RANKE'S HISTORY OF ENGLAND IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY.* [SECOND NOTICE.]
READERS of Ranke will be probably surprised at the estimate he has formed of James I. The general notion of this monarch is that of a learned pedant, bigoted, incapable, liable to strong prejudices, without even the kingly virtues of manliness and courage ; of a man not to be trusted, who was ready to sacrifice his friends to his convenience or his fears, and who had formed a ridiculous estimate of his royal prerogative. On the other hand, the impression conveyed by Ranke is that, in spite of his prejudices and craft, the King possessed many statesman-like qualities, and far more intelligence and knowledge than can be credited to his son. Certain it is that the two most prominent features in the * A History of England. principally in The Seventeenth Century. By Leopold von Ranke. 6 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 18M.
character of James—faithlessness and an extravagant conception of kingly rights—were developed even more strongly in Charles. And they both sinned in the same fashion. The worst and most owardly act of James was the execution of Raleigh ; the worst act of Charles, one which must ever load his memory with shame, was the sacrifice of Strafford. In his narrative of the Civil War, Ranke displays a minute and accurate knowledge of that eventful period. His estimate of Charles is impartial, and he shows no inclination to slur over his faults ; at the same time, his view of the King's moral greatness in misfortune appears to us eminently just,—even if as we think, he quite overrates the power which Charles possessed to alter the turn of events in the latter portion of his reign :—
" It would have been easy for him to save his life, had he conceded to the Scots the exclusive domination of Presbyterianism in England, or to the Independents the practical freedom of the Army, as they them- selves desired. That he did not do so is his merit towards England. Had he given his word to dissolve the Episcopal government of the Church and to alienate its property for ever, it is impossible to see how it could ever have been restored. Had he granted such a position to the Army as was asked in the Four Articles, the self-government of the corporations and of the Commons and the later Parliamentary Govern- ment itself would have become impossible. So far the resistance which he offered cannot be estimated highly enough. The overthrow of the Constitution, which the Independents openly intended, made him fully conscious, perhaps not of their ultimate intention, the establishment of a republic, but certainly of his own position. So far there was cer- tainly something of the martyr in him, if the man can be so called who values his own life less than the cause for which he is fighting, and in perishing himself saves it for the future."
Ranke's estimate of Charles I. is not that of a partisan, and yet we are not sure that he does full justice to the hopes and aims of his opponents. Even now it is difficult for an Englishman to consider the events of that reign impartially. He is in danger of seeing only the black side of Charles or the black aide of Crom- well. In his character of the Protector, the historian inclines leas to the judgment of Mr. Carlyle than to the views of Clarendon, in whose works, he writes, "one converses with a living, intelli- gent, and powerful spirit," adding that Clarendon's sketches of character are unequalled in the English language, an opinion that comes with weight from a writer who is himself especially happy in his incisive and luminous delineation of character. In a pithy sentence he shows how Laud's intolerance undermined the ecclesiastical jurisdiction he was so anxious to establish, since "no one has ever insulted natural human feelings with impunity ;" and elsewhere he observes that the political ideas of Strafford were in complete harmony with the ecclesiastical ideas of Laud. The errors of these men are clearly stated, but it is scarcely necessary to say that Ranke's delineation of Laud is free from the grotesque features which appear in the portrait by Macaulay ; what we miss is an adequate tribute to the memory of the great men who resisted Charles, because they deemed that he was a foe to spiritual and constitutional liberty. The historian says nothing of them that is unjust, but he displays no glow of enthusiasm for their courage and self-denial and patriotic spirit. Ranke observes, by the way, that the statement so often repeated, that Hampden and Pym were hindered by the Government itself from going to America, must certainly be rejected as unfounded. Yet he gives no ground for this denial of a familiar story. Macaulay expressly states that Hampden and Cromwell (he does not mention Pym) were actually on board when an Order of Council appeared by which the ship was prohibited from sailing.
Thanks to Lord Macaulay, whose fascinating narrative, if not always impartial, must always excite the deepest interest, the reign of William and Mary is as well known, perhaps better known, than any other chapter of English history. Ranke, who, no doubt, wrote principally for his own countrymen, has not shrunk from treating the same period, and the reader will probably be often tempted to compare the statements of the one historian with those put forth by the other. Ranke has the misfortune of appearing in a foreign dress, but, in spite of this drawback, the simplicity of his style and the weight of his observations must strike every one favourably. He is not a splendid colourist, like Macaulay, but he is far more judicial and more impartial. "It may be thought," Ranke writes, in allusion to his history of William III., "that the successful work of that great master in the art of descriptive history would have deterred me from my attempt ; but on the contrary, it acted as an incentive, since it breaks off just at the point where the great difficulties of the new Government began, and the new system finally consolidated itself." The historian adds that the Dutch and English narratives which serve as the basis of Macaulay's history proved insufficieht from the point of view gained by him during the progress of his researches:. Fortunately he discovered in the Secret Archives at Berlin a hitherto unknown collection of despatches. They are letters. written successively from the English Court to the Court of Brandenburg by two brothers, Friedrich and Louis Bonnet, an commencing in the year 1685. From these reports copious ex- tracts are given in the sixth volume of the history, and Ranke observes that be knows no other series of ambassadors' despatches. like these, "continued through thirty-five years in the same spirit and style, with the same tendencies and principles throughout, and with an interest which is ever fresh." We have no intention' to follow Dr. Ranke's steps through the important period of his- narrative, dating from the accession of James to the death of William. Enough to say that his labours in this field enable us to see the' events of that time from another point of view to that presente& by our own historian. It would be unjust to compare the two writers, for they stand on a different footing, and their method is- dissimilar ; but where we are able to put the two side by side, as when both attempt the delineation of the same character, Ranker will bear comparison with his great predecessor. If his colouring. is less attractive, his skill as a draughtman is more accurate. As. a specimen of his workmanship, we give the following portrait of Macaulay's favourite hero :—
"William III. was not a man of an imposing presence ; neither as statesman nor as General did he develop qualities which could impress or win the crowd. In the field he shone through no startling combina- tions or brilliant victories ; in the battles he fought abroad he had, for the most part, been compelled to give ground ; he stands among con- siderable and capable Generals, but not in the first rank. If we credit- him with the advance of civil and constitutional liberties, as on historicab grounds we certainly may, we must remember that this arose more from circumstances than from his personal preference for that form of constitution. In the city of Amsterdam, as well as in the province of Gelderland, his arbitrary conduct was much complained of ; even in England he regarded the maintenance of the Royal prerogative as his-- special business ; constitutional struggles disgusted him, because per- verted to a prosecution of selfish aims. In spite of his Parliamentary pledges, he thought there was no harm in bestowing very extensiVe favours on his personal friends, and even on a lady who stood in close, relations with him. Wherein, then, lay his greatness ? It lay in the. position he took up and steadily maintained; in the world-wide historic results, some of which he himself achieved in his life-time, while of others he only laid the foundations or advanced them a stage."
After observing that the living principle of William's career was the limitation of the French monarchy, which threatened the independence of every country in Europe, and the maintenance of Protestantism, and that a successful opposition to the over- whelming might of France is the historic achievement of his reign, the writer adds
Rat that which otherwise gives his character in general its special and marked individuality is the relation between the obligations laid on him or taken up by him, and the peculiarities of his nature. The com- bination of these 'two it is that makes great men. For all his sickly constitution, his face so fearfully pale and haggard, his continuous and harassing asthma, he developed an unquenchable energy for work; he- knew no pleasures, lived only for business, talked little, worked all the more ; each step he took shows sound judgment and wise determination. In one of his letters is a phrase which might serve for his motto,— with foresight and vigour.' He- never undertook anything without first setting before himself the. difficulties on every side which he would have to face, in carrying out his plans he seemed rather to follow the course of things than to make much preparation for them before-hand ; his ambition always seemed thoroughly justified and indeed demanded by circumstances In England William was never thoroughly at home. The cheerful' sociability of his Stuart predecessors was quite foreign to his nature. Sometimes he gave entertainments and saw company, not because he liked it, but only to show his gratitude for some vote given him, or to, influence the minds of men with a view to some debate. He was not- easy of access, but once reached, he was both unconstrained and affable ;- he readily entered into discussion, and tried to convince his auditors. But it was only in his inmost circle of Dutchmen that he was confiden-. tial ; with their culture, way of thinking, and tastes he sympathised.
Even his trusted friends complain that as time went on be neglected them. They called him heartless. This may have ariserr from the fact that just at that time his opinions were no longer quite in. harmony with theirs, or perhaps it was that he had no further need of. them. He ever lived only in the midst of great things, which at all. times be made essentially his own business ; in the presence of thise public affairs personal relations were forgotten."
We have but touched lightly on a few points that have occurred' to us during the perusal of these volumes. The interest of the- subject so comprehensively treated by Dr. Ranke is inexhaustible, and the more this period of our history is studied, the better shall we be able to honour and appreciate the noble sacrifices made by our forefathers and the value of the trust they have- committed to their children. And it is significant- to note the resemblance between the questions that agitated society in the reigns of the Stuarts and of William with some of those that are still uppermost in men's thoughts. The difference between the two periods arises less from any change in men's passions and
prejudices, than from the fact that we have learnt the necessity of tolerating and indeed respecting the judgment of men whose opinions differ from our own. In other points, English character remains much the same as it was said to be by a spirited follower of James II. two hundred years ago :—
" The nature of an Englishman is to be tenacious of the opinion he has once conceived, to be positive in his own conceits, to be firm in his resolutions, to this being joined a genuine boldness of spirit, a contempt of danger, and a disdain of being outdone by another. He will rather perish than not go through what he has once undertaken."
Previous page
