in the person of RICHARD the
Third, as that of the Papal and Feudal system; the period from JAMES the First to the present time, as Protestant and Constitu. tional; and the reigns of the house of TUDOR as representing the transition state. The distinguishing point or prejudice in the author's views, is, perhaps, a feeling against Papacy ; of whose tyrannies and crimes in the darker ages he has formed too abstract a judgment,—though his dislikes are more visible in his theory than in his narrative. The principal merits of the book are the unforced and easy manner in which some of the spirit of content- linters is infused into its pages, without giving them
roro.fpiyeseald an appearance ; and the pleasant story-telling style of the nerration,—a defect, undoubtedly, in the loftier kind of history, but an excellence of no slight degree in a book like this, intended for the young.. The object of the Pictorial H. es or, of England, which is to render the People a much more prominent figure than heretofore causes it to differ n plan from each of the three classes we enu!
i !aerated in the outset. Arranging its materials according to their ture,
the Pictorial first treats of civil and military trans-
na actions; then of religion ; and then of the constitution, govern- t, and laws,—all of which, as well as its section on the
nit:Tt' ed literature, science, and the arts, are more or less directly treated of in other historians ; whilst national industry, manners and customs, and the condition of the people, are only incidentally touched upon by them, or not at all. As regards this first volume, the design is superior to the execution. It is unnecessarily minute; and carries diffusion into tediousness, not merely by a want of comprehension, which, satisfied with presenting the lead- ing features, neglects the mere details, but by wandering into disquisitions upon matters that have no necessary connexion with the subject. Neither does the history of the People, so far as it let has gone, differ very greatly in spirit from the general descriptions which other historians have occasionally written and relegated to an appendix. The author, however, is entitled to great praise for the pains- taking character of his work. Much valuable and curious anti- quarian matter is also collected, and plainly presented, in every part; but to us, the most interesting sections are the history of the military transactions. By referring to the original authorities, and reproducing them fully, or quoting them largely, this Pictorial History often conveys a truer idea of the nature of the country, the stateof society, and the actual difficulties and character of the war, than we have yet met with, or than perhaps the highest genius can produce who brings all to that classical standard where only the universal characteristics of things are exhibited. The general impressions of the Norman Conquest are, that the victory was decided by the battle of Hastings, and that the insurrections afterwards springing up and repressed, were re- pressed in an easy way, as insurrections are put down now. By minutely following the old chroniclers, the author of this History presents a more real and nateral picture to the mind. We per- ceive the dangers the Conqueror ran from the harassing attacks of ' the oppressed and revolted Saxons; who, flying to almost i naccessi- Us fastnesses, at once escaped the Norman ty ra n ts, and laid the foun- dation of that race of famous "outlaws" who were for a long time no dear to the English people and so renowned in popular song. We see the difficulties he encountered in his marches from the state of the country ; which was without roads, save the remains of the Roman ways—was intersected by dense forests and deep marshes, whilst many districts now under the plough were then under water, and provisions for the supply of an army were in all places difficult to procure and in some impossible. And we see too, as one sees in tracing the course of many other daring ad- venturers, that sometimes the success and safety of WILLIAM and his army were dependent on an accident. The campaigns of the Saxons, in conjunction with those of the Normans, bring the character of the country in those ancient times fully before us— em its woods were cleared, its meadow-lands laid down, its marshes drained, and embankments prevented its rivers from .,spreading diffusely over the flats of the vallies through which they flowed, rendering the air unwholesome, the earth useless, and water-navigation difficult and uncertain. The morals result- ing from the present fruits of industry, enterprise, and skill, are many; but the one which struck us the first and the most forcibly, was the long slow growth, the broad natural basis, and, let us hope, the sure foundations of our national prosperity.
MATE Or THE BULK OF THE PEOPLE IN THE ANGLO-SAXON TIMES.
The feature in the Anglo-Saxon system of society that appears the most Singular to our modern notions is, the existence of a large body of the people in the condition which has been described as that of the villani, or chief cultiva- tors of the suil,—that is to say, not subject to the control of any master who had a rieit to regard and use them as his absolute property, but yet so completely destitute of what we understand by freedom, that they had not the power of removing from the estate on which they were born, and were transferred with it on every change of proprietors, they and their services together, exactly in Slit same nianner as any other portion of the stock, alive or dead, human or hertial,which happened to be accumulated on its sum face. They were bound to the soil, and could no more uproot themselves and withdraw elsewhere, than could the trees that were planted in it. This system seems to have been of grest antiquity among the Teutonic nations. The kind of prtedial slavery which Tacitus describes as existing among the Germans of his time, is plainly 00thing more than this villeinage of the Auglo.Sexons. "The rest of their slaves, he says, after having noticed those that were freely sold like soy other Vocir, "have not, like ours, particular employments in the family allotted them. Each is the master of a habitation and household of his own. The lord requires from him a certain quantity of grain, cattle, or cloth, as from a tenant; sod so far only the subjection of the slave extends." It was natural enough for Tacitus to speak of this as a state of slavery ; but it is probable that neither these German villani nor their lords considered the matter in that light. Treitus, whose acquaintance with the subject was evidently superficial enough, does not carry his delineation beyond these few general strokes, giving the mere outside view of the case; but to understand it fully it is necessary to look to it from other points. These Anglo- Saxon villani could not, indeed, withdraw themselves from the soil to which they were said to be adscribed, nor could they Withhold their services from whosoever might become by inheritance, by gift, purchase, or in any other legal way, the lord of the manor. This is, in E language, the whole amount of the obligation under which they lay. 'hey were under the same obligation under which every modern tenant or itsses lies during the currency of his lease, with this difference only, that the War, provided he continue to pay his rent, may withdraw his person to where
The text of this work is profusely illustrated, or sometimes only embellished, by capital wood-engravings, which in the repre , sentation of coins, ancient weapons, vessels, monuments, and re- mains, are informing to the mind—sometimes, as in historical pictures, only perhaps amusing to the eye.
he pleases. But his rent he is as stiictly bound to continue to pay as the villain of old was to pay his yearly dues and to render the accustomed services. That these services were often of a menial or otherwise degrading description, or, more correctly, of what would now be considered so, does not affect ths principle of the case; they were suited to the circumstances of the time, and no doubt the persons bound to perform them would not, in general, have agreed to any proposal of commuting them for money. rents. This, then, we repeat, was the obligation lying on the villain ; he was bound to pay certain dues, and to render certain services to his lord, which there is no reason to suppose were usually felt to be any heavier burden than the payment of rent is felt to be by a tenant of the present day. But had he no rights as well as obligations? The soil, in truth, was as much his as he was the soil's. If he could not leave it, so neither could he be driven from it. It was his property to occupy, and culti- vate, and reap the produce of, as much as his serviees and dues were the pro- perty of his lord. The master could no more sell, or dispossess, or in any other way (except by divesting himself of the land) get rid of his villain than the villain could get rid of his master. There can be no doubt that even those of this class of persons who possessed the smallest tenements considered themselves better off, with all the services they had to render, than if they had been with- out both the services and the tenements. With our modern feelings, we think only of the villain as being born to a lifetime of hopeless bondage—he, and his children, and all his descendant,' after him ; he, we may be sure, loekeil upon himself and them as born to the inheritance of a property of which no one could deprive them. Of what real adventage would it have been to the villain in that state of society to possess the liberty of transferring his person and his residence from one property or one part of the kingdom to another? If the law had allowed him such a liberty, the circumstances of the times would have made it, in general, almost impossible for him to exercise it. To whom could he have gone, or who would have received him, if he had left his natural lord; We have no reason to suppose that the setvices of the villains were, in general, accounted more than an equivalent for their holdings, or that, consequently, one lord would have usually been inclined to outbid another in a competition to obtain them. The case was most probably quite otherwise. These men were originally the military followers of their lord, who settled them upon his lands because they had a claim upon him for their services, and because, from the relation in which they stood to him, he was held to be hound to provide for them. The arrangement was indeed, to a certain extent, a beneficial and neces- sary one for him as well as for them ; since, if they required the land to live upon, the land required them to cultivate it ; but the circumstances of the case certainly would not have admitted of their interests being entirely sacrificed to those of their lord; and we may fairly presume that both parties shared, how. ever unequally, in the advantages of the transaction. The former inhabitants would, no doubt, have been glad to remain to cultivate the ground ; but although we may not suppose them, with some, to have been in every case alto- gether swept away to make room for their conquerers, it cannot be questioned that they were obliged to give place to the new corners to a very great extent. Had they not, the conquest of the country would have afforded no means of rewarding those by whom it was achieved.
Nothing has vat ied more than the notions that have been entertained in differ- ent ages and countties respecting what it is that constitutes the freedom of a nation, or of a class of men. It is evident that freedom and slavery are not two conditions essentially and at all points opposed to each other, as they are commonly represented by the rhetoricians, but that time one r..ther melts by almost imperceptible gradations into the other, and that there is a considerable
border space which may be indifferently, or, according to the point of view from
which it is regarded, considered as either slavery or freedom. It is like the distinction between high and low, or between great and small, or any other qualities of a similar kind, which, although opposed in a sufficiently marked manner in their higher degrees, yet lie, in fact, as it were, in the same Continu- ous line, of which, notwithstanding the wide separation of the extremities, the middle portion must always be of debateable character, and assignable to either. Rigidly speaking, a nation or a class of persons is not entitled to call itself free, so long as it lies under any restraint whatever from which it might be relieved, or is deprived of any right which it might be allowed to exercise, without pre-
judice to the common safety and welfare. But even this point does not admit of being determined by any infallible and universal formula, in so many respects have the actual circumstances of one age and country differed from those of another, and such disagreement will there always be in the judgments and opi- nions of men as to these questions. Nor below the point thus fixed upon, although it may be denied that there is any thing that can properly be called freedom, will it be affirmed that there is nothing but slavery. In fact, what- ever freedom, or so.called freedom, has been hitherto enjoyed by men in poli- tical society, has probably been for the moat part something inferior to what the above definition would consider to be freedom at all. Still it may be quite as properly spoken of under the name of freedom as under that of slavery ; for in truth it is a mixture of the two. It will be naturally in each case regarded as slavery or freedom, according as the one or the other of these conditions is con- ceived to preponderate ; and if there appear to be any considerable quantity of freedom at all present, it will be described as a state of freedom more or less complete. But yet different ages and countries, not to speak of different indivi- duals, will not always demand the presence of the saute elements to cc.nsti tote freedom of any kind. Sometimes this prised possession will be conceived to con- sist in political privilege, sometimes in exemption, from personal restraint, sometimes in mere security of person and property. It was this last-mentioned and lowest kind of freedom which was enjoyed by the villains of the Anglo-Saxon period. They were subjected to many restric- tions and burdens which we should now account of the most oppressive charac- ter; but still they were not held to be in a state of slavery, because, with all their privations, the law yet threw its full protection around both their persons and their ploperty. It treated them RA persons, and not as things. .They were no man's property to do as he chose with. They were, it IS true, inseparabhe from the soil of the estate on which they lived, and as a matter of necessity, there. fore, when the estate received a new owner they received a new lord ; a modem tenant in the same manner receives a new landlord whenever the farm which be rents is transferred from one proprietor to another, as it may be at any tune, without any more right on his part to object or interfere than had the Saxon villain. But.the villain could not himself be sold, as the thsowe might be; nor could any of the rights appertaining to his condition, such as they were, be du- regarded with impunity, any more than those of the classes of persons that were higher in the social scale. He may have had no political rights, and even his social rights may have been extremely limited ; but the slave, properly so called, had no rights of any kind. He was, at least, in the original purity of the system, a mere item of his muter's stock—a portion of his goods and chattels.
Previous page
