HISTORICAL ESSAYS

BYJAMES FORD RHODES, LL. D. , D. Litt. 

Author of the _History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850to the Final Restoration of Home Rule at the South in 1877_

New YorkTHE MACMILLAN COMPANY1909

_All rights reserved_

Copyright, 1909, By THE MACMILLAN COMPANY. 

Set up and electrotyped. Published December, 1909. 

Norwood PressJ. S. Cushing Co. --Berwick & Smith Co. Norwood, Mass. , U. S. A. 

PREFACE

In offering to the public this volume of Essays, all but two of whichhave been read at various places on different occasions, I am aware thatthere is some repetition in ideas and illustrations, but, as the datesof their delivery and previous publication are indicated, I am lettingthem stand substantially as they were written and delivered. 

I am indebted to my son, Daniel P. Rhodes, for a literary revision ofthese Essays; and I have to thank the editors of the _Atlantic Monthly_, of _Scribner's Magazine_, and of the _Century Magazine_ for leave toreprint the articles which have already appeared in their periodicals. 

 Boston, November, 1909. 

CONTENTS

 I. History 1 President's Inaugural Address, American Historical Association, Boston, December 27, 1899; printed in the _Atlantic Monthly_ of February, 1900. 

 II. Concerning the Writing of History 25 Address delivered at the Meeting of the American Historical Association in Detroit, December, 1900. 

 III. The Profession of Historian 47 Lecture read before the History Club of Harvard University, April 27, 1908, and at Yale, Columbia, and Western Reserve Universities. 

 IV. Newspapers as Historical Sources 81 A Paper read before the American Historical Association in Washington on December 29, 1908; printed in the _Atlantic Monthly_ of May, 1909. 

 V. Speech prepared for the Commencement Dinner at Harvard University, June 26, 1901. (Not delivered) 99

 VI. Edward Gibbon 105 Lecture read at Harvard University, April 6, 1908, and printed in _Scribner's Magazine_ of June, 1909. 

 VII. Samuel Rawson Gardiner 141 A Paper read before the Massachusetts Historical Society at the March Meeting of 1902, and printed in the _Atlantic Monthly_ of May, 1902. 

 VIII. William E. H. Lecky 151 A Paper read before the Massachusetts Historical Society at the November Meeting of 1903. 

 IX. Sir Spencer Walpole 159 A Paper read before the Massachusetts Historical Society at the November Meeting of 1907. 

 X. John Richard Green 169 Address at a Gathering of Historians on June 5, 1909, to mark the Placing of a Tablet in the Inner Quadrangle of Jesus College, Oxford, to the Memory of John Richard Green. 

 XI. Edward L. Pierce 175 A Paper read before the Massachusetts Historical Society at the October Meeting of 1897. 

 XII. Jacob D. Cox 183 A Paper read before the Massachusetts Historical Society at the October Meeting of 1900. 

 XIII. Edward Gaylord Bourne 189 A Paper read before the Massachusetts Historical Society at the March Meeting of 1908. 

 XIV. The Presidential Office 201 An Essay printed in _Scribner's Magazine_ of February, 1903. 

 XV. A Review of President Hayes's Administration 243 Address delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University, on October 8, 1908; printed in the _Century Magazine_ for October, 1909. 

 XVI. Edwin Lawrence Godkin 265 Lecture read at Harvard University, April 13, 1908; printed in the _Atlantic Monthly_ for September, 1908. 

 XVII. Who Burned Columbia? 299 A Paper read before the Massachusetts Historical Society at the November Meeting of 1901, and printed in the _American Historical Review_ of April, 1902. 

 XVIII. A New Estimate of Cromwell 315 A Paper read before the Massachusetts Historical Society at the January Meeting of 1898, and printed in the _Atlantic Monthly_ of June, 1898. 

 Index 325

HISTORY

President's Inaugural Address, American Historical Association, Boston, December 27, 1899; printed in the _Atlantic Monthly_ of February, 1900. 

HISTORICAL ESSAYS

HISTORY[1]

My theme is history. It is an old subject, which has been discoursedabout since Herodotus, and I should be vain indeed if I flattered myselfthat I could say aught new concerning the methods of writing it, whenthis has for so long a period engaged the minds of so many gifted men. Yet to a sympathetic audience, to people who love history, there isalways the chance that a fresh treatment may present the commonplaces insome different combination, and augment for the moment an interest whichis perennial. 

Holding a brief for history as do I your representative, let me at onceconcede that it is not the highest form of intellectual endeavor; let usat once agree that it were better that all the histories ever writtenwere burned than for the world to lose Homer and Shakespeare. Yet as itis generally true that an advocate rarely admits anything withoutqualification, I should not be loyal to my client did I not urge thatShakespeare was historian as well as poet. We all prefer his Antony andCleopatra and Julius Cæsar to the Lives in North's Plutarch whichfurnished him his materials. The history is in substance as true asPlutarch, the dramatic force greater; the language is better than thatof Sir Thomas North, who himself did a remarkable piece of work when hegave his country a classic by Englishing a French version of thestories of the Greek. It is true as Macaulay wrote, the historical playsof Shakespeare have superseded history. When we think of Henry V, it isof Prince Hal, the boon companion of Falstaff, who spent his youth inbrawl and riot, and then became a sober and duty-loving king; and ouridea of Richard III. Is a deceitful, dissembling, cruel wretch who knewno touch of pity, a bloody tyrant who knew no law of God or man. 

The Achilles of Homer was a very living personage to Alexander. Howhappy he was, said the great general, when he visited Troy, "in havingwhile he lived so faithful a friend, and when he was dead so famous apoet to proclaim his actions"! In our century, as more in consonancewith society under the régime of contract, when force has largely given, pay to craft, we feel in greater sympathy with Ulysses; "The one personI would like to have met and talked with, " Froude used to say, "wasUlysses. How interesting it would be to have his opinion on universalsuffrage, and on a House of Parliament where Thersites is listened to aspatiently as the king of men!"

We may also concede that, in the realm of intellectual endeavor, thenatural and physical sciences should have the precedence of history. Thepresent is more important than the past, and those sciences whichcontribute to our comfort, place within the reach of the laborer andmechanic as common necessaries what would have been the highest luxuryto the Roman emperor or to the king of the Middle Ages, contribute tohealth and the preservation of life, and by the development of railroadsmake possible such a gathering as this, --these sciences, we cheerfullyadmit, outrank our modest enterprise, which, in the words of Herodotus, is "to preserve from decay the remembrance of what men have done. " Itmay be true, as a geologist once said, in extolling his study at theexpense of the humanities, "Rocks do not lie, although men do;" yet, onthe other hand, the historic sense, which during our century hasdiffused itself widely, has invaded the domain of physical science. Ifyou are unfortunate enough to be ill, and consult a doctor, heexpatiates on the history of your disease. It was once my duty to attendthe Commencement exercises of a technical school, when one of thegraduates had a thesis on bridges. As he began by telling how they werebuilt in Julius Cæsar's time, and tracing at some length the developmentof the art during the period of the material prosperity of the RomanEmpire, he had little time and space left to consider their constructionat the present day. One of the most brilliant surgeons I ever knew, theoriginator of a number of important surgical methods, who, beingphysician as well, was remarkable in his expedients for saving life whencalled to counsel in grave and apparently hopeless cases, desired towrite a book embodying his discoveries and devices, but said that thefeeling was strong within him that he must begin his work with anaccount of medicine in Egypt, and trace its development down to our owntime. As he was a busy man in his profession, he lacked the leisure tomake the preliminary historical study, and his book was never written. Men of affairs, who, taking "the present time by the top, " are lookedupon as devoted to the physical and mechanical sciences, continually paytribute to our art. President Garfield, on his deathbed, asked one ofhis most trusted Cabinet advisers, in words that become pathetic as onethinks of the opportunities destroyed by the assassin's bullet, "Shall Ilive in history?" A clever politician, who knew more of ward meetings, caucuses, and the machinery of conventions than he did of historybooks, and who was earnest for the renomination of President Arthur in1884, said to me, in the way of clinching his argument, "Thatadministration will live in history. " So it was, according to Amyot, inthe olden time. "Whensoever, " he wrote, "the right sage and virtuousEmperor of Rome, Alexander Severus, was to consult of any matter ofgreat importance, whether it concerned war or government, he alwayscalled such to counsel as were reported to be well seen in histories. ""What, " demanded Cicero of Atticus, "will history say of me six hundredyears hence?"

Proper concessions being made to poetry and the physical sciences, ourplace in the field remains secure. Moreover, we live in a fortunate age;for was there ever so propitious a time for writing history as in thelast forty years? There has been a general acquisition of the historicsense. The methods of teaching history have so improved that they may becalled scientific. Even as the chemist and physicist, we talk ofpractice in the laboratory. Most biologists will accept Haeckel'sdesignation of "the last forty years as the age of Darwin, " for thetheory of evolution is firmly established. The publication of the Originof Species, in 1859, converted it from a poet's dream and philosopher'sspeculation to a well-demonstrated scientific theory. Evolution, heredity, environment, have become household words, and theirapplication to history has influenced every one who has had to trace thedevelopment of a people, the growth of an institution, or theestablishment of a cause. Other scientific theories and methods haveaffected physical science as potently, but none has entered so vitallyinto the study of man. What hitherto the eye of genius alone couldperceive may become the common property of every one who cares to read adozen books. But with all of our advantages, do we write better historythan was written before the year 1859, which we may call the line ofdemarcation between the old and the new? If the English, German, andAmerican historical scholars should vote as to who were the two besthistorians, I have little doubt that Thucydides and Tacitus would have apretty large majority. If they were asked to name a third choice, itwould undoubtedly lie between Herodotus and Gibbon. At the meeting ofthis association in Cleveland, when methods of historical teaching wereunder discussion, Herodotus and Thucydides, but no others, werementioned as proper object lessons. What are the merits of Herodotus?Accuracy in details, as we understand it, was certainly not one of them. Neither does he sift critically his facts, but intimates that he willnot make a positive decision in the case of conflicting testimony. "Formyself, " he wrote, "my duty is to report all that is said, but I am notobliged to believe it all alike, --a remark which may be understood toapply to my whole history. " He had none of the wholesome skepticismwhich we deem necessary in the weighing of historical evidence; on thecontrary, he is frequently accused of credulity. Nevertheless, PercyGardner calls his narrative nobler than that of Thucydides, and Mahaffyterms it an "incomparable history. " "The truth is, " wrote Macaulay inhis diary, when he was forty-nine years old, "I admire no historiansmuch except Herodotus, Thucydides, and Tacitus. " Sir M. E. Grant Duffdevoted his presidential address of 1895, before the Royal HistoricalSociety, wholly to Herodotus, ending with the conclusion, "The fame ofHerodotus, which has a little waned, will surely wax again. " Whereuponthe London Times devoted a leader to the subject. "We are concerned, " itsaid, "to hear, on authority so eminent, that one of the most delightfulwriters of antiquity has a little waned of late in favor with theworld. If this indeed be the case, so much the worse for the world. .. . When Homer and Dante and Shakespeare are neglected, then will Herodotuscease to be read. "

There we have the secret of his hold upon the minds of men. He knows howto tell a story, said Professor Hart, in the discussion previouslyreferred to, in Cleveland. He has "an epic unity of plan, " writesProfessor Jebb. Herodotus has furnished delight to all generations, while Polybius, more accurate and painstaking, a learned historian and apractical statesman, gathers dust on the shelf or is read as a penance. Nevertheless, it may be demonstrated from the historical literature ofEngland of our century that literary style and great power of narrationalone will not give a man a niche in the temple of history. Herodotusshowed diligence and honesty, without which his other qualities wouldhave failed to secure him the place he holds in the estimation ofhistorical scholars. 

From Herodotus we naturally turn to Thucydides, who in the beginningcharms historical students by his impression of the seriousness anddignity of his business. History, he writes, will be "found profitableby those who desire an exact knowledge of the past as a key to thefuture, which in all human probability will repeat or resemble the past. My history is an everlasting possession, not a prize composition whichis heard and forgotten. " Diligence, accuracy, love of truth, andimpartiality are merits commonly ascribed to Thucydides, and theinternal evidence of the history bears out fully the general opinion. But, in my judgment, there is a tendency to rate, in the comparativeestimates, the Athenian too high, for the possession of these qualities;for certainly some modern writers have possessed all of these merits inan eminent degree. When Jowett wrote in the preface to his translation, Thucydides "stands absolutely alone among the historians, not only ofHellas, but of the world, in his impartiality and love of truth, " he wasunaware that a son of his own university was writing the history of amomentous period of his own country, in a manner to impugn thecorrectness of that statement. When the Jowett Thucydides appeared, Samuel R. Gardiner had published eight volumes of his history, though hehad not reached the great Civil War, and his reputation, which has sincegrown with a cumulative force, was not fully established; but I have nowno hesitation in saying that the internal evidence demonstrates that inimpartiality and love of truth Gardiner is the peer of Thucydides. Fromthe point of view of external evidence, the case is even stronger forGardiner; he submits to a harder test. That he has been able to treat sostormy, so controverted, and so well known a period as the seventeenthcentury in England, with hardly a question of his impartiality, is awonderful tribute. In fact, in an excellent review of his work I haveseen him criticised for being too impartial. On the other hand, Grotethinks that he has found Thucydides in error, --in the long dialoguebetween the Athenian representatives and the Melians. "This dialogue, "Grote writes, "can hardly represent what actually passed, except as to afew general points which the historian has followed out into deductionsand illustrations, thus dramatizing the given situation in a powerfuland characteristic manner. " Those very words might characterizeShakespeare's account of the assassination of Julius Cæsar, and hisreproduction of the speeches of Brutus and Mark Antony. Compare therelation in Plutarch with the third act of the tragedy, and see how, inhis amplification of the story, Shakespeare has remained true to theessential facts of the time. Plutarch gives no account of the speechesof Brutus and Mark Antony, confining himself, to an allusion to theone, and a reference to the other; but Appian of Alexandria, in hishistory, has reported them. The speeches in Appian lack the force whichthey have in Shakespeare, nor do they seemingly fit into the situationas well. I have adverted to this criticism of Grote, not that I loveThucydides less, but that I love Shakespeare more. For my part, thehistorian's candid acknowledgment in the beginning has convinced me ofthe essential--not the literal--truth of his accounts of speeches anddialogues. "As to the speeches, " wrote the Athenian, "which were madeeither before or during the war, it was hard for me, and for others whoreported them to me, to recollect the exact words. I have therefore putinto the mouth of each speaker the sentiments proper to the occasion, expressed as I thought he would be likely to express them; while at thesame time I endeavored, as nearly as I could, to give the generalpurport of what was actually said. " That is the very essence of candor. But be the historian as chaste as ice, as pure as snow, he shall notescape calumny. Mahaffy declares that, "although all modern historiansquote Thucydides with more confidence than they would quote theGospels, " the Athenian has exaggerated; he is one-sided, partial, misleading, dry, and surly. Other critics agree with Mahaffy that he hasbeen unjust to Cleon, and has screened Nicias from blame that was hisdue for defective generalship. 

We approach Tacitus with respect. We rise from reading his Annals, hisHistory, and his Germany with reverence. We know that we have been inthe society of a gentleman who had a high standard of morality andhonor. We feel that our guide was a serious student, a solid thinker, and a man of the world; that he expressed his opinions and delivered hisjudgments with a remarkable freedom from prejudice. He draws us to himwith sympathy. He sounds the same mournful note which we detect inThucydides. Tacitus deplores the folly and dissoluteness of the rulersof his nation; he bewails the misfortunes of his country. The merits weascribe to Thucydides, diligence, accuracy, love of truth, impartiality, are his. The desire to quote from Tacitus is irresistible. "The more Imeditate, " he writes, "on the events of ancient and modern times, themore I am struck with the capricious uncertainty which mocks thecalculations of men in all their transactions. " Again: "Possibly thereis in all things a kind of cycle, and there may be moral revolutionsjust as there are changes of seasons. " "Commonplaces!" sneer thescientific historians. True enough, but they might not have beencommonplaces if Tacitus had not uttered them, and his works had not beenread and re-read until they have become a common possession ofhistorical students. From a thinker who deemed the time "out of joint, "as Tacitus obviously did, and who, had he not possessed great strengthof mind and character, might have lapsed into a gloomy pessimism, whatnoble words are these: "This I regard as history's highest function: tolet no worthy action be uncommemorated, and to hold out the reprobationof posterity as a terror to evil words and deeds. " The modesty of theRoman is fascinating. "Much of what I have related, " he says, "and shallhave to relate, may perhaps, I am aware, seem petty trifles torecord. .. . My labors are circumscribed and unproductive of renown to theauthor. " How agreeable to place in contrast with this the prophecy ofhis friend, the younger Pliny, in a letter to the historian: "Iaugur--nor does my augury deceive me--that your histories will beimmortal: hence all the more do I desire to find a place in them. "

To my mind, one of the most charming things in historical literature isthe praise which one great historian bestows upon another. Gibbonspeaks of "the discerning eye" and "masterly pencil of Tacitus, --thefirst of historians who applied the science of philosophy to the studyof facts, " "whose writings will instruct the last generations ofmankind. " He has produced an immortal work, "every sentence of which ispregnant with the deepest observations and most lively images. " Imention Gibbon, for it is more than a strong probability that indiligence, accuracy, and love of truth he is the equal of Tacitus. Acommon edition of the History of the Decline and Fall of the RomanEmpire is that with notes by Dean Milman, Guizot, and Dr. Smith. Niebuhr, Villemain, and Sir James Mackintosh are each drawn upon forcriticism. Did ever such a fierce light beat upon a history? With whatkeen relish do the annotators pounce upon mistakes or inaccuracies, andin that portion of the work which ends with the fall of the WesternEmpire how few do they find! Would Tacitus stand the supreme testbetter? There is, so far as I know, only one case in which we maycompare his Annals with an original record. On bronze tablets found atLyons in the sixteenth century is engraved the same speech made by theEmperor Claudius to the Senate that Tacitus reports. "Tacitus and thetablets, " writes Professor Jebb, "disagree hopelessly in language and innearly all the detail, but agree in the general line of argument. "Gibbon's work has richly deserved its life of more than one hundredyears, a period which I believe no other modern history has endured. Niebuhr, in a course of lectures at Bonn, in 1829, said that Gibbon's"work will never be excelled. " At the Gibbon Centenary Commemoration inLondon, in 1894, many distinguished men, among whom the Church had adistinct representation, gathered together to pay honor to him who, inthe words of Frederic Harrison, had written "the most perfect book thatEnglish prose (outside its fiction) possesses. " Mommsen, prevented byage and work from being present, sent his tribute. No one, he said, would in the future be able to read the history of the Roman Empireunless he read Edward Gibbon. The Times, in a leader devoted to thesubject, apparently expressed the general voice: "'Back to Gibbon' isalready, both here and among the scholars of Germany and France, thewatchword of the younger historians. "

I have now set forth certain general propositions which, with time foradducing the evidence in detail, might, I think, be established: that, in the consensus of learned people, Thucydides and Tacitus stand at thehead of historians; and that it is not alone their accuracy, love oftruth, and impartiality which entitle them to this preëminence sinceGibbon and Gardiner among the moderns possess equally the samequalities. What is it, then, that makes these men supreme? In venturinga solution of this question, I confine myself necessarily to the Englishtranslations of the Greek and Latin authors. We have thus a commondenominator of language, and need not take into account the unrivaledprecision and terseness of the Greek and the force and clearness of theLatin. It seems to me that one special merit of Thucydides and Tacitusis their compressed narrative, --that they have related so many eventsand put so much meaning in so few words. Our manner of writing historyis really curious. The histories which cover long periods of time arebrief; those which have to do with but a few years are long. The worksof Thucydides and Tacitus are not like our compendiums of history, whichmerely touch on great affairs, since want of space precludes anyelaboration. Tacitus treats of a comparatively short epoch, Thucydidesof a much shorter one: both histories are brief. Thucydides and Macaulayare examples of extremes. The Athenian tells the story of twenty-fouryears in one volume; the Englishman takes nearly five volumes of equalsize for his account of seventeen years. But it is safe to say thatThucydides tells us as much that is worth knowing as Macaulay. One isconcise, the other is not. It is impossible to paraphrase the fine partsof Thucydides, but Macaulay lends himself readily to such an exercise. The thought of the Athenian is so close that he has got rid of allredundancies of expression: hence the effort to reproduce his ideas inother words fails. The account of the plague in Athens has been studiedand imitated, and every imitation falls short of the original not onlyin vividness but in brevity. It is the triumph of art that in this andin other splendid portions we wish more had been told. As the Frenchsay, "the secret of wearying is to say all, " and this the Athenianthoroughly understood. Between our compendiums, which tell too little, and our long general histories, which tell too much, are Thucydides andTacitus. 

Again, it is a common opinion that our condensed histories lack life andmovement. This is due in part to their being written generally from astudy of second-hand--not original--materials. Those of the Athenian andthe Roman are mainly the original. 

I do not think, however, that we may infer that we have a much greatermass of materials, and thereby excuse our modern prolixity. In writtendocuments, of course, we exceed the ancients, for we have been floodedwith these by the art of printing. Yet any one who has investigated anyperiod knows how the same facts are told over and over again, indifferent ways, by various writers; and if one can get beyond the massof verbiage and down to the really significant original material, what asimplification of ideas there is, what a lightening of the load! I ownthat this process of reduction is painful, and thereby our work is mademore difficult than that of the ancients. A historian will adapt himselfnaturally to the age in which he lives, and Thucydides made use of thematter that was at his hand. "Of the events of the war, " he wrote, "Ihave not ventured to speak from any chance information, nor according toany notion of my own; I have described nothing but what I either sawmyself, or learned from others of whom I made the most careful andparticular inquiry. The task was a laborious one, because eye-witnessesof the same occurrences gave different accounts of them, as theyremembered or were interested in the actions of one side or the other. "His materials, then, were what he saw and heard. His books and hismanuscripts were living men. Our distinguished military historian, JohnC. Ropes, whose untimely death we deplore, might have written hishistory from the same sort of materials; for he was contemporary withour Civil War, and followed the daily events with intense interest. Abrother of his was killed at Gettysburg, and he had many friends in thearmy. He paid at least one memorable visit to Meade's headquarters inthe field, and at the end of the war had a mass of memories andimpressions of the great conflict. He never ceased his inquiries; henever lost a chance to get a particular account from those who took partin battles or campaigns; and before he began his Story of the Civil War, he too could have said, "I made the most careful and particular inquiry"of generals and officers on both sides, and of men in civil office privyto the great transactions. His knowledge drawn from living lips wasmarvelous, and his conversation, when he poured this knowledge forth, often took the form of a flowing narrative in an animated style. Whilethere are not, so far as I remember, any direct references in his twovolumes to these memories, or to memoranda of conversations which hehad with living actors after the close of the war drama, and while hismain authority is the Official Records of the Union and ConfederateArmies, --which, no one appreciated better than he, were uniquehistorical materials, --nevertheless this personal knowledge trained hisjudgment and gave color to his narrative. 

It is pretty clear that Thucydides spent a large part of a life of aboutthreescore years and ten in gathering materials and writing his history. The mass of facts which he set down or stored away in his memory musthave been enormous. He was a man of business, and had a home in Thraceas well as in Athens, traveling probably at fairly frequent intervalsbetween the two places; but the main portion of the first forty years ofhis life was undoubtedly spent in Athens, where, during those gloriousyears of peace and the process of beautifying the city, he received thebest education a man could get. To walk about the city and view thebuildings and statues was both directly and insensibly a refininginfluence. As Thucydides himself, in the funeral oration of Pericles, said of the works which the Athenian saw around him, "the daily delightof them banishes gloom. " There was the opportunity to talk with as goodconversers as the world has ever known; and he undoubtedly saw much ofthe men who were making history. There was the great theater and thesublime poetry. In a word, the life of Thucydides was adapted to thegathering of a mass of historical materials of the best sort; and hisdaily walk, his reading, his intense thought, gave him an intellectualgrasp of the facts he has so ably handled. Of course he was a genius, and he wrote in an effective literary style; but seemingly his naturalparts and acquired talents are directed to this: a digestion of hismaterials, and a compression of his narrative without taking the vigorout of his story in a manner I believe to be without parallel. Hedevoted a life to writing a volume. His years after the peace wasbroken, his career as a general, his banishment and enforced residencein Thrace, his visit to the countries of the Peloponnesian allies withwhom Athens was at war, --all these gave him a signal opportunity togather materials, and to assimilate them in the gathering. We may fancyhim looking at an alleged fact on all sides, and turning it over andover in his mind; we know that he must have meditated long on ideas, opinions, and events; and the result is a brief, pithy narrative. Tradition hath it that Demosthenes copied out this history eight times, or even learned it by heart. Chatham, urging the removal of the forcesfrom Boston, had reason to refer to the history of Greece, and, that hemight impress it upon the lords that he knew whereof he spoke, declared, "I have read Thucydides. "

Of Tacitus likewise is conciseness a well-known merit. Living in an ageof books and libraries, he drew more from the written word than didThucydides; and his method of working, therefore, resembled more ourown. These are common expressions of his: "It is related by most of thewriters of those times;" I adopt the account "in which the authors areagreed;" this account "agrees with those of the other writers. " Relatinga case of recklessness of vice in Messalina, he acknowledges that itwill appear fabulous, and asserts his truthfulness thus: "But I wouldnot dress up my narrative with fictions, to give it an air of marvel, rather than relate what has been stated to me or written by my seniors. "He also speaks of the authority of tradition, and tells what heremembers "to have heard from aged men. " He will not paraphrase theeloquence of Seneca after he had his veins opened, because the verywords of the philosopher had been published; but when, a little later, Flavius the tribune came to die, the historian gives this report of hisdefiance of Nero. "I hated you, " the tribune said to the emperor; "norhad you a soldier more true to you while you deserved to be loved. Ibegan to hate you from the time you showed yourself the impious murdererof your mother and your wife, a charioteer, a stage-player, anincendiary. " "I have given the very words, " Tacitus adds, "because theywere not, like those of Seneca, published, though the rough and vigoroussentiments of a soldier ought to be no less known. " Everywhere we see inTacitus, as in Thucydides, a dislike of superfluous detail, a closenessof thought, a compression of language. He was likewise a man of affairs, but his life work was his historical writings, which, had we all ofthem, would fill probably four moderate-sized octavo volumes. 

To sum up, then: Thucydides and Tacitus are superior to the historianswho have written in our century, because, by long reflection andstudious method, they have better digested their materials andcompressed their narrative. Unity in narration has been adhered to morerigidly. They stick closer to their subject. They are not allured intothe fascinating bypaths of narration, which are so tempting to men whohave accumulated a mass of facts, incidents, and opinions. One reasonwhy Macaulay is so prolix is because he could not resist the temptationto treat events which had a picturesque side and which were suited tohis literary style; so that, as John Morley says, "in many portions ofhis too elaborated history of William III. He describes a large numberof events about which, I think, no sensible man can in the least careeither how they happened, or whether indeed they happened at all ornot. " If I am right in my supposition that Thucydides and Tacitus had amass of materials, they showed reserve and discretion in throwing alarge part of them away, as not being necessary or important to theposterity for which they were writing. This could only be the result ofa careful comparison of their materials, and of long meditation on theirrelative value. I suspect that they cared little whether a set dailytask was accomplished or not; for if you propose to write only one largevolume or four moderate-sized volumes in a lifetime, art is not too longnor is life too short. 

Another superiority of the classical historians, as I reckon, arose fromthe fact that they wrote what was practically contemporaneous history. Herodotus was born 484 B. C. , and the most important and accurate part ofhis history is the account of the Persian invasion which took place fouryears later. The case of Thucydides is more remarkable. Born in471 B. C. , he relates the events which happened between 435 and 411, whenhe was between the ages of thirty-six and sixty. Tacitus, born in52 A. D. , covered with his Annals and History the years between 14 and96. "Herodotus and Thucydides belong to an age in which the historiandraws from life and for life, " writes Professor Jebb. It is manifestlyeasier to describe a life you know than one you must imagine, which iswhat you must do if you aim to relate events which took place beforeyour own and your father's time. In many treatises which have beenwritten demanding an extraordinary equipment for the historian, it isgenerally insisted that he shall have a fine constructive imagination;for how can he re-create his historic period unless he live in it? Inthe same treatises it is asserted that contemporary history cannot bewritten correctly, for impartiality in the treatment of events near athand is impossible. Therefore the canon requires the quality of a greatpoet, and denies that there may be had the merit of a judge in a countrywhere there are no great poets, but where candid judges abound. Doesnot the common rating of Thucydides and Tacitus refute the dictum thathistory within the memory of men living cannot be written truthfully andfairly? Given, then, the judicial mind, how much easier to write it! Therare quality of a poet's imagination is no longer necessary, for yourboyhood recollections, your youthful experiences, your successes andfailures of manhood, the grandfather's tales, the parent'srecollections, the conversation in society, --all these put you in vitaltouch with the life you seek to describe. These not only give color andfreshness to the vivifying of the facts you must find in the record, butthey are in a way materials themselves, not strictly authentic, but ofthe kind that direct you in search and verification. Not only is noextraordinary ability required to write contemporary history, but thelabor of the historian is lightened, and Dryasdust is no longer his soleguide. The funeral oration of Pericles is pretty nearly what wasactually spoken, or else it is the substance of the speech written outin the historian's own words. Its intensity of feeling and the fittingof it so well into the situation indicate it to be a livingcontemporaneous document, and at the same time it has that universalapplication which we note in so many speeches of Shakespeare. A fewyears after our Civil War, a lawyer in a city of the middle West, whohad been selected to deliver the Memorial Day oration, came to a friendof his in despair because he could write nothing but the commonplacesabout those who had died for the Union and for the freedom of a racewhich had been uttered many times before, and he asked for advice. "Takethe funeral oration of Pericles for a model, " was the reply. "Use hiswords where they will fit, and dress up the rest to suit our day. " Theorator was surprised to find how much of the oration could be usedbodily, and how much, with adaptation, was germane to his subject. Butslight alterations are necessary to make the opening sentence this:"Most of those who have spoken here have commended the law-giver whoadded this oration to our other customs; it seemed to them a worthything that such an honor should be given to the dead who have fallen onthe field of battle. " In many places you may let the speech run on withhardly a change. "In the face of death [these men] resolved to rely uponthemselves alone. And when the moment came they were minded to resistand suffer rather than to fly and save their lives; they ran away fromthe word of dishonor, but on the battlefield their feet stood fast; andwhile for a moment they were in the hands of fortune, at the height, notof terror, but of glory, they passed away. Such was the end of thesemen; they were worthy of their country. "

Consider for a moment, as the work of a contemporary, the book whichcontinues the account of the Sicilian expedition, and ends with thedisaster at Syracuse. "In the describing and reporting whereof, "Plutarch writes, "Thucydides hath gone beyond himself, both for varietyand liveliness of narration, as also in choice and excellent words. ""There is no prose composition in the world, " wrote Macaulay, "which Iplace so high as the seventh book of Thucydides. .. . I was delighted tofind in Gray's letters, the other day, this query to Wharton: 'Theretreat from Syracuse, --is it or is it not the finest thing you everread in your life?'" In the Annals of Tacitus we have an account of partof the reign of Emperor Nero, which is intense in its interest as thepicture of a state of society that would be incredible, did we not knowthat our guide was a truthful man. One rises from a perusal of this withthe trite expression, "Truth is stranger than fiction;" and one needonly compare the account of Tacitus with the romance of Quo Vadis to beconvinced that true history is more interesting than a novel. One ofthe most vivid impressions I ever had came immediately after reading thestory of Nero and Agrippina in Tacitus, from a view of the statue ofAgrippina in the National Museum at Naples. [2]

It will be worth our while now to sum up what I think may be establishedwith sufficient time and care. Natural ability being presupposed, thequalities necessary for a historian are diligence, accuracy, love oftruth, impartiality, the thorough digestion of his materials by carefulselection and long meditating, and the compression of his narrative intothe smallest compass consistent with the life of his story. He must alsohave a power of expression suitable for his purpose. All thesequalities, we have seen, were possessed by Thucydides and Tacitus; andwe have seen furthermore that, by bringing to bear these endowments andacquirements upon contemporary history, their success has been greaterthan it would have been had they treated a more distant period. Applyingthese considerations to the writing of history in America, it would seemthat all we have to gain in method, in order that when the geniusappears he shall rival the great Greek and the great Roman, is thoroughassimilation of materials and rigorous conciseness in relation. I admitthat the two things we lack are difficult to get as our own. In thecollection of materials, in criticism and detailed analysis, in thestudy of cause and effect, in applying the principle of growth, ofevolution, we certainly surpass the ancients. But if we live in the ageof Darwin, we also live in an age of newspapers and magazines, when, asLowell said, not only great events, but a vast "number of trivialincidents, are now recorded, and this dust of time gets in our eyes";when distractions are manifold; when the desire "to see one's name inprint" and make books takes possession of us all. If one has somethinglike an original idea or a fresh combination of truisms, one obtainseasily a hearing. The hearing once had, something of a success beingmade, the writer is urged by magazine editors and by publishers formore. The good side of this is apparent. It is certainly a wholesomeindication that a demand exists for many serious books, but the evil isthat one is pressed to publish his thoughts before he has them fullymatured. The periods of fruitful meditation out of which emerged theworks of Thucydides and Tacitus seem not to be a natural incident of ourtime. To change slightly the meaning of Lowell, "the bustle of our liveskeeps breaking the thread of that attention which is the material ofmemory, till no one has patience to spin from it a continuous thread ofthought. " We have the defects of our qualities. Nevertheless, I amstruck with the likeness between a common attribute of the Greeks andMatthew Arnold's characterization of the Americans. Greek thought, it issaid, goes straight to the mark, and penetrates like an arrow. TheAmericans, Arnold wrote, "think straight and see clear. " Greek life wasadapted to meditation. American quickness and habit of taking the shortcut to the goal make us averse to the patient and elaborate method ofthe ancients. In manner of expression, however, we have improved. TheFourth of July spread-eagle oration, not uncommon even in New England informer days, would now be listened to hardly anywhere without merriment. In a Lowell Institute lecture in 1855 Lowell said, "In modern times, thedesire for startling expression is so strong that people hardly think athought is good for anything unless it goes off with a _pop_, like aginger-beer cork. " No one would thus characterize our present writing. Between reserve in expression and reserve in thought there must beinteraction. We may hope, therefore, that the trend in the one willbecome the trend in the other, and that we may look for as greathistorians in the future as in the past. The Thucydides or Tacitus ofthe future will write his history from the original materials, knowingthat there only will he find the living spirit; but he will have thehelps of the modern world. He will have at his hand monographs ofstudents whom the professors of history in our colleges are teachingwith diligence and wisdom, and he will accept these aids withthankfulness in his laborious search. He will have grasped thegeneralizations and methods of physical science, but he must know to thebottom his Thucydides and Tacitus. He will recognize in Homer andShakespeare the great historians of human nature, and he will everattempt, although feeling that failure is certain, to wrest from themtheir secret of narration, to acquire their art of portrayal ofcharacter. He must be a man of the world, but equally well a man of theacademy. If, like Thucydides and Tacitus, the American historian choosesthe history of his own country as his field, he may infuse hispatriotism into his narrative. He will speak of the broad acres andtheir products, the splendid industrial development due to the capacityand energy of the captains of industry; but he will like to dwell on theuniversities and colleges, on the great numbers seeking a highereducation, on the morality of the people, their purity of life, theirdomestic happiness. He will never be weary of referring to Washingtonand Lincoln, feeling that a country with such exemplars is indeed one toawaken envy, and he will not forget the brave souls who followed wherethey led. I like to think of the Memorial Day orator, speaking thirtyyears ago with his mind full of the Civil War and our Revolution, givingutterance to these noble words of Pericles: "I would have you day byday fix your eyes upon the greatness of your country, until you becomefilled with love of her; and when you are impressed by the spectacle ofher glory, reflect that this empire has been acquired by men who knewtheir duty and had the courage to do it; who in the hour of conflict hadthe fear of dishonor always present to them; and who, if ever theyfailed in an enterprise, would not allow their virtues to be lost totheir country, but freely gave their lives to her as the fairestoffering which they could present at her feast. They received each onefor himself a praise which grows not old, and the noblest of allsepulchers. For the whole earth is the sepulcher of illustrious men; notonly are they commemorated by columns and inscriptions in their owncountry, but in foreign lands there dwells also an unwritten memorial ofthem, graven not on stone, but in the hearts of men. "

 [1] President's Inaugural Address, American Historical Association, Boston, December 27, 1899; printed in the Atlantic Monthly of February, 1900. 

 [2] Since this essay was first printed I have seen the authenticity of this portrait statue questioned. 

CONCERNING THE WRITING OF HISTORY

Address delivered at the Meeting of the American Historical Associationin Detroit, December, 1900. 

CONCERNING THE WRITING OF HISTORY

Called on at the last moment, owing to the illness of Mr. Eggleston, totake the place of one whose absence can never be fully compensated, Ipresent to you a paper on the writing of history. It is in a way acontinuance of my inaugural address before this association one yearago, and despite the continuity of the thought I have endeavored totreat the same subject from a different point of view. While going overthe same ground and drawing my lessons from the same historians, it isnew matter so far as I have had the honor to present it to the AmericanHistorical Association. 

A historian, to make a mark, must show some originality somewhere in hiswork. The originality may be in a method of investigation; it may be inthe use of some hitherto inaccessible or unprinted material; it may bein the employment of some sources of information open to everybody, butnot before used, or it may be in a fresh combination of well-known andwell-elaborated facts. It is this last-named feature that leads Mr. Winsor to say, in speaking of the different views that may be honestlymaintained from working over the same material, "The study of history isperennial. " I think I can make my meaning clearer as to the originalityone should try to infuse into historical work by drawing an illustrationfrom the advice of a literary man as to the art of writing. CharlesDudley Warner once said to me, "Every one who writes should havesomething to add to the world's stock of knowledge or literaryexpression. If he falls unconsciously into imitation or quotation, hetakes away from his originality. No matter if some great writer hasexpressed the thought in better language than you can use, if you takehis words you detract from your own originality. Express your thoughtfeebly in your own way rather than with strength by borrowing the wordsof another. "

This same principle in the art of authorship may be applied to the artof writing history. "Follow your own star, " said Emerson, "and it willlead you to that which none other can attain. Imitation is suicide. Youmust take yourself for better or worse as your own portion. " Any one whois bent upon writing history, may be sure that there is in him someoriginality, that he can add something to the knowledge of some period. Let him give himself to meditation, to searching out what epoch and whatkind of treatment of that epoch is best adapted to his powers and to histraining. I mean not only the collegiate training, but the sort oftraining one gets consciously or unconsciously from the verycircumstances of one's life. In the persistence of thinking, his subjectwill flash upon him. Parkman, said Lowell, showed genius in the choiceof his subject. The recent biography of Parkman emphasizes the ideawhich we get from his works--that only a man who lived in the virginforests of this country and loved them, and who had traveled in the farWest as a pioneer, with Indians for companions, could have done thatwork. Parkman's experience cannot be had by any one again, and hebrought to bear the wealth of it in that fifty years' occupation of his. Critics of exact knowledge--such as Justin Winsor, for instance--findlimitations in Parkman's books that may impair the permanence of hisfame, but I suspect that his is the only work in American history thatcannot and will not be written over again. The reason of it is that hehad a unique life which has permeated his narrative, giving it the stampof originality. No man whose training had been gained wholly in the bestschools of Germany, France, or England could have written those books. Atraining racy of the soil was needed. "A practical knowledge, " wroteNiebuhr, "must support historical jurisprudence, and if any one has gotthat he can easily master all scholastic speculations. " A man'sknowledge of everyday life in some way fits him for a certain field ofhistorical study--in that field lies success. In seeking a period, noAmerican need confine himself to his own country. "European history forAmericans, " said Motley, "has to be almost entirely rewritten. "

I shall touch upon only two of the headings of historical originalitywhich I have mentioned. The first that I shall speak of is theemployment of some sources of information open to everybody, but notbefore used. A significant case of this in American history is the usewhich Doctor von Holst made of newspaper material. _Niles's Register_, alot of newspaper cuttings, as well as speeches and state papers in acompact form, had, of course, been referred to by many writers who dealtwith the period they covered, but in the part of his history coveringthe ten years from 1850 to 1860 von Holst made an extensive and variedemployment of newspapers by studying the newspaper files themselves. Asthe aim of history is truth, and as newspapers fail sadly in accuracy, it is not surprising that many historical students believe that theexamination of newspapers for any given period will not pay for thelabor and drudgery involved; but the fact that a trained Germanhistorical scholar and teacher at a German university should have foundsome truth in our newspaper files when he came to write the history ofour own country, gives to their use for that period the seal ofscientific approval. Doctor von Holst used this material with pertinenceand effect; his touch was nice. I used to wonder at his knowledge of thenewspaper world, of the men who made and wrote our journals, until hetold me that when he first came to this country one of his methods ingaining a knowledge of English was to read the advertisements in thenewspapers. Reflection will show one what a picture of the life of apeople this must be, in addition to the news columns. 

No one, of course, will go to newspapers for facts if he can find thosefacts in better-attested documents. The haste with which the dailyrecords of the world's doings are made up precludes sifting andrevision. Yet in the decade between 1850 and 1860 you will find facts inthe newspapers which are nowhere else set down. Public men of commandingposition were fond of writing letters to the journals with a view toinfluencing public sentiment. These letters in the newspapers are asvaluable historical material as if they were carefully collected, edited, and published in the form of books. Speeches were made whichmust be read, and which will be found nowhere but in the journals. Theimmortal debates of Lincoln and Douglas in 1858 were never put into abook until 1860, existing previously only in newspaper print. Newspapersare sometimes important in fixing a date and in establishing thewhereabouts of a man. If, for example, a writer draws a fruitfulinference from the alleged fact that President Lincoln went to see EdwinBooth play Hamlet in Washington in February, 1863, and if one finds by aconsultation of the newspaper theatrical advertisements that Edwin Boothdid not visit Washington during that month, the significance of theinference is destroyed. Lincoln paid General Scott a memorable visit atWest Point in June, 1862. You may, if I remember correctly, search thebooks in vain to get at the exact date of this visit; but turn to thenewspaper files and you find that the President left Washington at suchan hour on such a day, arrived at Jersey City at a stated time, and madethe transfer to the other railroad which took him to the stationopposite West Point. The time of his leaving West Point and the hour ofhis return to Washington are also given. 

The value of newspapers as an indication of public sentiment issometimes questioned, but it can hardly be doubted that the average manwill read the newspaper with the sentiments of which he agrees. "Iinquired about newspaper opinion, " said Joseph Chamberlain in the Houseof Commons last May. "I knew no other way of getting at popularopinion. " During the years between 1854 and 1860 the daily journals werea pretty good reflection of public sentiment in the United States. Wherever, for instance, you found the _New York Weekly Tribune_ largelyread, Republican majorities were sure to be had when election day came. For fact and for opinion, if you knew the contributors, statements andeditorials by them were entitled to as much weight as similar publicexpressions in any other form. You get to know Greeley and you learn torecognize his style. Now, an editorial from him is proper historicalmaterial, taking into account always the circumstances under which hewrote. The same may be said of Dana and of Hildreth, both editorialwriters for the _Tribune_, and of the Washington despatches of J. S. Pike. It is interesting to compare the public letters of Greeley to the_Tribune_ from Washington in 1856 with his private letters written atthe same time to Dana. There are no misstatements in the public letters, but there is a suppression of the truth. The explanations in the privatecorrespondence are clearer, and you need them to know fully how affairslooked in Washington to Greeley at the time; but this fact by no meansdetracts from the value of the public letters as historical material. Ihave found newspapers of greater value both for fact and opinion duringthe decade of 1850 to 1860 than for the period of the Civil War. Acomparison of the newspaper accounts of battles with the history of themwhich may be drawn from the correspondence and reports in the OfficialRecords of the War of the Rebellion will show how inaccurate andmisleading was the war correspondence of the daily journals. It couldnot well be otherwise. The correspondent was obliged in haste to writethe story of a battle of which he saw but a small section, and insteadof telling the little part which he knew actually, he had to give to apublic greedy for news a complete survey of the whole battlefield. Thisstory was too often colored by his liking or aversion for the generalsin command. A study of the confidential historical material of the CivilWar, apart from the military operations, in comparison with thejournalistic accounts, gives one a higher idea of the accuracy andshrewdness of the newspaper correspondents. Few important things werebrewing at Washington of which they did not get an inkling. But I alwayslike to think of two signal exceptions. Nothing ever leaked out inregard to the famous "Thoughts for the President's consideration, " whichSeward submitted to Lincoln in March, 1861, and only very incorrectguesses of the President's first emancipation proclamation, broughtbefore his Cabinet in July, 1862, got into newspaper print. 

Beware of hasty, strained, and imperfect generalizations. A historianshould always remember that he is a sort of trustee for his readers. Nomatter how copious may be his notes, he cannot fully explain hisprocesses or the reason of his confidence in one witness and not inanother, his belief in one honest man against a half dozen untrustworthymen, without such prolixity as to make a general history unreadable. Now, in this position as trustee he is bound to assert nothing for whichhe has not evidence, as much as an executor of a will or the trustee forwidows and orphans is obligated to render a correct account of themoneys in his possession. For this reason Grote has said, "An historianis bound to produce the materials upon which he builds, be they never sofantastic, absurd, or incredible. " Hence the necessity for footnotes. While mere illustrative and interesting footnotes are perhaps to beavoided, on account of their redundancy, those which give authority forthe statements in the text can never be in excess. Many good historieshave undoubtedly been published where the authors have not printed theirfootnotes; but they must have had, nevertheless, precise records fortheir authorities. The advantage and necessity of printing the notes isthat you furnish your critic an opportunity of finding you out if youhave mistaken or strained your authorities. Bancroft's example ispeculiar. In his earlier volumes he used footnotes, but in volume vii hechanged his plan and omitted notes, whether of reference or explanation. Nor do you find them in either of his carefully revised editions. "Thisis done, " Bancroft wrote in the preface to his seventh volume, "not froman unwillingness to subject every statement of fact, even in itsminutest details, to the severest scrutiny; but from the variety and themultitude of the papers which have been used and which could not beintelligently cited without a disproportionate commentary. " Again, Blaine's "Twenty Years of Congress, " a work which, properly weighed, isnot without historical value, is only to be read with great care onaccount of his hasty and inaccurate generalizations. There are evidencesof good, honest labor in those two volumes, much of which must have beendone by himself. There is an aim at truth and impartiality, but many ofhis general statements will seem, to any one who has gone over theoriginal material, to rest on a slight basis. If Blaine had felt thenecessity of giving authorities in a footnote for every statement aboutwhich there might have been a question, he certainly would have writtenan entirely different sort of a book. 

My other head is the originality which comes from a fresh combination ofknown historical facts. 

I do not now call to mind any more notable chapter which illustratesthis than the chapter of Curtius, "The years of peace. " One is perhapsbetter adapted for the keen enjoyment of it if he does not know theoriginal material, for his suspicion that some of the inferences arestrained and unwarranted might become a certainty. But accepting it as amature and honest elaboration by one of the greatest historians ofGreece of our day, it is a sample of the vivifying of dry bones and of adovetailing of facts and ideas that makes a narrative to charm andinstruct. You feel that the spirit of that age we all like to think anddream about is there, and if you have been so fortunate as to visit theAthens of to-day, that chapter, so great is the author's constructiveimagination, carries you back and makes you for the moment live in theAthens of Pericles, of Sophocles, of Phidias and Herodotus. 

With the abundance of materials for modern history, and, for thatreason, our tendency to diffuseness, nothing is so important as athorough acquaintance with the best classic models, such as Herodotus, Thucydides, and Tacitus. In Herodotus you have an example of aninteresting story with the unity of the narrative well sustained inspite of certain unnecessary digressions. His book is obviously a lifework and the work of a man who had an extensive knowledge gained byreading, social intercourse, and travel, and who brought his knowledgeto bear upon his chosen task. That the history is interesting all admit, but in different periods of criticism stress is sometimes laid on theuntrustworthy character of the narrative, with the result that there hasbeen danger of striking Herodotus from the list of historical models;but such is the merit of his work that the Herodotus cult again revives, and, I take it, is now at its height. I received, six years ago, whilein Egypt, a vivid impression of him whom we used to style the Father ofHistory. Spending one day at the great Pyramids, when, after I hadsatisfied my first curiosity, after I had filled my eyes and mind withthe novelty of the spectacle, I found nothing so gratifying to thehistoric sense as to gaze on those most wonderful monuments of humanindustry, constructed certainly 5000 years ago, and to read at the sametime the account that Herodotus gave of his visit there about 2350 yearsbefore the date of my own. That same night I read in a modern and garishCairo hotel the current number of the _London Times_. In it was anaccount of an annual meeting of the Royal Historical Society and areport of a formal and carefully prepared address of its president, whose subject was "Herodotus, " whose aim was to point out the value ofthe Greek writer as a model to modern historians. The _Times_, for themoment laying aside its habitual attack on the then Liberal government, devoted its main leader to Herodotus--to his merits and the lessons heconveyed to the European writers. The article was a remarkable blendingof scholarship and good sense, and I ended the day with the reflectionof what a space in the world's history Herodotus filled, himselfdescribing the work of twenty-six hundred years before his own time andbeing dilated on in 1894 by one of the most modern of nineteenth-centurynewspapers. 

It is generally agreed, I think, that Thucydides is first in order oftime of philosophic historians, but it does not seem to me that we havemost to learn from him in the philosophic quality. The tracing of causeand effect, the orderly sequence of events, is certainly betterdeveloped by moderns than it has been by ancients. The influence ofDarwin and the support and proof which he gives to the doctrine ofevolution furnish a training of thought which was impossible to theancients; but Thucydides has digested his material and compressed hisnarrative without taking the life out of his story in a manner to makeus despair, and this does not, I take it, come from paucity ofmaterials. A test which I began to make as a study in style has helpedme in estimating the solidity of a writer. Washington Irving formed hisstyle by reading attentively from time to time a page of Addison andthen, closing the book, endeavored to write out the same ideas in hisown words. In this way his style became assimilated to that of the greatEnglish essayist. I have tried the same mode with several writers. Ifound that the plan succeeded with Macaulay and with Lecky. I tried itagain and again with Shakespeare and Hawthorne, but if I succeeded inwriting out the paragraph I found that it was because I memorized theirvery words. To write out their ideas in my own language I foundimpossible. I have had the same result with Thucydides in trying to dothis with his description of the plague in Athens. Now, I reason fromthis in the case of Shakespeare and Thucydides that their thought was soconcise they themselves got rid of all redundancies; hence to effect thereproduction of their ideas in any but their own language is practicallyimpossible. 

It is related of Macaulay somewhere in his "Life and Letters, " that in amoment of despair, when he instituted a comparison between hismanuscript and the work of Thucydides, he thought of throwing his intothe fire. I suspect that Macaulay had not the knack of discardingmaterial on which he had spent time and effort, seeing how easily suchevents glowed under his graphic pen. This is one reason why he is prolixin the last three volumes. The first two, which begin with the famousintroductory chapter and continue the story through the revolution of1688 to the accession of William and Mary, seem to me models ofhistorical composition so far as arrangement, orderly method, andliveliness of narration go. Another defect of Macaulay is that, while hewas an omnivorous reader and had a prodigious memory, he was not givento long-continued and profound reflection. He read and rehearsed hisreading in memory, but he did not give himself to "deep, abstractmeditation" and did not surrender himself to "the fruitful leisures ofthe spirit. " Take this instance of Macaulay's account of a journey: "Theexpress train reached Hollyhead about 7 in the evening. I read betweenLondon and Bangor the lives of the emperors from Maximin to Carinus, inclusive, in the Augustine history, and was greatly amused andinterested. " On board the steamer: "I put on my greatcoat and sat ondeck during the whole voyage. As I could not read, I used an excellentsubstitute for reading. I went through 'Paradise Lost' in my head. Icould still repeat half of it, and that the best half. I really neverenjoyed it so much. " In Dublin: "The rain was so heavy that I was forcedto come back in a covered car. While in this detestable vehicle I lookedrapidly through the correspondence between Pliny and Trajan and thoughtthat Trajan made a most creditable figure. " It may be that Macaulay didnot always digest his knowledge well. Yet in reading his "Life andLetters" you know that you are in company with a man who read manybooks and you give faith to Thackeray's remark, "Macaulay reads twentybooks to write a sentence; he travels a hundred miles to make a line ofdescription. " It is a matter of regret that the progress of historicalcriticism and the scientific teaching of history have had the tendencyto drive Macaulay out of the fashion with students, and I know notwhether the good we used to get out of him thirty-five years ago can nowbe got from other sources. For I seem to miss something that wehistorical students had a generation ago--and that is enthusiasm for thesubject. The enthusiasm that we had then had--the desire to compass allknowledge, the wish to gather the fruits of learning and lay themdevoutly at the feet of our chosen muse--this enthusiasm we owed toMacaulay and to Buckle. Quite properly, no one reads Buckle now, and Icannot gainsay what John Morley said of Macaulay: "Macaulay seeks truth, not as she should be sought, devoutly, tentatively, with the air of onetouching the hem of a sacred garment, but clutching her by the hair ofthe head and dragging her after him in a kind of boisterous triumph, aprisoner of war and not a goddess. " It is, nevertheless, true thatMacaulay and Buckle imparted a new interest to history. 

I have spoken of the impression we get of Macaulay through reading his"Life and Letters. " Of Carlyle, in reading the remarkable biography ofhim, we get the notion of a great thinker as well as a great reader. Hewas not as keen and diligent in the pursuit of material as Macaulay. Hedid not like to work in libraries; he wanted every book he used in hisown study--padded as it was against the noises which drove him wild. H. Morse Stephens relates that Carlyle would not use a collection ofdocuments relating to the French Revolution in the British Museum forthe reason that the museum authorities would not have a private roomreserved for him where he might study. Rather than work in a room withother people, he neglected this valuable material. But Carlyle hascertainly digested and used his material well. His "French Revolution"seems to approach the historical works of the classics in there being somuch in a little space. "With the gift of song, " Lowell said, "Carlylewould have been the greatest of epic poets since Homer;" and he alsowrote, Carlyle's historical compositions are no more history than thehistorical plays of Shakespeare. 

The contention between the scientific historians and those who hold tothe old models is interesting and profitable. One may enjoy thecontroversy and derive benefit from it without taking sides. I suspectthat there is truth in the view of both. We may be sure that thelong-continued study and approval by scholars of many ages of the worksof Herodotus, Thucydides, and Tacitus implies historical merit on theirpart in addition to literary art. It is, however, interesting to notethe profound difference between President Woolsey's opinion ofThucydides and that of some of his late German critics. Woolsey said, "Ihave such confidence in the absolute truthfulness of Thucydides thatwere he really chargeable with folly, as Grote alleges [in the affair ofAmphipolis], I believe he would have avowed it. " On the other hand, aGerman critic, cited by Holm, says that Thucydides is a poet who inventsfacts partly in order to teach people how things ought to be done andpartly because he liked to depict certain scenes of horror. He saysfurther, a narrative of certain occurrences is so full ofimpossibilities that it must be pure invention on the part of thehistorian. Another German maintains that Thucydides has indulged in "afanciful and half-romantic picture of events. " But Holm, whom thescientific historians claim as one of their own, says, "Thucydidesstill remains a trustworthy historical authority;" and, "On the whole, therefore, the old view that he is a truthful writer is not in the leastshaken. " Again Holm writes: "Attempts have been made to convictThucydides of serious inaccuracies, but without success. On the otherhand, the writer of this work [that is, the scientific historian, Holm]is able to state that he has followed him topographically for thegreater part of the sixth and seventh books--and consequently for nearlyone fourth of the whole history--and has found that the more carefullyhis words are weighed and the more accurately the ground is studied theclearer both the text and events become, and this is certainly highpraise. " Holm and Percy Gardner, both of whom have the modern method andhave studied diligently the historical evidence from coins andinscriptions, placed great reliance on Herodotus, who, as well asThucydides and Tacitus, is taken by scholars as a model of historicalcomposition. 

The sifting of time settles the reputations of historians. Of theEnglish of the eighteenth century only one historian has come down to usas worthy of serious study. Time is wasted in reading Hume and Robertsonas models, and no one goes to them for facts. But thirty years ago nocourse of historical reading was complete without Hume. In this centurythe sifting process still goes on. One loses little by not readingAlison's "History of Europe. " But he was much in vogue in the '50's. _Harper's Magazine_ published a part of his history as a serial. Hisrounded periods and bombastic utterances were quoted with delight bythose who thought that history was not history unless it was bombastic. Emerson says somewhere, "Avoid adjectives; let your nouns do the work. "There was hardly a sentence in Alison which did not traverse this rule. One of his admirers told me that the great merit of his style was hischoiceness and aptness in his use of adjectives. It is a style which nowprovokes merriment, and even had Alison been learned and impartial, andhad he possessed a good method, his style for the present taste wouldhave killed his book. Gibbon is sometimes called pompous, but place himby the side of Alison and what one may have previously calledpompousness one now calls dignity. 

Two of the literary historians of our century survive--Carlyle andMacaulay. They may be read with care. We may do as Cassius said Brutusdid to him, observe all their faults, set them in a note-book, learn andcon them by rote; nevertheless we shall get good from them. OscarBrowning said--I am quoting H. Morse Stephens again--of Carlyle'sdescription of the flight of the king to Varennes, that in every one ofhis details where a writer could go wrong, Carlyle had gone wrong; butadded that, although all the details were wrong, Carlyle's account isessentially accurate. No defense, I think, can be made of Carlyle'sstatement that Marat was a "blear-eyed dog leach, " nor of thosestatements from which you get the distinct impression that thecomplexion of Robespierre was green; nevertheless, every one who studiesthe French Revolution reads Carlyle, and he is read because the readingis profitable. The battle descriptions in Carlyle's "Frederick theGreat" are well worth reading. How refreshing they are after technicaldescriptions! Carlyle said once, "Battles since Homer's time, when theywere nothing but fighting mobs, have ceased to be worth reading about, "but he made the modern battle interesting. 

Macaulay is an honest partisan. You learn very soon how to take him, andwhen distrust begins one has correctives in Gardiner and Ranke. Froudeis much more dangerous. His splendid narrative style does not compensatefor his inaccuracies. Langlois makes an apt quotation from Froude. "Wesaw, " says Froude, of the city of Adelaide, in Australia, "below us in abasin, with the river winding through it, a city of 150, 000 inhabitants, none of whom has ever known or ever will know one moment's anxiety as tothe recurring regularity of three meals a day. " Now for the facts. Langlois says: "Adelaide is built on an eminence; no river runs throughit. When Froude visited it the population did not exceed 75, 000, and itwas suffering from a famine at the time. " Froude was curious in hisinaccuracies. He furnished the data which convict him of error. Hequoted inaccurately the Simancas manuscripts and deposited correctcopies in the British Museum. Carlyle and Macaulay are honest partisansand you know how to take them, but for constitutional inaccuracy such asFroude's no allowance can be made. 

Perhaps it may be said of Green that he combines the merits of thescientific and literary historian. He has written an honest and artisticpiece of work. But he is not infallible. I have been told on goodauthority that in his reference to the Thirty Years' War he has hardlystated a single fact correctly, yet the general impression you get fromhis account is correct. Saintsbury writes that Green has "out-MacaulayedMacaulay in reckless abuse" of Dryden. Stubbs and Gardiner arepreëminently the scientific historians of England. Of Stubbs, fromactual knowledge, I regret that I cannot speak, but the reputation hehas among historical experts is positive proof of his great value. OfGardiner I can speak with knowledge. Any one who desires to writehistory will do well to read every line Gardiner has written--not thetext alone, but also the notes. It is an admirable study in method whichwill bear important fruit. But because Gibbon, Gardiner, and Stubbsshould be one's chief reliance, it does not follow that one may neglectMacaulay, Carlyle, Tacitus, Thucydides, and Herodotus. Gardiner himselfhas learned much from Macaulay and Carlyle. All of them may becriticised on one point or another, but they all have lessons for us. 

We shall all agree that the aim of history is to get at the truth andexpress it as clearly as possible. The differences crop out when webegin to elaborate our meaning. "This I regard as the historian'shighest function, " writes Tacitus, "to let no worthy action beuncommemorated, and to hold out the reprobation of posterity as a terrorto evil words and deeds;" while Langlois and the majority of thescholars of Oxford are of the opinion that the formation and expressionof ethical judgments, the approval or condemnation of Julius Cæsar or ofCæsar Borgia is not a thing within the historian's province. Let thecontroversy go on! It is well worth one's while to read thepresentations of the subject from the different points of view. Butinfallibility will nowhere be found. Mommsen and Curtius in theirdetailed investigations received applause from those who adhered rigidlyto the scientific view of history, but when they addressed the public intheir endeavor, it is said, to produce an effect upon it, they relaxedtheir scientific rigor; hence such a chapter as Curtius's "The years ofpeace, " and in another place his transmuting a conjecture of Grote intoan assertion; hence Mommsen's effusive panegyric of Cæsar. If Mommsendid depart from the scientific rules, I suspect that it came from nodesire of a popular success, but rather from the enthusiasm of muchlearning. The examples of Curtius and Mommsen show probably that such adeparture from strict impartiality is inherent in the writing of generalhistory, and it comes, I take it, naturally and unconsciously. Holm is ascientific historian, but on the Persian Invasion he writes: "I havefollowed Herodotus in many passages which are unauthenticated andprobably even untrue, because he reproduces the popular traditions ofthe Greeks. " And again: "History in the main ought only to be a recordof facts, but now and then the historian may be allowed to display acertain interest in his subject. " These expressions traverse the canonsof scientific history as much as the sayings of the ancienthistoriographers themselves. But because men have warm sympathies thatcause them to color their narratives, shall no more general histories bewritten? Shall history be confined to the printing of original documentsand to the publication of learned monographs in which the discussion ofauthorities is mixed up with the relation of events? The proper mentalattitude of the general historian is to take no thought of popularity. The remark of Macaulay that he would make his history take the place ofthe last novel on my lady's table is not scientific. The audience whichthe general historian should have in mind is that of historicalexperts--men who are devoting their lives to the study of history. Wordsof approval from them are worth more than any popular recognition, fortheirs is the enduring praise. Their criticism should be respected;there should be unceasing effort to avoid giving them cause forfault-finding. No labor should be despised which shall enable one topresent things just as they are. Our endeavor should be to thinkstraight and see clear. An incident should not be related oninsufficient evidence because it is interesting, but an affair wellattested should not be discarded because it happens to have a humaninterest. I feel quite sure that the cardinal aim of Gardiner was to beaccurate and to proportion his story well. In this he has succeeded; butit is no drawback that he has made his volumes interesting. Jacob D. Cox, who added to other accomplishments that of being learned in thelaw, and who looked upon Gardiner with such reverence that he called himthe Chief Justice, said there was no reason why he should read novels, as he found Gardiner's history more interesting than any romance. Thescientific historians have not revolutionized historical methods, butthey have added much. The process of accretion has been going on since, at any rate, the time of Herodotus, and the canons for weighing evidenceand the synthesis of materials are better understood now than everbefore, for they have been reduced from many models. I feel sure thatthere has been a growth in candor. Compare the critical note to a lateredition which Macaulay wrote in 1857, maintaining the truth of hischarge against William Penn, with the manly way in which Gardiner ownsup when an error or insufficient evidence for a statement is pointedout. It is the ethics of the profession to be forward in correctingerrors. The difference between the old and the new lies in the desire tohave men think you are infallible and the desire to be accurate. 

THE PROFESSION OF HISTORIAN

Lecture read before the History Club of Harvard University, April 27, 1908, and at Yale, Columbia, and Western Reserve Universities. 

THE PROFESSION OF HISTORIAN

I am assuming that among my audience there are some students who aspireto become historians. To these especially my discourse is addressed. 

It is not to be expected that I should speak positively and in detail onmatters of education. Nevertheless, a man of sixty who has devoted thebetter part of his life to reading, observation, and reflection musthave gained, if only through a perception of his own deficiencies, someideas that should be useful to those who have, life's experience beforethem. Hence, if a Freshman should say to me, I wish to be a historian, tell me what preliminary studies you would advise, I should welcome theopportunity. From the nature of the case, the history courses will besought and studied in their logical order and my advice will have to doonly with collateral branches of learning. 

In the first place, I esteem a knowledge of Latin and French of thehighest importance. By a knowledge of French, I mean that you should beable to read it substantially as well as you read English, so that whenyou have recourse to a dictionary it will be a French dictionary and notone of the French-English kind. The historical and other literature thatis thus opened up to you enables you to live in another world, with apoint of view impossible to one who reads for pleasure only in his owntongue. To take two instances: Molière is a complement to Shakespeare, and the man who knows his Molière as he does his Shakespeare has made apropitious beginning in that study of human character which must beunderstood if he desires to write a history that shall gain readers. "Ihave known and loved Molière, " said Goethe, "from my youth and havelearned from him during my whole life. I never fail to read some of hisplays every year, that I may keep up a constant intercourse with what isexcellent. It is not merely the perfectly artistic treatment whichdelights me; but particularly the amiable nature, the highly formed mindof the poet. There is in him a grace and a feeling for the decorous, anda tone of good society, which his innate beautiful nature could onlyattain by daily intercourse with the most eminent men of his age. "[3]

My other instance is Balzac. In reading him for pleasure, as you readDickens and Thackeray, you are absorbing an exact and fruitful knowledgeof French society of the Restoration and of Louis Philippe. Moreover youare still pursuing your study of human character under one of the acutecritics of the nineteenth century. Balzac has always seemed to mepeculiarly French, his characters belong essentially to Paris or to theprovinces. I associate Eugénie Grandet with Saumur in the Touraine andCésar Birotteau with the Rue St. Honoré in Paris; and all his other menand women move naturally in the great city or in the provinces which hehas given them for their home. A devoted admirer however tells me thatin his opinion Balzac has created universal types; the counterpart ofsome of his men may be seen in the business and social world of Boston, and the peculiarly sharp and dishonest transaction which brought CésarBirotteau to financial ruin was here exactly reproduced. 

The French language and literature seem to possess the merits which ourslack; and the writer of history cannot afford to miss the lessons hewill receive by a constant reading of the best French prose. 

I do not ask the Freshman who is going to be a historian to realizeMacaulay's ideal of a scholar, to "read Plato with his feet on thefender, "[4] but he should at least acquire a pretty thorough knowledgeof classical Latin, so that he can read Latin, let me say, as many of usread German, that is with the use of a lexicon and the occasionaltranslation of a sentence or a paragraph into English to arrive at itsexact meaning. Of this, I can speak from the point of view of one who isdeficient. The reading of Latin has been for me a grinding labor and Iwould have liked to read with pleasure in the original, the History andAnnals of Tacitus, Cæsar's Gallic and Civil wars and Cicero's Orationsand Private Letters even to the point of following Macaulay's advice, "Soak your mind with Cicero. "[4] These would have given me, I fancy, amore vivid impression of two periods of Roman history than I nowpossess. Ferrero, who is imparting a fresh interest to the last periodof the Roman republic, owes a part of his success, I think, to histhorough digestion and effective use of Cicero's letters, which have thefaculty of making one acquainted with Cicero just as if he were a modernman. During a sojourn on the shores of Lake Geneva, I read two volumesof Voltaire's private correspondence, and later, while passing thewinter in Rome, the four volumes of Cicero's letters in French. I couldnot help thinking that in the republic of letters one was not in time ata far greater distance from Cicero than from Voltaire. While theimpression of nearness may have come from reading both series of lettersin French, or because, to use John Morley's words, "two of the mostperfect masters of the art of letter writing were Cicero andVoltaire, "[5] there is a decided flavor of the nineteenth century inCicero's words to a good liver whom he is going to visit. "You must notreckon, " he wrote, "on my eating your hors d'oeuvre. I have given themup entirely. The time has gone by when I can abuse my stomach with yourolives and your Lucanian sausages. "[6]

To repeat then, if the student, who is going to be a historian, uses hisacquisitive years in obtaining a thorough knowledge of French and Latin, he will afterwards be spared useless regrets. He will naturally addGerman for the purpose of general culture and, if languages come easy, perhaps Greek. "Who is not acquainted with another language, " saidGoethe, "knows not his own. " A thorough knowledge of Latin and French isa long stride towards an efficient mastery of English. In the matter ofdiction, the English writer is rarely in doubt as to words ofAnglo-Saxon origin, for these are deep-rooted in his childhood and hischoice is generally instinctive. The difficulties most persistentlybesetting him concern words that come from the Latin or the French; andhere he must use reason or the dictionary or both. The author who has athorough knowledge of Latin and French will argue with himself as to thecorrect diction, will follow Emerson's advice, "Know wordsetymologically; pull them apart; see how they are made; and use themonly where they fit. "[7] As it is in action through life, so it is inwriting; the conclusions arrived at by reason are apt to be morevaluable than those which we accept on authority. The reasoned literarystyle is more virile than that based on the dictionary. A judgmentarrived at by argument sticks in the memory, while it is necessary forthe user of the dictionary constantly to invoke authority, so that thewriter who reasons out the meaning of words may constantly acceleratehis pace, for the doubt and decision of yesterday is to-day a solidacquirement, ingrained in his mental being. I have lately been reading agood deal of Gibbon and I cannot imagine his having had frequentrecourse to a dictionary. I do not remember even an allusion either inhis autobiographies or in his private letters to any such aid. Undoubtedly his thorough knowledge of Latin and French, his vast readingof Latin, French, and English books, enabled him to dispense with thethumbing of a dictionary and there was probably a reasoning process atthe back of every important word. It is difficult, if not impossible, toimprove on Gibbon by the substitution of one word for another. 

A rather large reading of Sainte-Beuve gives me the same impression. Indeed his literary fecundity, the necessity of having the Causerieready for each Monday's issue of the _Constitutionnel_ or the_Moniteur_, precluded a study of words while composing, and his rapidand correct writing was undoubtedly due to the training obtained by theprocess of reasoning. Charles Sumner seems to be an exception to mygeneral rule. Although presumably he knew Latin well, he was a slave todictionaries. He generally had five at his elbow (Johnson, Webster, Worcester, Walker, and Pickering) and when in doubt as to the use of aword he consulted all five and let the matter be decided on the Americandemocratic principle of majority rule. [8] Perhaps this is one cause ofthe stilted and artificial character of Sumner's speeches which, unlikeDaniel Webster's, are not to be thought of as literature. One does notassociate dictionaries with Webster. Thus had I written the sentencewithout thinking of a not infrequent confusion between Noah and DanielWebster, and this confusion reminded me of a story which John Fiskeused to tell with gusto and which some of you may not have heard. AnEnglish gentleman remarked to an American: "What a giant intellect thatWebster of yours had! To think of so great an orator and statesmanwriting that dictionary! But I felt sure that one who towered so muchabove his fellows would come to a bad end and I was not a bit surprisedto learn that he had been hanged for the murder of Dr. Parkman. "

To return to my theme: One does not associate dictionaries with DanielWebster. He was given to preparing his speeches in the solitudes ofnature, and his first Bunker Hill oration, delivered in 1825, was mainlycomposed while wading in a trout stream and desultorily fishing fortrout. [9] Joe Jefferson, who loved fishing as well as Webster, used tosay, "The trout is a gentleman and must be treated as such. " Webster'scompanion might have believed that some such thought as this was passingthrough the mind of the great Daniel as, standing middle deep in thestream, he uttered these sonorous words: "Venerable men! You have comedown to us from a former generation. Heaven has bounteously lengthenedout your lives that you might behold this joyous day. " I think DanielWebster for the most part reasoned out his choice of words; he left thedictionary work to others. After delivery, he threw down the manuscriptof his eulogy on Adams and Jefferson and said to a student in his lawoffice, "There, Tom, please to take that discourse and weed out theLatin words. "[10]

When doubtful as to the use of words, I should have been helped by abetter knowledge of Latin and enabled very often to write with a surertouch. Though compelled to resort frequently to the dictionary, I earlylearned to pay little attention to the definition but to regard withcare the illustrative meaning in the citations from standard authors. When I began writing I used the Imperial Dictionary, an improvement overWebster in this respect. Soon the Century Dictionary began to appear, and best of all the New English Dictionary on historical principlesedited by Murray and Bradley and published by the Clarendon Press atOxford. A study of the mass of quotations in these two dictionariesundoubtedly does much to atone for the lack of linguistic knowledge; andthe tracing of the history of words, as it is done in the Oxforddictionary, makes any inquiry as to the meaning of a word fascinatingwork for the historian. Amongst the multiplicity of aids for the studentand the writer no single one is so serviceable as this product of laborand self-sacrifice, fostered by the Clarendon Press, to whom, allwriters in the English language owe a debt of gratitude. 

Macaulay had a large fund of knowledge on which he might base hisreasoning, and his indefatigable mind welcomed any outside assistance. He knew Greek and Latin thoroughly and a number of other languages, butit is related of him that he so thumbed his copy of Johnson's Dictionarythat he was continually sending it to the binder. In return for hismastery of the languages, the dictionaries are fond of quoting Macaulay. If I may depend upon a rough mental computation, no prose writer of thenineteenth century is so frequently cited. "He never wrote an obscuresentence in his life, " said John Morley;[11] and this is partly due tohis exact use of words. There is never any doubt about his meaning. Macaulay began the use of Latin words at an early age. When four and ahalf years old he was asked if he had got over the toothache, to whichquestion came this reply, "The agony is abated. "

Mathematics beyond arithmetic are of no use to the historian and may beentirely discarded. I do not ignore John Stuart Mill's able plea forthem, some words of which are worth quoting. "Mathematical studies, " hesaid, "are of immense benefit to the student's education by habituatinghim to precision. It is one of the peculiar excellences of mathematicaldiscipline that the mathematician is never satisfied with an _à peuprès_. He requires the _exact_ truth. .. . The practice of mathematicalreasoning gives wariness of the mind; it accustoms us to demand a surefooting. "[12] Mill, however, is no guide except for exceptionally giftedyouth. He began to learn Greek when he was three years old, and by thetime he had reached the age of twelve had read a good part of Latin andGreek literature and knew elementary geometry and algebra thoroughly. 

The three English historians who have most influenced thought from 1776to 1900 are those whom John Morley called "great born men ofletters"[13]--Gibbon, Macaulay, and Carlyle; and two of these despisedmathematics. "As soon as I understood the principles, " wrote Gibbon inhis "Autobiography, " "I relinquished forever the pursuit of theMathematics; nor can I lament that I desisted before my mind washardened by the habit of rigid demonstration, so destructive of thefiner feelings of moral evidence, which must however determine theactions and opinions of our lives. "[14] Macaulay, while a student atCambridge, wrote to his mother: "Oh, for words to express my abominationof mathematics . .. 'Discipline' of the mind! Say rather starvation, confinement, torture, annihilation!. .. I feel myself becoming apersonification of Algebra, a living trigonometrical canon, a walkingtable of logarithms. All my perceptions of elegance and beauty gone, orat least going. .. . Farewell then Homer and Sophocles and Cicero. "[15] Imust in fairness state that in after life Macaulay regretted his lack ofknowledge of mathematics and physics, but his career and Gibbon'sdemonstrate that mathematics need have no place on the list of thehistorian's studies. Carlyle, however, showed mathematical ability whichattracted the attention of Legendre and deemed himself sufficientlyqualified to apply, when he was thirty-nine years old, for theprofessorship of Astronomy at the University of Edinburgh. He did notsucceed in obtaining the post but, had he done so, he "would have made, "so Froude his biographer thinks, "the school of Astronomy at Edinburghfamous throughout Europe. "[16] When fifty-two, Carlyle said that "theman who had mastered the first forty-seven propositions of Euclid stoodnearer to God than he had done before. "[17] I may cap this with somewords of Emerson, who in much of his thought resembled Carlyle: "Whathours of melancholy my mathematical works cost! It was long before Ilearned that there is something wrong with a man's brain who lovesthem. "[18]

Mathematics are of course the basis of many studies, trades, andprofessions and are sometimes of benefit as a recreation for men ofaffairs. Devotion to Euclid undoubtedly added to Lincoln's strength, butthe necessary range of knowledge for the historian is so vast that hecannot spend his evenings and restless nights in the solution ofmathematical problems. In short, mathematics are of no more use to himthan is Greek to the civil or mechanical engineer. 

In the category with mathematics must be placed a detailed study of anyof the physical or natural sciences. I think that a student during hiscollege course should have a year's work in a chemical laboratory orelse, if his taste inclines him to botany, geology, or zoölogy, a year'straining of his observing powers in some one of these studies. For heought to get, while at an impressible age, a superficial knowledge ofthe methods of scientific men, as a basis for his future reading. We allknow that science is moving the world and to keep abreast with themovement is a necessity for every educated man. Happily, there arescientific men who popularize their knowledge. John Fiske, Huxley, andTyndall presented to us the theories and demonstrations of science in aliterary style that makes learning attractive. Huxley and Tyndall wereworkers in laboratories and gave us the results of their patient andlong-continued experiments. It is too much to expect that everygeneration will produce men of the remarkable power of expression ofHuxley and John Fiske, but there will always be clear writers who willdelight in instructing the general public in language easily understood. In an address which I delivered eight or nine years ago before theAmerican Historical Association, I cheerfully conceded that, in therealm of intellectual endeavor, the natural and physical sciences shouldhave the precedence of history. The question with us now is not which isthe nobler pursuit, but how is the greatest economy of time to becompassed for the historian. My advice is in the line of concentration. Failure in life arises frequently from intellectual scattering; hence Ilike to see the historical student getting his physical and naturalscience at second-hand. 

The religious and political revolutions of the last four hundred yearshave weakened authority; but in intellectual development I believe thatin general an important advantage lies in accepting the dicta ofspecialists. In this respect our scientific men may teach us a lesson. One not infrequently meets a naturalist or a physician, who possessesan excellent knowledge of history, acquired by reading the works ofgeneral historians who have told an interesting story. He would laugh atthe idea that he must verify the notes of his author and read theoriginal documents, for he has confidence that the interpretation isaccurate and truthful. This is all that I ask of the would-be historian. For the sake of going to the bottom of things in his own special study, let him take his physical and natural science on trust and he may wellbegin to do this during his college course. As a manner of doing this, there occur to me three interesting biographies, the Life of Darwin, theLife of Huxley, and the Life of Pasteur, which give the important partof the story of scientific development during the last half of thenineteenth century. Now I believe that a thorough mastery of these threebooks will be worth more to the historical student than any driblets ofscience that he may pick up in an unsystematic college course. 

With this elimination of undesirable studies--undesirable because oflack of time--there remains ample time for those studies which arenecessary for the equipment of a historian; to wit, languages, histories, English, French, and Latin literature, and as much ofeconomics as his experienced teachers advise. Let him also study thefine arts as well as he can in America, fitting himself for anappreciation of the great works of architecture, sculpture, and paintingin Europe which he will recognize as landmarks of history in theirpotent influence on the civilization of mankind. Let us suppose that ourhypothetical student has marked out on these lines his college course offour years, and his graduate course of three. At the age of twenty-fivehe will then have received an excellent college education. Theuniversity with its learned and hard-working teachers, its wealth, itsvaried and wholesome traditions has done for him the utmost possible. Henceforward his education must depend upon himself and, unless he hasan insatiable love of reading, he had better abandon the idea ofbecoming a historian; for books, pamphlets, old newspapers, andmanuscripts are the stock of his profession and to them he must show asingle-minded devotion. He must love his library as Pasteur did hislaboratory and must fill with delight most of the hours of the day inreading or writing. To this necessity there is no alternative. Whetherit be in general preparation or in the detailed study of a specialperiod, there is no end to the material which may be read withadvantage. The young man of twenty-five can do no better than to devotefive years of his life to general preparation. And what enjoyment he hasbefore him! He may draw upon a large mass of histories and biographies, of books of correspondence, of poems, plays, and novels; it is then forhim to select with discrimination, choosing the most valuable, as theyafford him facts, augment his knowledge of human nature, and teach himmethod and expression. "A good book, " said Milton, "is the precious lifeblood of a master spirit, " and every good book which wins our student'sinterest and which he reads carefully will help him directly orindirectly in his career. And there are some books which he will wish tomaster, as if he were to be subjected to an examination on them. As tothese he will be guided by strong inclination and possibly with a viewto the subject of his magnum opus; but if these considerations be absentand if the work has not been done in the university, I cannot toostrongly recommend the mastery of Gibbon's "Decline and Fall" andBryce's "Holy Roman Empire. " Gibbon merits close study because his isundoubtedly the greatest history of modern times and because it is, inthe words of Carlyle, a splendid bridge from the old world to the new. He should be read in the edition of Bury, whose scholarly introductiongives a careful and just estimate of Gibbon and whose notes show theresults of the latest researches. This edition does not include Guizot'sand Milman's notes, which seem to an old-fashioned reader of Gibbon likemyself worthy of attention, especially those on the famous Fifteenth andSixteenth Chapters. Bryce's "Holy Roman Empire" is a fitting complementto Gibbon, and the intellectual possession of the two is an education initself which will be useful in the study of any period of history thatmay be chosen. 

The student who reads Gibbon will doubtless be influenced by his manytributes to Tacitus and will master the Roman historian. I shall letMacaulay furnish the warrant for a close study of Thucydides. "Thisday, " Macaulay said, when in his thirty-fifth year, "I finishedThucydides after reading him with inexpressible interest and admiration. He is the greatest historian that ever lived. " Again during the sameyear he wrote: "What are all the Roman historians to the great Athenian?I do assure you there is no prose composition in the world, not even theoration on the Crown, which I place so high as the seventh book ofThucydides. It is the _ne plus ultra_ of human art. I was delighted tofind in Gray's letters the other day this query to Wharton: 'The retreatfrom Syracuse--is or is it not the finest thing you ever read in yourlife?' . .. Most people read all the Greek they ever read before they arefive and twenty. They never find time for such studies afterwards untilthey are in the decline of life; and then their knowledge of thelanguage is in great measure lost, and cannot easily be recovered. Accordingly, almost all the ideas that people have of Greek literatureare ideas formed while they were still very young. A young man, whatever his genius may be, is no judge of such a writer as Thucydides. I had no high opinion of him ten years ago. I have now been reading himwith a mind accustomed to historical researches and to political affairsand I am astonished at my own former blindness and at hisgreatness. "[19]

I have borrowed John Morley's words, speaking of Gibbon, Macaulay, andCarlyle as "three great born men of letters. " Our student cannottherefore afford to miss a knowledge of Macaulay's History, but theEssays, except perhaps three or four of the latest ones, need not beread. In a preface to the authorized edition of the Essays, Macaulaywrote that he was "sensible of their defects, " deemed them "imperfectpieces, " and did not think that they were "worthy of a permanent placein English literature. " For instance, his essay on Milton containedscarcely a paragraph which his matured judgment approved. Macaulay'speculiar faults are emphasized in his Essays and much of the harshcriticism which he has received comes from the glaring defects of theseearlier productions. His history, however, is a great book, showsextensive research, a sane method and an excellent power of narration;and when he is a partisan, he is so honest and transparent that theeffect of his partiality is neither enduring nor mischievous. 

I must say further to the student: read either Carlyle's "FrenchRevolution" or his "Frederick the Great, " I care not which, although itis well worth one's while to read both. If your friends who maintainthat history is a science convince you that the "French Revolution" isnot history, as perhaps they may, read it as a narrative poem. TrulyCarlyle spoke rather like a poet than a historian when he wrote to hiswife (in his forty-first year): "A hundred pages more and this cursedbook is flung out of me. I mean to write with force of fire till thatconsummation; above all with the speed of fire. .. . It all stands prettyfair in my head, nor do I mean to investigate much more about it, but tosplash down what I know in large masses of colors, that it may look likea smoke-and-flame conflagration in the distance, which it is. "[20] Itwas Carlyle's custom to work all of the morning and take a solitary walkin Hyde Park in the afternoon, when looking upon the gay scene, thedisplay of wealth and fashion, "seeing, " as he said, "all the carriagesdash hither and thither and so many human bipeds cheerily hurryingalong, " he said to himself: "There you go, brothers, in your giltcarriages and prosperities, better or worse, and make an extreme botherand confusion, the devil very largely in it. .. . Not one of you could dowhat I am doing, and it concerns you too, if you did but know it. "[21]When the book was done he wrote to his brother, "It is a wild, savagebook, itself a kind of French Revolution. "[22] From its somewhat obscurestyle it requires a slow perusal and careful study, but this serves allthe more to fix it in the memory causing it to remain an abidinginfluence. 

There are eight volumes of "Frederick the Great, " containing, accordingto Barrett Wendell's computation, over one million words; and thiseighteenth-century tale, with its large number of great and littlecharacters, its "mass of living facts" impressed Wendell chiefly withits unity. "Whatever else Carlyle was, " he wrote, "the unity of thisenormous book proves him, when he chose to be, a Titanic artist. "[23]Only those who have striven for unity in a narrative can appreciate thetribute contained in these words. It was a struggle, too, for Carlyle. Fifty-six years old when he conceived the idea of Frederick, hisnervousness and irritability were a constant torment to himself and hisdevoted wife. Many entries in his journal tell of his "dismal continualwrestle with Friedrich, "[24] perhaps the most characteristic of which isthis: "My Frederick looks as if it would never take shape in me; in factthe problem is to burn away the immense dungheap of the eighteenthcentury, with its ghastly cants, foul, blind sensualities, cruelties, and _inanity_ now fallen _putrid_, rotting inevitably towardsannihilation; to destroy and extinguish all that, having got to know it, and to know that it must be rejected for evermore; after which theperennial portion, pretty much Friedrich and Voltaire so far as I cansee, may remain conspicuous and capable of being delineated. "[25]

The student, who has become acquainted with the works of Gibbon, Macaulay, and Carlyle, will wish to know something of the men themselvesand this curiosity may be easily and delightfully gratified. Theautobiographies of Gibbon, the Life of Macaulay by Sir George Trevelyan, the History of Carlyle's Life by Froude, present the personality ofthese historians in a vivid manner. Gibbon has himself told of all hisown faults and Froude has omitted none of Carlyle's, so that these twobooks are useful aids in a study of human nature, in which respect theyare real adjuncts of Boswell's Johnson. Gibbon, Carlyle, and Macaulayhad an insatiable love of reading; in their solitary hours they wereseldom without books in their hands. Valuable instruction may be derivedfrom a study of their lives from their suggestions of books, helpful inthe development of a historian. They knew how to employ their oddmoments, and Gibbon and Macaulay were adepts in the art of desultoryreading. Sainte-Beuve makes a plea for desultory reading in instancingTocqueville's lack of it, so that he failed to illustrate and animatehis pages with its fruits, the result being, in the long run, greatmonotony. [26] As a relief to the tired brain, without a complete loss oftime, the reading at hazard, even browsing in a library, has its placein the equipment of a historian. One of the most striking examples ofself-education in literature is Carlyle's seven years, from the age ofthirty-two to thirty-nine, passed at Craigenputtock where his nativeinclination was enforced by his physical surroundings. Craigenputtock, wrote Froude, is "the dreariest spot in all the British dominions. Thenearest cottage is more than a mile from it; the elevation, 700 feetabove the sea, stunts the trees and limits the garden produce to thehardiest vegetables. The house is gaunt and hungry-looking. "[27] Theplace realized Tennyson's words, "O, the dreary, dreary moorland. " HereCarlyle read books, gave himself over to silent meditation, and wrotefor his bread, although a man who possessed an adequate income could nothave been more independent in thought than he was, or more averse towriting to the order of editors of reviews and magazines. With nooutside distractions, books were his companions as well as his friends. As you read Froude's intimate biography, it comes upon you, as youconsider Carlyle's life in London, what a tremendous intellectual stridehe had made while living in this dreary solitude of Craigenputtock. Itwas there that he continued his development under the intellectualinfluence of Goethe, wrote "Sartor Resartus" and conceived the idea ofwriting the story of the French Revolution. Those seven years, as youtrace their influence during the rest of his life, will ever be atribute to the concentrated, bookish labors of bookish men. 

It is often said that some practical experience in life is necessary forthe training of a historian; that only thus can he arrive at a knowledgeof human nature and become a judge of character; that, while the theoryis occasionally advanced that history is a series of movements which maybe described without taking individuals into account, as a matter offact, one cannot go far on this hypothesis without running up againstthe truth that movements have motors and the motors are men. Hence weare to believe the dictum that the historian needs that knowledge of menwhich is to be obtained only by practical dealings with them. It is truethat Gibbon's service in the Hampshire militia and his membership in theHouse of Commons were of benefit to the historian of the Roman Empire. Grote's business life, Macaulay's administrative work in India, and theparliamentary experience of both were undoubtedly of value to their workas historians, but there are excellent historians who have never had anysuch training. Carlyle is an example, and Samuel R. Gardiner is another. Curiously enough, Gardiner, who was a pure product of the university andthe library, has expressed sounder judgments on many of the prominentmen of the seventeenth century than Macaulay. I am not aware that thereis in historical literature any other such striking contrast as this, for it is difficult to draw the line closely between the historian andthe man of affairs, but Gardiner's example is strengthened in otherhistorians' lives sufficiently to warrant the statement that thehistorian need not be a man of the world. Books are written by men andtreat of the thoughts and actions of men and a good study may be made ofhuman character without going beyond the walls of a library. 

Drawing upon my individual experience again I feel that the two authorswho have helped me most in this study of human character areShakespeare and Homer. I do not mean that in the modern world we meetHamlet, Iago, Macbeth, and Shylock, but when we perceive "the native hueof resolution sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought, " when we comein contact with the treachery of a seeming friend, with unholy ambitionand insensate greed, we are better able to interpret them on the page ofhistory from having grasped the lessons of Shakespeare to mankind. Aconstant reading of Shakespeare will show us unchanging passions andfeelings; and we need not make literal contrasts, as did the Britishmatron who remarked of "Antony and Cleopatra" that it was "so unlike thehome life of our beloved queen. " Bernard Shaw, who has said much indetraction of Shakespeare, writes in one of his admiring moods, "thatthe imaginary scenes and people he has created become more real to usthan our actual life--at least until our knowledge and grip of actuallife begins to deepen and glow beyond the common. When I was twenty, "Shaw continues, "I knew everybody in Shakespeare from Hamlet toAbhorson, much more intimately than I knew my living contemporaries; andto this day, if the name of Pistol or Polonius catches my eye in anewspaper, I turn to the passage with curiosity. "[28]

Homer's character of Ulysses is a link between the ancient and themodern world. One feels that Ulysses would be at home in the twentiethcentury and would adapt himself to the conditions of modern politicallife. Perhaps, indeed, he would have preferred to his militant age ourindustrial one where prizes are often won by craft and persuasiveeloquence rather than by strength of arm. The story of Ulysses is asignal lesson in the study of human character, and receives a luminouscommentary in Shakespeare's adaptation of it. The advice which Ulyssesgives to Achilles[29] is a piece of worldly wisdom and may well be actedon by those who desire advancement in life and are little scrupulous inregard to means. The first part of Goethe's "Faust" is another bookwhich has profoundly affected my view of life. I read it first whenseventeen years old and have continually re-read it; and, while I failto comprehend it wholly, and, although it does not give me the same kindof knowledge of human character that I derive from Shakespeare's plays, I carry away from it abiding impressions from the contact that itaffords with one of the greatest of human minds. 

All this counsel of mine, as to the reading of the embryo historian is, of course, merely supplementary, and does not pretend to be exhaustive. I am assuming that during his undergraduate and graduate course thestudent has been advised to read, either wholly or in part, most of theEnglish, German, and French scientific historians of the past fiftyyears, and that he has become acquainted in a greater or less degreewith all the eminent American historians. My own experience has beenthat a thorough knowledge of one book of an author is better than asuperficial acquaintance with all of his works. The only book of FrancisParkman's which I have read is his "Montcalm and Wolfe, " parts of whichI have gone over again and again. One chapter, pervaded with the sceneryof the place, I have read on Lake George, three others more than once atQuebec, and I feel that I know Parkman's method as well as if I hadskimmed all his volumes. But I believe I was careful in my selection, for in his own estimation, and in that of the general public, "Montcalmand Wolfe" is his best work. So with Motley, I have read nothing butthe "Dutch Republic, " but that I have read through twice carefully. Iwill not say that it is the most accurate of his works, but it isprobably the most interesting and shows his graphic and dashing style atits best. An admirer of Stubbs told me that his "Lectures and Addresseson Mediæval and Modern History" would give me a good idea of hisscholarship and literary manner and that I need not tackle his magnumopus. But those lectures gave me a taste for more and, undeterred by theremark of still another admirer that nobody ever read his"Constitutional History" through, I did read one volume with interestand profit, and I hope at some future time to read the other two. On theother hand, I have read everything that Samuel R. Gardiner has writtenexcept "What Gunpowder Plot Was. " Readers differ. There are fast readerswho have the faculty of getting just what they want out of a book in abrief time and they retain the thing which they have sought. Assuredly Ienvy men that power. For myself, I have never found any royal road tolearning, have been a slow reader, and needed a re-reading, sometimesmore than one, to acquire any degree of mastery of a book. Macaulay usedto read his favorite Greek and Latin classics over and over again andpresumably always with care, but modern books he turned off withextraordinary speed. Of Buckle's large volume of the "History ofCivilization" Macaulay wrote in his journal: "I read Buckle's book allday, and got to the end, skipping, of course. A man of talent and of agood deal of reading, but paradoxical and incoherent. "[30] John Fiske, Ibelieve, was a slow reader, but he had such a remarkable power ofconcentration that what he read once was his own. Of this I can give anotable instance. At a meeting in Boston a number of years ago of theMilitary Historical Society of Massachusetts, Colonel William R. Livermore read a learned and interesting paper on Napoleon's Campaignsin Northern Italy, and a few men, among whom were Fiske and John C. Ropes, remained after supper to discuss the paper. The discussion wentwell into details and was technical. Fiske had as much to say as any oneand met the military critics on their own ground, holding his own inthis interchange of expert opinions. As we returned to Cambridgetogether, I expressed my surprise at his wide technical knowledge. "Itis all due to one book, " he said. "A few summers ago I had occasion toread Sir Edward Hamley's 'Operations of War' and for some reason orother everything in it seemed to sink into my mind and to be thereretained, ready for use, as was the case to-night with his references tothe Northern Italian campaigns. "

Outside of ordinary historical reading, a book occurs to me which iswell worth a historian's mastery. I am assuming that our hypotheticalstudent has read Goethe's "Faust, " "Werther, " and "Wilhelm Meister, " anddesires to know something of the personality of this great writer. Heshould, therefore, read Eckermann's "Conversations with Goethe, " inwhich he will find a body of profitable literary criticism, given out ina familiar way by the most celebrated man then living. The talks beganwhen he was seventy-three and continued until near his death, ten yearslater; they reveal his maturity of judgment. Greek, Roman, German, English, French, Spanish, and Italian authors are taken up from time totime and discussed with clearness and appreciation, running sometimes toenthusiasm. As a guide to the best reading extant up to 1832 I knownothing better. Eckermann is inferior as a biographer to Boswell, andhis book is neither so interesting nor amusing; but Goethe was fargreater than Johnson, and his talk is cosmopolitan and broad, whileJohnson's is apt to be insular and narrow. "One should not studycontemporaries and competitors, " Goethe said, "but the great men ofantiquity, whose works have for centuries received equal homage andconsideration. .. . Let us study Molière, let us study Shakespeare, butabove all things, the old Greeks and always the Greeks. "[31] Here is anopinion I like to dwell upon: "He who will work aright must never rail, must not trouble himself at all about what is ill done, but only to dowell himself. For the great point is, not to pull down, but to build upand in this humanity finds pure joy. "[32] It is well worth our while tolisten to a man so great as to be free from envy and jealousy, but thiswas a lesson Carlyle could not learn from his revered master. It isundoubtedly his broad mind in connection with his wide knowledge whichinduced Sainte-Beuve to write that Goethe is "the greatest of moderncritics and of critics of all time. "[33]

All of the conversations did not run upon literature and writers. Although Goethe never visited either Paris or London, and resided for agood part of his life in the little city of Weimar, he kept abreast ofthe world's progress through books, newspapers, and conversations withvisiting strangers. No statesman or man of business could have had awider outlook than Goethe, when on February 21, 1827, he thus spoke: "Ishould wish to see England in possession of a canal through the Isthmusof Suez. .. . And it may be foreseen that the United States, with itsdecided predilection to the West will, in thirty or forty years, haveoccupied and peopled the large tract of land beyond the Rocky Mountains. It may furthermore be foreseen that along the whole coast of the PacificOcean where nature has already formed the most capacious and secureharbors, important commercial towns will gradually arise, for thefurtherance of a great intercourse between China and the East Indies andthe United States. In such a case, it would not only be desirable, butalmost necessary, that a more rapid communication should be maintainedbetween the eastern and western shores of North America, both bymerchant ships and men-of-war than has hitherto been possible with thetedious, disagreeable, and expensive voyage around Cape Horn. .. . It isabsolutely indispensable for the United States to effect a passage fromthe Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean, and I am certain that they willdo it. Would that I might live to see it!"[34]

"Eckermann's book, " wrote Sainte-Beuve, "is the best biography ofGoethe; that of Lewes, for the facts; that of Eckermann, for theportrait from the inside and the physiognomy. The soul of a great manbreathes in it. "[35]

I have had frequent occasion to speak of Sainte-Beuve and I cannotrecommend our student too strongly to read from time to time some of hiscritical essays. His best work is contained in the fifteen volumes of"Causeries du Lundi" and in the thirteen volumes of "Nouveaux Lundis"which were articles written for the daily newspapers, the_Constitutionnel_, the _Moniteur_, and the _Temps_, when, between theages of forty-five and sixty-five, he was at the maturity of his powers. Considering the very high quality of the work, the quantity is enormous, and makes us call to mind the remark of Goethe that "genius andfecundity are very closely allied. " Excluding Goethe, we may safely, Ithink, call Sainte-Beuve the greatest of modern critics, and there isenough of resemblance between historical and literary criticism towarrant a study by the historian of these remarkable essays. "The rootof everything in his criticism, " wrote Matthew Arnold, "is hissingle-hearted devotion to truth. What he called 'fictions' inliterature, in politics, in religion, were not allowed to influencehim. " And Sainte-Beuve himself has said, "I am accustomed incessantly tocall my judgments in question anew and to recast my opinions the momentI suspect them to be without validity. "[36] The writer who conforms tosuch a high standard is an excellent guide for the historian and no onewho has made a study of these Causeries can help feeling their spirit ofcandor and being inspired to the attempt to realize so high an ideal. 

Sainte-Beuve's essays deal almost entirely with French literature andhistory, which were the subjects he knew best. It is very desirable forus Anglo-Saxons to broaden our minds and soften our prejudices byexcursions outside of our own literature and history, and with Goethefor our guide in Germany, we can do no better than to acceptSainte-Beuve for France. Brunetière wrote that the four literary men ofFrance in the nineteenth century who had exercised the most profoundinfluence were Sainte-Beuve, Balzac, Victor Hugo, and Auguste Comte. [37]I have already recommended Balzac, who portrays the life of thenineteenth century; and Sainte-Beuve, in developing the thought of thesame period, gives us a history of French literature and society. Moreover, his volumes are valuable to one who is studying humancharacter by the means of books. "Sainte-Beuve had, " wrote Henry James, "two passions which are commonly assumed to exclude each other, thepassion for scholarship and the passion for life. He valued life andliterature equally for the light they threw on each other; to his mind, one implied the other; he was unable to conceive of them apart. "[38]

Supposing the student to have devoted five years to this generalpreparation and to have arrived at the age of thirty, which Motley, insimilar advice to an aspiring historian, fixed as the earliest age atwhich one should devote himself to his special work, he is ready tochoose a period and write a history, if indeed his period has notalready suggested itself during his years of general preparation. At allevents it is doubtless that his own predilection will fix his countryand epoch and the only counsel I have to offer is to select aninteresting period. As to this, opinions will differ; but I would sayfor example that the attractive parts of German history are theReformation, the Thirty Years' War, the epoch of Frederick the Great, and the unification of Germany which we have witnessed in our own day. The French Revolution is to me the most striking period in modernannals, whilst the history of the Directory is dull, relieved only bythe exploits of Napoleon; but when Napoleon becomes the chief officer ofstate, interest revives and we follow with unflagging attention thestory of this master of men, for which there is a superabundance ofmaterial, in striking contrast with the little that is known about hisTitanic predecessors, Alexander and Cæsar, in the accounts of whosecareers conjecture must so frequently come to the aid of facts toconstruct a continuous story. The Restoration and the reign of LouisPhilippe would for me be dull periods were they not illumined by thenovels of Balzac; but from the Revolution of 1848 to the fall of theSecond Empire and the Commune, a wonderful drama was enacted. In our ownhistory the Revolutionary War, the framing of the Constitution, andWashington's administrations seem to me replete with interest which issomewhat lacking for the period between Washington and the slaveryconflict. "As to special history, " wrote Motley to the aspiringhistorian, "I should be inclined rather to direct your attention tothat of the last three and a half centuries. "[39] Discussing the subjectbefore the advanced historical students of Harvard a number of yearsago, I gave an extension to Motley's counsel by saying that ancienthistory had better be left to the Germans. I was fresh from readingHolm's History of Greece and was impressed with his vast learning, elaboration of detail, and exhaustive treatment of every subject whichseemed to me to require a steady application and patience, hardlyconsonant with the American character. But within the past five yearsFerrero, an Italian, has demonstrated that others besides Germans areequal to the work by writing an interesting history of Rome, whichintelligent men and scholars discuss in the same breath with Mommsen's. Courageously adopting the title "Grandeur and Decadence of Rome" whichsuggests that of Montesquieu, Ferrero has gleaned the well-reaped fieldfrom the appearance of Julius Cæsar to the reign of Augustus[40] in amanner to attract the attention of the reading public in Italy, France, England, and the United States. There is no reason why an Americanshould not have done the same. "All history is public property, " wroteMotley in the letter previously referred to. "All history may berewritten and it is impossible that with exhaustive research and deepreflection you should not be able to produce something new and valuableon almost any subject. "[41]

After the student has chosen his period I have little advice to offerhim beyond what I have previously given in two formal addresses beforethe American Historical Association, but a few additional words may beuseful. You will evolve your own method by practice and by comparisonwith the methods of other historians. "Follow your own star. " If youfeel impelled to praise or blame as do the older historians, if it isforced upon you that your subject demands such treatment, proceedfearlessly, so that you do nothing for effect, so that you do notsacrifice the least particle of truth for a telling statement. If, however, you fall naturally into the rigorously judicial method ofGardiner you may feel your position sure. It is well, as the scientifichistorians warn you, to be suspicious of interesting things, but, on theother hand, every interesting incident is not necessarily untrue. If youhave made a conscientious search for historical material and use it withscrupulous honesty, have no fear that you will transgress any reasonablecanon of historical writing. 

An obvious question to be put to a historian is, What plan do you followin making notes of your reading? Langlois, an experienced teacher andtried scholar, in his introduction to the "Study of History, " condemnsthe natural impulse to set them down in notebooks in the order in whichone's authorities are studied, and says, "Every one admits nowadays thatit is advisable to collect materials on separate cards or slips ofpaper, "[42] arranging them by a systematic classification of subjects. This is a case in point where writers will, I think, learn best fromtheir own experience. I have made my notes mainly in notebooks on theplan which Langlois condemns, but by colored pencil-marks of emphasisand summary, I keep before me the prominent facts which I wish tocombine; and I have found this, on the whole, better than the cardsystem. For I have aimed to study my authorities in a logicalsuccession. First I go over the period in some general history, if oneis to be had; then I read very carefully my original authorities in theorder of their estimated importance, making copious excerpts. Afterwards I skim my second-hand materials. Now I maintain that it islogical and natural to have the extracts before me in the order of mystudy. When unusually careful and critical treatment has been required, I have drawn off my memoranda from the notebooks to cards, classifyingthem according to subjects. Such a method enables me to digestthoroughly my materials, but in the main I find that a frequentre-perusal of my notes answers fully as well and is an economy of time. 

Carlyle, in answer to an inquiry regarding his own procedure, has goneto the heart of the matter. "I go into the business, " he said, "with allthe intelligence, patience, silence, and other gifts and virtues that Ihave . .. And on the whole try to keep the whole matter simmering in the_living_ mind and memory rather than laid up in paper bundles orotherwise laid up in the inert way. For this certainly turns out to be atruth; only what you at last _have living_ in your own memory and heartis worth putting down to be printed; this alone has much chance to getinto the living heart and memory of other men. And here indeed, Ibelieve, is the essence of all the rules I have ever been able to devisefor myself. I have tried various schemes of arrangement and artificialhelps to remembrance, " but the gist of the matter is, "to keep the thingyou are elaborating as much as possible actually _in_ your own livingmind; in order that this same mind, as much awake as possible, may havea chance to make something of it!"[43]

The objection may be made to my discourse that I have considered ourstudent as possessing the purse of Fortunatus and have lost sight ofHerbert Spencer's doctrine that a very important part of education is tofit a man to acquire the means of living. I may reply that there are anumber of Harvard students who will not have to work for their breadand whose parents would be glad to have them follow the course that Ihave recommended. It is not too much to hope, therefore, that amongthese there are, to use Huxley's words, "glorious sports of nature" whowill not be "corrupted by luxury" but will become industrioushistorians. To others who are not so fortunately situated, I cannotrecommend the profession of historian as a means of gaining alivelihood. Bancroft and Parkman, who had a good deal of popularity, spent more money in the collection and copying of documents than theyever received as income from their histories. A young friend of mine, atthe outset of his career and with his living in part to be earned, wentfor advice to Carl Schurz, who was very fond of him. "What is your aim?"asked Mr. Schurz. "I purpose being a historian, " was the reply. "Aha!"laughed Schurz, "you are adopting an aristocratic profession, one whichrequires a rent-roll. " Every aspiring historian has, I suppose, dreamedof that check of £20, 000, which Macaulay received as royalty on hishistory for its sale during the year 1856, [44] but no such dream hassince been realized. 

Teaching and writing are allied pursuits. And the teacher helps thewriter, especially in history, through the necessary elaboration anddigestion of materials. Much excellent history is given to the world bycollege professors. Law and medicine are too exacting professions withtoo large a literature of their own to leave any leisure for historicalinvestigation. If one has the opportunity to get a good start, or, inthe talk of the day, the right sort of a "pull, " I can recommendbusiness as a means of gaining a competence which shall enable one todevote one's whole time to a favorite pursuit. Grote was a banker untilhe reached the age of forty-nine when he retired from the banking houseand began the composition of the first volume of his history. Henry C. Lea was in the active publishing business until he was fifty-five, andas I have already frequently referred to my own personal experience, Imay add that I was immersed in business between the ages of twenty-twoand thirty-seven. After three years of general and special preparation Ibegan my writing at forty. The business man has many free evenings andmany journeys by rail, as well as a summer vacation, when devotion to aline of study may constitute a valuable recreation. Much may be done inodd hours in the way of preparation for historical work, and a businesslife is an excellent school for the study of human character. 

 [3] Conversations of Goethe, Eng. Trans. , 230. 

 [4] Trevelyan, I, 86. 

 [5] Life of Gladstone, II, 181. 

 [6] III, 51. 

 [7] Talks with Emerson, 23. 

 [8] My Vol. II, 142, n. 2. 

 [9] Curtis, I, 250. 

 [10] _Ibid. _, I, 252. 

 [11] Miscellanies, I, 275. 

 [12] Exam. Of Sir W. Hamilton's Philosophy, II, 310, 311. 

 [13] Gladstone, I, 195. 

 [14] p. 142. 

 [15] Trevelyan, I, 91. 

 [16] Froude, II, 317. 

 [17] Nichol, 20. 

 [18] Talks with Emerson, 162. 

 [19] Trevelyan, I, 379, 387, 409. 

 [20] Froude, III, 64, 65. 

 [21] _Ibid. _, II, 385; III, 59. 

 [22] _Ibid. _, III, 73. 

 [23] English Composition, 158. 

 [24] Letters of Jane Carlyle, II, 31. 

 [25] Froude's Carlyle, IV, 125. 

 [26] Causeries du Lundi, XV, 95. 

 [27] Froude, II, 19. 

 [28] Dramatic Opinions, II, 53. 

 [29] "Time hath, my lord, a wallet at his back Wherein he puts alms for oblivion, A great-sized monster of ingratitudes:" etc. 

 [30] Trevelyan, II, 388, n. 

 [31] Eng. Trans. , 236. 

 [32] _Ibid. _, 115. 

 [33] Nouveaux Lundis, III, 265. 

 [34] Eng. Trans. , 222. 

 [35] Nouveaux Lundis, III, 328. 

 [36] Enc. Brit. 

 [37] Balzac, 309. 

 [38] Brander Matthews, _Cent. Mag. _, 1901. 

 [39] Letter of April 4, 1864, _Harper's Mag. _, June, 1889. 

 [40] I speak of the first four volumes. 

 [41] _L. C. _

 [42] p. 103. 

 [43] New Letters, II, 11. 

 [44] Life, II, 345. 

NEWSPAPERS AS HISTORICAL SOURCES

A paper read before the American Historical Association in Washington onDecember 29, 1908; printed in the _Atlantic Monthly_, May, 1909. 

NEWSPAPERS AS HISTORICAL SOURCES

The impulse of an American writer in justifying the use of newspapers ashistorical materials is to adopt an apologetic tone. It is somewhatcurious that such should be the case, for newspapers satisfy so manycanons of historical evidence. They are contemporary, and, being writtenwithout knowledge of the end, cannot bolster any cause without making aplain showing of their intent. Their object is the relation of dailyevents; and if their relation is colored by honest or dishonestpartisanship, this is easily discernible by the critic from the internalevidence and from an easily acquired knowledge of a few external facts. As the journals themselves say, their aim is to print the news; and muchof the news is present politics. Moreover, the newspaper itself, itsnews and editorial columns, its advertisements, is a graphic picture ofsociety. 

When Aulard, in his illuminating criticism of Taine, writes that thejournals are a very important source of the history of the FrenchRevolution, provided they are revised and checked by one another, thestatement seems in accordance with the canons of historical writing; andwhen he blames Taine for using two journals only and neglecting tenothers which he names, the impression on the mind is the same as ifTaine were charged with the neglect of evidence of another class. Onewould hardly attempt to justify Taine by declaring that all journals areinaccurate, partisan, and dishonest, and that the omission was a merit, not a defect. Leaving out of account the greater size and diffuseness ofthe modern journal, the dictum of Aulard would seem to apply to anyperiod of history. 

Why is it then that some American students fall consciously orunconsciously into an apologetic tone when they attempt to justify theuse of newspapers as historical sources? I suppose it is because of theattitude of cultivated society to the newspaper of to-day. Society callsthe ordinary newspaper sensational and unreliable; and, if neither, itsaccounts are so diffuse and badly proportioned as to weary the seekerafter the facts of any given transaction. Despite the disfavor intowhich the American newspaper has fallen in certain circles, I suspectthat it has only exaggerated these defects, and that the journals ofdifferent democracies have more resemblances than diversities. Thenewspaper that caters to the "masses" will never suit the "classes, " andthe necessity for a large circulation induces it to furnish the sheetwhich the greatest number of readers desire. 

But this does not concern the historian. He does not make his materials. He has to take them as they are. It would undoubtedly render his taskeasier if all men spoke and wrote everywhere with accuracy andsincerity; but his work would lose much of its interest. Take thenewspaper for what it is, a hasty gatherer of facts, a hurriedcommentator on the same, and it may well constitute a part of historicalevidence. 

When, in 1887, I began the critical study of the History of the UnitedStates from 1850 to 1860, I was struck with the paucity of materialwhich would serve the purpose of an animated narrative. The main factswere to be had in the state papers, the Statutes, the _CongressionalGlobe_ and documents, the records of national conventions and platforms, and the tabulated results of elections. But there was much less privatecorrespondence than is available for the early history of our country;and, compared with the period of the Civil War and later, a scarcity ofbiographies and reminiscences, containing personal letters of highhistorical value. Since I wrote my first two volumes, much new matterconcerning the decade of 1850 to 1860 has been published. The work ofthe American Historical Association, and of many historical societies, the monographs of advanced university students, have thrown light uponthis, as they have upon other periods, with the result that futuredelvers in this field can hardly be so much struck with the paucity ofmaterial as I was twenty-one years ago. 

Boy though I was during the decade of 1850 to 1860, I had a vividremembrance of the part that the newspaper played in politics, and thethought came to me that the best way to arrive at the spirit of thetimes was to steep my mind in journalistic material; that there was thesecret of living over again that decade, as the Abolitionist, theRepublican, the Whig, and the Democrat had actually lived in it. In thecritical use of such sources, I was helped by the example of von Holst, who employed them freely in his volumes covering the same period, and bythe counsel and collaboration of my friend Edward G. Bourne, whosetraining was in the modern school. For whatever training I had beyondthat of self came from the mastery, under the guidance of teachers, ofcertain general historians belonging to an epoch when power ofexpression was as much studied as the collecting and sifting ofevidence. 

While considering my materials, I was struck with a statement cited byHerbert Spencer as an illustration in his "Philosophy of Style": "Amodern newspaper statement, though probably true, if quoted in a book astestimony, would be laughed at; but the letter of a court gossip, ifwritten some centuries ago, is thought good historical evidence. " Atabout the same time, I noticed that Motley used as one of his mainauthorities for the battle of St. Quentin the manuscript of an anonymouswriter. From these two circumstances, it was a logical reflection thatsome historians might make an exaggerated estimate of the value ofmanuscript material because it reposed in dusty archives and could beutilized only by severe labor and long patience; and that, imbued withthis idea, other historians for other periods might neglect thenewspaper because of its ready accessibility. 

These several considerations justified a belief, arrived at from mypreliminary survey of the field, that the use of newspapers as sourcesfor the decade of 1850 to 1860 was desirable. At each step of my prettythorough study of them, I became more and more convinced that I was onthe right track. I found facts in them which I could have found nowhereelse. The public meeting is a great factor in the political life of thisdecade, and is most fully and graphically reported in the press. Thenewspaper, too, was a vehicle for personal accounts of aquasi-confidential nature, of which I can give a significant example. Inan investigation that Edward Bourne made for me during the summer of1889, he came across in the _Boston Courier_ an inside account of theWhig convention of 1852, showing, more conclusively than I have seenelsewhere, the reason of the failure to unite the conservative Whigs, who were apparently in a majority, on Webster. From collateral evidencewe were convinced that it was written by a Massachusetts delegate; andthe _Springfield Republican_, which copied the account, furnished aconfirmation of it. It was an interesting story, and I incorporated itin my narrative. 

I am well aware that Dr. Dryasdust may ask, What of it? The report ofthe convention shows that Webster received a very small vote and thatScott was nominated. Why waste time and words over the "might havebeen"? I can plead only the human interest in the great Daniel Websterardently desiring that nomination, Rufus Choate advocating it in sublimeoratory, the two antislavery delegates from Massachusetts refusing theirvotes for Webster, thus preventing a unanimous Massachusetts, and thedelegates from Maine, among whom was Webster's godson William P. Fessenden, coldly refusing their much-needed aid. 

General Scott, having received the nomination, made a stumping tour inthe autumn through some of the Western States. No accurate account of itis possible without the newspapers, yet it was esteemed a factor in hisoverwhelming defeat, and the story of it is well worth preserving asdata for a discussion of the question, Is it wise for a presidentialcandidate to make a stumping tour during his electoral campaign?

The story of the formation of the Republican party, and the rise of theKnow-nothings, may possibly be written without recourse to thenewspapers, but thorough steeping in such material cannot fail to add tothe animation and accuracy of the story. In detailed history andbiographical books, dates, through mistakes of the writer or printer, are frequently wrong; and when the date was an affair of supremeimportance, I have sometimes found a doubt resolved by a reference tothe newspaper, which, from its strictly contemporary character, cannotin such a matter lead one astray. 

I found the newspapers of value in the correction of logicalassumptions, which frequently appear in American historical andbiographical books, especially in those written by men who bore a partin public affairs. By a logical assumption, I mean the statement of aseemingly necessary consequence which apparently ought to follow somewell-attested fact or condition. A striking instance of this occurredduring the political campaign of 1856, when "bleeding Kansas" was athrilling catchword used by the Republicans, whose candidate forpresident was Frémont. In a year and a half seven free-state men hadbeen killed in Kansas by the border ruffians, and these outrages, thoroughly ventilated, made excellent campaign ammunition. But theDemocrats had a _tu quoque_ argument which ought to have done muchtowards eliminating this question from the canvass. 

On the night of May 24, 1856, five pro-slavery men, living on thePottawatomie Creek, were deliberately and foully murdered by John Brownand seven of his disciples; and, while this massacre caused profoundexcitement in Kansas and Missouri, it seems to have had no influenceeast of the Mississippi River, although the fact was well attested. AKansas journalist of 1856, writing in 1879, made this logicalassumption: "The opposition press both North and South took up thedamning tale . .. Of that midnight butchery on the Pottawatomie. .. . Wholecolumns of leaders from week to week, with startling headlines, liberally distributed capitals, and frightful exclamation points, filledall the newspapers. " And it was his opinion that, had it not been forthis massacre, Frémont would have been elected. 

But I could not discover that the massacre had any influence on thevoters in the pivotal states. I examined, or had examined, the files ofthe _New York Journal of Commerce_, _New York Herald_, _PhiladelphiaPennsylvanian_, _Washington Union_, and _Cleveland Plain Dealer_, allDemocratic papers except the _New York Herald_, and I was struck withthe fact that substantially no use was made of the massacre as acampaign argument. Yet could anything have been more logical than theassumption that the Democrats would have been equal to their opportunityand spread far and wide such a story? The facts in the case showtherefore that cause and effect in actual American history are notalways the same as the statesman may conceive them in his cabinet or thehistorian in his study. 

In the newspapers of 1850 to 1860 many speeches, and many public, andsome private, letters of conspicuous public men are printed; these arevaluable material for the history of the decade, and their use is inentire accordance with modern historical canons. 

I have so far considered the press in its character of a register offacts; but it has a further use for historical purposes, since it isboth a representative and guide of public sentiment. Kinglake shows thatthe _Times_ was the potent influence which induced England to invade theCrimea; Bismarck said in 1877 that the press "was the cause of the lastthree wars"; Lord Cromer writes, "The people of England as representedby the press insisted on sending General Gordon to the Soudan, andaccordingly to the Soudan he was sent;" and it is current talk that theyellow journals brought on the Spanish-American War. Giving thesestatements due weight, can a historian be justified in neglecting theimportant influence of the press on public opinion?

As reflecting and leading popular sentiment during the decade of 1850 to1860, the newspapers of the Northern States were potent. I own that manytimes one needs no further index to public sentiment than our frequentelections, but in 1854 conditions were peculiar. The repeal of theMissouri Compromise had outraged the North and indicated that a newparty must be formed to resist the extension of slavery. In thedisorganization of the Democratic party, and the effacement of the Whig, nowhere may the new movement so well be traced as in the news andeditorial columns of the newspapers, and in the speeches of theNorthern leaders, many of these indeed being printed nowhere else thanin the press. What journals and what journalists there were in thosedays! Greeley and Dana of the _New York Tribune_; Bryant and Bigelow ofthe _Evening Post_; Raymond of the _Times_; Webb of the _Courier_ and_Enquirer_; Bowles of the _Springfield Republican_; Thurlow Weed of the_Albany Journal_; Schouler of the _Cincinnati Gazette_, --all inspired bytheir opposition to the spread of slavery, wrote with vigor andenthusiasm, representing the ideas of men who had burning thoughtswithout power of expression, and guiding others who needed the constantiteration of positive opinions to determine their political action. 

The main and cross currents which resulted in the formation of thecompact Republican party of 1856 have their principal record in thepress, and from it, directly or indirectly, must the story be told. Unquestionably the newspapers had greater influence than in an ordinarytime, because the question was a moral one and could be concretely put. Was slavery right or wrong? If wrong, should not its extension bestopped? That was the issue, and all the arguments, constitutional andsocial, turned on that point. 

The greatest single journalistic influence was the _New York WeeklyTribune_ which had in 1854 a circulation of 112, 000, and many times thatnumber of readers. These readers were of the thorough kind, reading allthe news, all the printed speeches and addresses, and all theeditorials, and pondering as they read. The questions were discussed intheir family circles and with their neighbors, and, as differencesarose, the _Tribune_, always at hand, was consulted and re-read. Therebeing few popular magazines during this decade, the weekly newspaper, insome degree, took their place; and, through this medium, Greeley andhis able coadjutors spoke to the people of New York and of the West, where New England ideas predominated, with a power never before or sinceknown in this country. When Motley was studying the old letters anddocuments of the sixteenth century in the archives of Brussels, hewrote: "It is something to read the real _bona fide_ signs manual ofsuch fellows as William of Orange, Count Egmont, Alexander Farnese, Philip the Second, Cardinal Granville and the rest of them. It gives a'realizing sense, ' as the Americans have it. " I had somewhat of the samefeeling as I turned over the pages of the bound volumes of the _WeeklyTribune_, reading the editorials and letters of Greeley, the articles ofDana and Hildreth. I could recall enough of the time to feel theinfluence of this political bible, as it was termed, and I canemphatically say that if you want to penetrate into the thoughts, feelings, and ground of decision of the 1, 866, 000 men who voted forLincoln in 1860, you should study with care the _New York WeeklyTribune_. 

One reason why the press was a better representative of opinion duringthe years from 1854 to 1860 than now is that there were few, if any, independent journals. The party man read his own newspaper and no other;in that, he found an expression of his own views. And the partynewspaper in the main printed only the speeches and arguments of its ownside. Greeley on one occasion was asked by John Russell Young, anassociate, for permission to reprint a speech of Horatio Seymour in fullas a matter of news. "Yes, " Greeley said, "I will print Seymour's speechwhen the _World_ will print those of our side. "

Before the war, Charleston was one of the most interesting cities of thecountry. It was a small aristocratic community, with an air ofrefinement and distinction. The story of Athens proclaims that a largepopulation is not necessary to exercise a powerful influence on theworld; and, after the election of Lincoln in 1860, the 40, 000 people ofCharleston, or rather the few patricians who controlled its fate andthat of South Carolina, attracted the attention of the whole country. The story of the secession movement of November and December, 1860, cannot be told with correctness and life without frequent references tothe _Charleston Mercury_ and the _Charleston Courier_. The _Mercury_especially was an index of opinion, and so vivid is its daily chronicleof events that the historian is able to put himself in the place ofthose ardent South Carolinians and understand their point of view. 

For the history of the Civil War, newspapers are not so important. Theother material is superabundant, and in choosing from the mass of it, the newspapers, so-far as affairs at the North are concerned, need onlybe used in special cases, and rarely for matters of fact. The accountsof campaigns and battles, which filled so much of their space, may beignored, as the best possible authorities for these are the one hundredand twenty-eight volumes of the United States government publication, the "Official Records of the Union and Confederate armies. " The faithfulstudy of the correspondence and the reports in these unique volumes isabsolutely essential to a comprehension of the war; and it is a labor oflove. When one thinks of the mass of manuscripts students of certainperiods of European history have been obliged to read, the Americanhistorian is profoundly grateful to his government, that at a cost toitself of nearly three million dollars, [45] it has furnished him thispriceless material in neatly printed volumes with excellent indexes. Theserious student can generally procure these volumes gratis through thefavor of his congressman; or, failing in this, may purchase the set at amoderate price, so that he is not obliged to go to a public library toconsult them. 

Next to manuscript material, the physical and mental labor of turningover and reading bound volumes of newspapers is the most severe, and Iremember my feeling of relief at being able to divert my attention fromwhat Edward L. Pierce called this back-breaking and eye-destroyinglabor, much of it in public libraries, to these convenient books in myown private library. A mass of other materials, notably Nicolay andHay's contributions, military narratives, biographies, privatecorrespondence, to say nothing of the Congressional publications, renderthe student fairly independent of the newspapers. But I did myself make, for certain periods, special researches among them to ascertain theirinfluence on public sentiment; and I also found them very useful in myaccount of the New York draft riots of 1863. It is true the press didnot accurately reflect the gloom and sickness of heart at the Northafter the battle of Chancellorsville, for the reason that many editorswrote for the purpose of keeping up the hopes of their readers. In sum, the student may congratulate himself that a continuous study of theNorthern newspapers for the period of the Civil War is unnecessary, fortheir size and diffuseness are appalling. 

But what I have said about the press of the North will not apply to thatof the South. Though strenuous efforts have been made, with the diligentcoöperation of Southern men, to secure the utmost possible amount ofConfederate material for the "Official Records, " it actually forms onlyabout twenty-nine per cent of the whole matter. Other historicalmaterial is also less copious. For example, there is no record of theproceedings of the Confederate Congress, like the _Globe_; there are noreports of committees, like that of the Committee on the Conduct of theWar; and even the journal of the Congress was kept on loose memoranda, and not written up until after the close of the war. With the exceptionof this journal, which has been printed by our government, and the"Statutes at Large, " our information of the work of the ConfederateCongress comes from the newspapers and some books of biography andrecollections. The case of the Southern States was peculiar, becausethey were so long cut off from intercourse with the outer world, owingto the efficient Federal blockade; and the newspaper in its local news, editorials, and advertisements, is important material for portrayinglife in the Confederacy during the Civil War. Fortunately for thestudent, the Southern newspaper was not the same voluminous issue as theNorthern, and, if it had not been badly printed, its use would beattended with little difficulty. Owing to the scarcity of paper, many ofthe newspapers were gradually reduced in size, and in the end wereprinted on half-sheets, occasionally one on brown paper, and another onwall paper; even the white paper was frequently coarse, and this, withpoor type, made the news-sheet itself a daily record of the waningfortunes of the Confederacy. 

In the history of Reconstruction the historian may be to a large extentindependent of the daily newspaper. For the work of reconstruction wasdone by Congress, and Congress had the full support of the Northernpeople, as was shown by the continuous large Republican majority whichwas maintained. The debates, the reports, and the acts of Congress areessential, and little else is required except whatever privatecorrespondence may be accessible. Congress represented public sentimentof the North, and if one desires newspaper opinion, one may find it inmany pithy expressions on the floor of the House or the Senate. For thecongressman and the senator are industrious newspaper readers. They areapt to read some able New York journal which speaks for their party, andthe congressman will read the daily and weekly newspapers of hisdistrict, and the senator the prominent ones of his state which belongto his party. 

For the period which covered Reconstruction, from 1865 to 1877, I usedthe _Nation_ to a large extent. Its bound volumes are convenient tohandle in one's own library, and its summary of events is useful initself, and as giving leads to the investigation of other material. Frequently its editorials have spoken for the sober sense of the peoplewith amazing success. As a constant reader of the _Nation_ since 1866, Ihave felt the fascination of Godkin, and have been consciously on guardagainst it. I tried not to be led away by his incisive statements andsometimes uncharitable judgments. But whatever may be thought of hisbias, he had an honest mind, and was incapable of knowingly making afalse statement; and this, with his other qualities, makes his journalexcellent historical material. After considering with great care somefriendly criticism, I can truly say that I have no apology to make forthe extent to which I used the _Nation_. 

Recurring now to the point with which I began this discussion, --thatlearned prejudice against employing newspapers as historicalmaterial, --I wish to add that, like all other evidence, they must beused with care and skepticism, as one good authority is undoubtedlybetter than a dozen poor ones. An anecdote I heard years ago has beenuseful to me in weighing different historical evidence. APennsylvania-Dutch justice of the peace in one of the interior townshipsof Ohio had a man arraigned before him for stealing a pig. One witnessswore that he distinctly saw the theft committed; eight swore that theynever saw the accused steal a pig, and the verdict was worthy ofDogberry. "I discharge the accused, " said the justice. "The testimony ofeight men is certainly worth more than the testimony of one. "

Private and confidential correspondence is highly valuable historicalmaterial, for such utterances are less constrained and more sincere thanpublic declarations; but all men cannot be rated alike. Some men havelied as freely in private letters as in public speeches; therefore thehistorian must get at the character of the man who has written theletter and the influences surrounding him; these factors must count inany satisfactory estimate of his accuracy and truth. The newspaper mustbe subjected to similar tests. For example, to test an article or publicletter written by Greeley or Godkin, the general situation, thesurrounding influences, and the individual bias must be taken intoaccount, and, when allowance is made for these circumstances, as well asfor the public character of the utterance, it may be used for historicalevidence. For the history of the last half of the nineteenth centuryjust such material--the material of the fourth estate--must be used. Neglect of it would be like neglect of the third estate in the historyof France for the eighteenth century. 

In the United States we have not, politically speaking, either the firstor second estates, but we have the third and fourth estates with anintimate connection between the two. Lord Cromer said, when writing ofthe sending of Gordon to the Soudan, "Newspaper government has certaindisadvantages;" and this he emphasized by quoting a wise remark of SirGeorge Cornewall Lewis, "Anonymous authorship places the public underthe direction of guides who have no sense of personal responsibility. "Nevertheless this newspaper government must be reckoned with. The dutyof the historian is, not to decide if the newspapers are as good as theyought to be, but to measure their influence on the present, and torecognize their importance as an ample and contemporary record of thepast. 

 [45] $2, 858, 514, without including the pay of army officers detailed from time to time for duty in connection with the work. Official Records, 130, V. 

SPEECH PREPARED FOR THE COMMENCEMENTDINNER AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY

June 26, 1901 (not delivered). 

SPEECH PREPARED FOR THE COMMENCEMENTDINNER AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Thanking heartily the governing boards of Harvard College for the honorconferred upon me, I shall say, on this my first admission to the circleof the Harvard alumni, a word on the University as it appears to onewhose work has lain outside of it. The spirit of the academy in generaland especially of this University impels men to get to the bottom ofthings, to strive after exact knowledge; and this spirit permeates myown study of history in a remarkable degree. "The first of all Gospelsis this, " said Carlyle, "that a lie cannot endure forever. " This is thegospel of historical students. A part of their work has been to exposepopular fallacies, and to show up errors which have been made throughpartiality and misguided patriotism or because of incompleteinvestigation. Men of my age are obliged to unlearn much. The youthfulstudent of history has a distinct advantage over us in that he beginswith a correct knowledge of the main historical facts. He does not forexample learn what we all used to learn--that in the year 1000 theappearance of a fiery comet caused a panic of terror to fall uponChristendom and gave rise to the belief that the end of the world was athand. Nor is he taught that the followers of Peter the Hermit in thefirst crusade were a number of spiritually minded men and women ofaustere morality. It is to the University that we owe it that we areseeing things as they are in history, that the fables, the fallacies, and the exaggerations are disappearing from the books. 

To regard the past with accuracy and truth is a preparation forenvisaging the present in the same way. For this attitude towards thepast and the present gained by college students of history, and forother reasons which it is not necessary here to detail, the man ofUniversity training has, other things being equal, this advantage overhim who lacks it, that in life in the world he will get at things morecertainly and state them more accurately. 

"A university, " said Lowell, "is a place where nothing useful istaught. " By utility Lowell undoubtedly meant, to use the definitionwhich Huxley puts into the average Englishman's mouth, "that by which weget pudding or praise or both. " A natural reply to the statement ofLowell is that great numbers of fathers every year, at a pecuniarysacrifice, send their sons to college with the idea of fitting thembetter to earn their living, in obedience to the general sentiment ofmen of this country that there is a money value to college training. Butthe remark of Lowell suggests another object of the University which, touse the words of Huxley again, is "to catch the exceptional people, theglorious sports of nature, and turn them to account for the good ofsociety. " This appeals to those imbued with the spirit of the academywho frankly acknowledge, in the main, our inferiority in thescholarship, which produces great works of literature and science, toEngland, Germany, and France, and who with patriotic eagerness wish thatwe may reach the height attained in the older countries. To recur to myown study again, should we produce a historian or historical writer theequal of Gibbon, Mommsen, Carlyle, or Macaulay there would be a feelingof pride in our historical genius which would make itself felt at everyacademical and historical gathering. We have something of that sentimentin regard to Francis Parkman, our most original historian. But it maybe that the historical field of Parkman is too narrow to awaken aworld-wide interest and I suspect that the American who will berecognized as the equal of Gibbon, Mommsen, Carlyle, or Macaulay mustsecure that recognition by writing of some period of European historybetter than the Englishman, German, or Frenchman has written of it. Hemust do it not only in the way of scientific history, in which in hisfield Henry Charles Lea has won so much honor for himself and hiscountry, but he must bring to bear on his history that quality which hasmade the historical writings of Gibbon, Carlyle, and Macaulayliterature. 

EDWARD GIBBON

Lecture read at Harvard University, April 6, 1908, and printed in_Scribner's Magazine_, June, 1909. 

EDWARD GIBBON

No English or American lover of history visits Rome without bendingreverent footsteps to the Church of Santa Maria in Ara Coeli. Two visitsare necessary, as on the first you are at once seized by the sacristan, who can conceive of no other motive for entering this church on theCapitol Hill than to see the miraculous Bambino--the painted dollswaddled in gold and silver tissue and "crusted over with magnificentdiamonds, emeralds, and rubies. " When you have heard the tale of whathas been called "the oldest medical practitioner in Rome, " of hismiraculous cures, of these votive offerings, the imaginary picture youhad conjured up is effaced; and it is better to go away and come asecond time when the sacristan will recognize you and leave you toyourself. Then you may open your Gibbon's Autobiography and read that itwas the subtle influence of Italy and Rome that determined the choice, from amongst many contemplated subjects of historical writing, of "TheDecline and Fall of the Roman Empire. " "In my Journal, " wrote Gibbon, "the place and moment of conception are recorded; the 15th of October, 1764, in the close of the evening, as I sat musing in the Church of theFranciscan friars while they were singing vespers in the Temple ofJupiter on the ruins of the Capitol. "[46] Gibbon was twenty-seven whenhe made this fruitful visit of eighteen weeks to Rome, and his firstimpression, though often quoted, never loses interest, showing, as itdoes, the enthusiasm of an unemotional man. "At the distance oftwenty-five years, " he wrote, "I can neither forget nor express thestrong emotions which agitated my mind as I first approached and enteredthe _Eternal City_. After a sleepless night, I trod with a lofty stepthe ruins of the Forum; each memorable spot where Romulus _stood_ orCicero spoke or Cæsar fell was at once present to my eye. "

The admirer of Gibbon as he travels northward will stop at Lausanne andvisit the hotel which bears the historian's name. Twice have I takenluncheon in the garden where he wrote the last words of his history; andon a third visit, after lunching at another inn, I could not fail toadmire the penetration of the Swiss concierge. As I alighted, he seemedto divine at once the object of my visit, and before I had half thewords of explanation out of my mouth, he said, "Oh, yes. It is this way. But I cannot show you anything but a spot. " I have quoted from Gibbon'sAutobiography the expression of his inspiration of twenty-seven; afitting companion-piece is the reflection of the man of fifty. "I havepresumed to mark the moment of conception, " he wrote; "I shall nowcommemorate the hour of my final deliverance. It was on the day, orrather the night, of the 27th of June, 1787, between the hours of elevenand twelve, that I wrote the last lines of the last page in asummer-house in my garden. .. . I will not dissemble the first emotions ofjoy on the recovery of my freedom and perhaps the establishment of myfame. But my pride was soon humbled, and a sober melancholy was spreadover my mind by the idea that I had taken my everlasting leave of an oldand agreeable companion. "[47]

Although the idea was conceived when Gibbon was twenty-seven, he wasthirty-one before he set himself seriously at work to study hismaterial. At thirty-six he began the composition, and he wasthirty-nine, when, in February, 1776, the first quarto volume waspublished. The history had an immediate success. "My book, " he wrote, "was on every table and almost on every toilette; the historian wascrowned by the taste or fashion of the day. "[48] The first edition wasexhausted in a few days, a second was printed in 1776, and next year athird. The second and third volumes, which ended the history of theWestern empire, were published in 1781, and seven years later the threevolumes devoted to the Eastern empire saw the light. The last sentenceof the work, written in the summer-house at Lausanne, is, "It was amongthe ruins of the Capitol that I first conceived the idea of a work whichhas amused and exercised near twenty years of my life, and which, however inadequate to my own wishes, I finally deliver to the curiosityand candor of the public. "

This is a brief account of one of the greatest historical works, ifindeed it is not the greatest, ever written. Let us imagine anassemblage of English, German, and American historical scholars calledupon to answer the question, Who is the greatest modern historian? Nodoubt can exist that Gibbon would have a large majority of the voices;and I think a like meeting of French and Italian scholars would indorsethe verdict. "Gibbon's work will never be excelled, " declaredNiebuhr. [49] "That great master of us all, " said Freeman, "whoseimmortal tale none of us can hope to displace. "[50] Bury, the latesteditor of Gibbon, who has acutely criticised and carefully weighed "TheDecline and Fall, " concludes "that Gibbon is behind date in manydetails. But in the main things he is still our master, above and beyonddate. "[51] His work wins plaudits from those who believe that historyin its highest form should be literature and from those who hold that itshould be nothing more than a scientific narrative. The disciples ofMacaulay and Carlyle, of Stubbs and Gardiner, would be found voting inunison in my imaginary Congress. Gibbon, writes Bury, is "the historianand the man of letters, " thus ranking with Thucydides and Tacitus. Thesethree are put in the highest class, exemplifying that "brilliance ofstyle and accuracy of statement are perfectly compatible in anhistorian. "[52] Accepting this authoritative classification it is wellworth while to point out the salient differences between the ancienthistorians and the modern. From Thucydides we have twenty-four years ofcontemporary history of his own country. If the whole of the Annals andHistory of Tacitus had come down to us, we should have had eighty-threeyears; as it is, we actually have forty-one of nearly contemporaryhistory of the Roman Empire. Gibbon's tale covers 1240 years. He wentfar beyond his own country for his subject, and the date of histermination is three centuries before he was born. Milman spoke of "theamplitude, the magnificence, and the harmony of Gibbon's design, "[53]and Bury writes, "If we take into account the vast range of his work, his accuracy is amazing. "[54] Men have wondered and will long wonder atthe brain with such a grasp and with the power to execute skillfully somighty a conception. "The public is seldom wrong" in their judgment of abook, wrote Gibbon in his Autobiography, [55] and, if that be true at thetime of actual publication to which Gibbon intended to apply the remark, how much truer it is in the long run of years. "The Decline and Fall ofthe Roman Empire" has had a life of over one hundred and thirty years, and there is no indication that it will not endure as long as anyinterest is taken in the study of history. "I have never presumed toaccept a place in the triumvirate of British historians, " said Gibbon, referring to Hume and Robertson. But in our day Hume and Robertsongather dust on the shelf, while Gibbon is continually studied bystudents and read by serious men. 

A work covering Gibbon's vast range of time would have been impossiblefor Thucydides or Tacitus. Historical skepticism had not been fullyenough developed. There had not been a sufficient sifting and criticismof historical materials for a master's work of synthesis. And it isprobable that Thucydides lacked a model. Tacitus could indeed have drawninspiration from the Greek, while Gibbon had lessons from both, showinga profound study of Tacitus and a thorough acquaintance with Thucydides. 

If circumstances then made it impossible for the Greek or the Roman toattempt history on the grand scale of Gibbon, could Gibbon have writtencontemporary history with accuracy and impartiality equal to his greatpredecessors? This is one of those delightful questions that may be everdiscussed and never resolved. When twenty-three years old, arguingagainst the desire of his father that he should go into Parliament, Gibbon assigned, as one of the reasons, that he lacked "necessaryprejudices of party and of nation";[56] and when in middle life heembraced the fortunate opportunity of becoming a member of the House ofCommons, he thus summed up his experience, "The eight sessions that Isat in Parliament were a school of civil prudence, the first and mostessential virtue of an historian. "[57] At the end of this politicalcareer, Gibbon, in a private letter to an intimate Swiss friend, gavethe reason why he had embraced it. "I entered Parliament, " he said, "without patriotism, and without ambition, and I had no other aim thanto secure the comfortable and honest place of a _Lord of Trade_. Iobtained this place at last. I held it for three years, from 1779 to1782, and the net annual product of it, being £750 sterling, increasedmy revenue to the level of my wants and desires. "[58] His retirementfrom Parliament was followed by ten years' residence at Lausanne, in thefirst four of which he completed his history. A year and a half afterhis removal to Lausanne, he referred, in a letter to his closest friend, Lord Sheffield, to the "abyss of your cursed politics, " and added: "Inever was a very warm patriot and I grow every day a citizen of theworld. The scramble for power and profit at Westminster or St. James's, and the names of Pitt and Fox become less interesting to me than thoseof Cæsar and Pompey. "[59]

These expressions would seem to indicate that Gibbon might have writtencontemporary history well and that the candor displayed in "The Declineand Fall" might not have been lacking had he written of England in hisown time. But that subject he never contemplated. When twenty-four yearsold he had however considered a number of English periods and finallyfixed upon Sir Walter Raleigh for his hero; but a year later, he wrotein his journal: "I shrink with terror from the modern history ofEngland, where every character is a problem, and every reader a friendor an enemy; where a writer is supposed to hoist a flag of party and isdevoted to damnation by the adverse faction. .. . I must embrace a saferand more extensive theme. "[60]

How well Gibbon knew himself! Despite his coolness and candor, war andrevolution revealed his strong Tory prejudices, which he undoubtedlyfeared might color any history of England that he might undertake. "Itook my seat, " in the House of Commons, he wrote, "at the beginning ofthe memorable contest between Great Britain and America; and supportedwith many a sincere and _silent_ vote the rights though perhaps not theinterests of the mother country. "[61] In 1782 he recorded theconclusion: "The American war had once been the favorite of the country, the pride of England was irritated by the resistance of her colonies, and the executive power was driven by national clamor into the mostvigorous and coercive measures. " But it was a fruitless contest. Armieswere lost; the debt and taxes were increased; the hostile confederacy ofFrance, Spain and Holland was disquieting. As a result the war becameunpopular and Lord North's ministry fell. Dr. Johnson thought that nonation not absolutely conquered had declined so much in so short a time. "We seem to be sinking, " he said. "I am afraid of a civil war. " Dr. Franklin, according to Horace Walpole, said "he would furnish Mr. Gibbonwith materials for writing the History of the Decline of the BritishEmpire. " With his country tottering, the self-centered but truthfulGibbon could not avoid mention of his personal loss, due to the fall ofhis patron, Lord North. "I was stripped of a convenient salary, " hesaid, "after having enjoyed it about three years. "[62]

The outbreak of the French Revolution intensified his conservatism. Hewas then at Lausanne, the tranquillity of which was broken up by thedissolution of the neighboring kingdom. Many Lausanne families wereterrified by the menace of bankruptcy. "This town and country, " Gibbonwrote, "are crowded with noble exiles, and we sometimes count in anassembly a dozen princesses and duchesses. "[63] Bitter disputes betweenthem and the triumphant Democrats disturbed the harmony of socialcircles. Gibbon espoused the cause of the royalists. "I beg leave tosubscribe my assent to Mr. Burke's creed on the Revolution of France, "he wrote. "I admire his eloquence, I approve his politics, I adore hischivalry, and I can almost excuse his reverence for Churchestablishments. "[64] Thirteen days after the massacre of the Swiss guardin the attack on the Tuileries in August, 1792, Gibbon wrote to LordSheffield, "The last revolution of Paris appears to have convincedalmost everybody of the fatal consequences of Democratical principleswhich lead by a path of flowers into the abyss of hell. "[65] Gibbon, whowas astonished by so few things in history, wrote Sainte-Beuve, wasamazed by the French Revolution. [66] Nothing could be more natural. Thehistorian in his study may consider the fall of dynasties, socialupheavals, violent revolutions, and the destruction of order without atremor. The things have passed away. The events furnish food for hisreflections and subjects for his pen, while sanguine uprisings at homeor in a neighboring country in his own time inspire him with terror lestthe oft-prophesied dissolution of society is at hand. It is thedifference between the earthquake in your own city and the one 3000miles away. As Gibbon's pocket-nerve was sensitive, it may be he wasalso thinking of the £1300 he had invested in 1784 in the new loan ofthe King of France, deeming the French funds as solid as theEnglish. [67]

It is well now to repeat our dictum that Gibbon is the greatest modernhistorian, but, in reasserting this, it is no more than fair to cite theopinions of two dissentients--the great literary historians of thenineteenth century, Macaulay and Carlyle. "The truth is, " wrote Macaulayin his diary, "that I admire no historians much except Herodotus, Thucydides, and Tacitus. .. . There is merit no doubt in Hume, Robertson, Voltaire, and Gibbon. Yet it is not the thing. I have a conception ofhistory more just, I am confident, than theirs. "[68] "Gibbon, " saidCarlyle in a public lecture, is "a greater historian than Robertson butnot so great as Hume. With all his swagger and bombast, no man ever gavea more futile account of human things than he has done of the declineand fall of the Roman Empire; assigning no profound cause for thesephenomena, nothing but diseased nerves, and all sorts of miserablemotives, to the actors in them. "[69] Carlyle's statement shows enviouscriticism as well as a prejudice in favor of his brother Scotchman. Itwas made in 1838, since when opinion has raised Gibbon to the top, forhe actually lives while Hume is read perfunctorily, if at all. Moreoveramong the three--Gibbon, Macaulay, and Carlyle--whose works areliterature as well as history, modern criticism has no hesitation inawarding the palm to Gibbon. 

Before finally deciding upon his subject Gibbon thought of "The Historyof the Liberty of the Swiss" and "The History of the Republic ofFlorence under the House of Medicis, "[70] but in the end, as we haveseen, he settled on the later history of the Roman Empire, showing, asLowell said of Parkman, his genius in the choice of his subject. Hishistory really begins with the death of Marcus Aurelius, 180 A. D. , butthe main narrative is preceded by three excellent introductory chapters, covering in Bury's edition eighty-two pages. After the completion of hiswork, he regretted that he had not begun it at an earlier period. Onthe first page of his own printed copy of his book where he announceshis design, he has entered this marginal note: "Should I not have giventhe _history_ of that fortunate period which was interposed between twoiron ages? Should I not have deduced the decline of the Empire from theCivil Wars that ensued after the Fall of Nero or even from the tyrannywhich succeeded the reign of Augustus? Alas! I should; but of what availis this tardy knowledge?"[71] We may echo Gibbon's regret that he hadnot commenced his history with the reign of Tiberius, as, in hisnecessary use of Tacitus, we should have had the running comment of onegreat historian on another, of which we have a significant example inGibbon's famous sixteenth chapter wherein he discusses Tacitus's accountof the persecution of the Christians by Nero. With his power of historicdivination, he would have so absorbed Tacitus and his time that thehistory would almost have seemed a collaboration between two great andsympathetic minds. "Tacitus, " he wrote, "very frequently trusts to thecuriosity or reflection of his readers to supply those intermediatecircumstances and ideas, which, in his extreme conciseness, he hasthought proper to suppress. "[72] How Gibbon would have filled thosegaps! Though he was seldom swayed by enthusiasm, his admiration of theRoman historian fell little short of idolatry. His references in "TheDecline and Fall" are many, and some of them are here worth recalling tomind. "In their primitive state of simplicity and independence, " hewrote, "the Germans were surveyed by the discerning eye and delineatedby the masterly pencil of Tacitus, the first of historians who appliedthe science of philosophy to the study of facts. "[73] Again he speaks ofhim as "the philosophic historian whose writings will instruct the lastgeneration of mankind. "[74] And in Chapter XVI he devoted five pages tocitation from, and comment on, Tacitus, and paid him one of the mostsplendid tributes one historian ever paid another. "To collect, todispose, and to adorn a series of fourscore years in an immortal work, every sentence of which is pregnant with the deepest observations andthe most lively images, was an undertaking sufficient to exercise thegenius of Tacitus himself during the greatest part of his life. "[75] Somuch for admiration. That, nevertheless, Gibbon could wield the criticalpen at the expense of the historian he rated so highly, is shown by amarginal note in his own printed copy of "The Decline and Fall. " It willbe remembered that Tacitus published his History and wrote his Annalsduring the reign of Trajan, whom he undoubtedly respected and admired. He referred to the reigns of Nerva and Trajan in suggested contrast tothat of Domitian as "times when men were blessed with the rare privilegeof thinking with freedom, and uttering what they thought. "[76] It fellto both Tacitus and Gibbon to speak of the testament of Augustus which, after his death, was read in the Senate: and Tacitus wrote, Augustus"added a recommendation to keep the empire within fixed limits, " onwhich he thus commented, "but whether from apprehension for its safety, or jealousy of future rivals, is uncertain. "[77] Gibbon thus criticisedthis comment: "Why must rational advice be imputed to a base or foolishmotive? To what cause, error, malevolence, or flattery, shall I ascribethe unworthy alternative? Was the historian dazzled by Trajan'sconquests?"[78]

The intellectual training of the greatest modern historian is a matterof great interest. "From my early youth, " wrote Gibbon in hisAutobiography, "I aspired to the character of an historian. "[79] He had"an early and invincible love of reading" which he said he "would notexchange for the treasures of India" and which led him to a "vague andmultifarious" perusal of books. Before he reached the age of fifteen hewas matriculated at Magdalen College, giving this account of hispreparation. "I arrived at Oxford, " he said, "with a stock of eruditionthat might have puzzled a Doctor and a degree of ignorance of which aschoolboy would have been ashamed. "[80] He did not adapt himself to thelife or the method of Oxford, and from them apparently derived nobenefit. "I spent fourteen months at Magdalen College, " he wrote; "theyproved the fourteen months the most idle and unprofitable of my wholelife. "[81] He became a Roman Catholic. It was quite characteristic ofthis bookish man that his conversion was effected, not by the emotionalinfluence of some proselytizer, but by the reading of books. Englishtranslations of two famous works of Bossuet fell into his hands. "Iread, " he said, "I applauded, I believed . .. And I surely fell by anoble hand. " Before a priest in London, on June 8, 1753, he privately"abjured the errors of heresy" and was admitted into the "pale of thechurch. " But at that time this was a serious business for both priestand proselyte. For the rule laid down by Blackstone was this, "Where aperson is reconciled to the see of Rome, or procures others to bereconciled, the offence amounts to High-Treason. " This severe rule wasnot enforced, but there were milder laws under which a priest mightsuffer perpetual imprisonment and the proselyte's estate be transferredto his nearest relations. Under such laws prosecutions were had andconvictions obtained. Little wonder was it when Gibbon apprised hisfather in an "elaborate controversial epistle" of the serious stepwhich he had taken, that the elder Gibbon should be astonished andindignant. In his passion he divulged the secret which effectuallyclosed the gates of Magdalen College to his son, [82] who was packed offto Lausanne and "settled under the roof and tuition" of a Calvinistminister. [83] Edward Gibbon passed nearly five years at Lausanne, fromthe age of sixteen to that of twenty-one, and they were fruitful yearsfor his education. It was almost entirely an affair of self-training, ashis tutor soon perceived that the student had gone beyond the teacherand allowed him to pursue his own special bent. After his history waspublished and his fame won, he recorded this opinion: "In the life ofevery man of letters there is an æra, from a level, from whence he soarswith his own wings to his proper height, and the most important part ofhis education is that which he bestows on himself. "[84] This wascertainly true in Gibbon's case. On his arrival at Lausanne he hardlyknew any French, but before he returned to England he thoughtspontaneously in French and understood, spoke, and wrote it better thanhe did his mother tongue. [85] He read Montesquieu frequently and wasstruck with his "energy of style and boldness of hypothesis. " Among thebooks which "may have remotely contributed to form the historian of theRoman Empire" were the Provincial Letters of Pascal, which he read "witha new pleasure" almost every year. From them he said, "I learned tomanage the weapon of grave and temperate irony, even on subjects ofecclesiastical solemnity. " As one thinks of his chapters in "The Declineand Fall" on Julian, one is interested to know that during this periodhe was introduced to the life and times of this Roman emperor by a bookwritten by a French abbé. He read Locke, Grotius, and Puffendorf, butunquestionably his greatest knowledge, mental discipline, and peculiarmastery of his own tongue came from his diligent and systematic study ofthe Latin classics. He read nearly all of the historians, poets, orators, and philosophers, going over for a second or even a third timeTerence, Virgil, Horace, and Tacitus. He mastered Cicero's Orations andLetters so that they became ingrained in his mental fiber, and he termedthese and his other works, "a library of eloquence and reason. " "As Iread Cicero, " he wrote, "I applauded the observation of Quintilian, thatevery student may judge of his own proficiency by the satisfaction whichhe receives from the Roman orator. " And again, "Cicero's epistles may inparticular afford the models of every form of correspondence from thecareless effusions of tenderness and friendship to the well-guardeddeclaration of discreet and dignified resentment. "[86] Gibbon nevermastered Greek as he did Latin; and Dr. Smith, one of his editors, points out where he has fallen into three errors from the use of theFrench or Latin translation of Procopius instead of consulting theoriginal. [87] Indeed he himself has disclosed one defect ofself-training. Referring to his youthful residence at Lausanne, hewrote: "I worked my way through about half the Iliad, and afterwardsinterpreted alone a large portion of Xenophon and Herodotus. But myardor, destitute of aid and emulation, was gradually cooled and, fromthe barren task of searching words in a lexicon, I withdrew to the freeand familiar conversation of Virgil and Tacitus. "[88]

All things considered, however, it was an excellent training for ahistorian of the Roman Empire. But all except the living knowledge ofFrench he might have had in his "elegant apartment in Magdalen College"just as well as in his "ill-contrived and ill-furnished small chamber"in "an old inconvenient house, " situated in a "narrow gloomy street, themost unfrequented of an unhandsome town";[89] and in Oxford he wouldhave had the "aid and emulation" of which at Lausanne he sadly felt thelack. 

The Calvinist minister, his tutor, was a more useful guide for Gibbon inthe matter of religion than in his intellectual training. Through hisefforts and Gibbon's "private reflections, " Christmas Day, 1754, oneyear and a half after his arrival at Lausanne, was witness to hisreconversion, as he then received the sacrament in the CalvinisticChurch. "The articles of the Romish creed, " he said, had "disappearedlike a dream"; and he wrote home to his aunt, "I am now a goodProtestant and am extremely glad of it. "[90]

An intellectual and social experience of value was his meeting withVoltaire, who had set up a theater in the neighborhood of Lausanne forthe performance mainly of his own plays. Gibbon seldom failed to procurea ticket to these representations. Voltaire played the parts suited tohis years; his declamation, Gibbon thought, was old-fashioned, and "heexpressed the enthusiasm of poetry rather than the feelings of nature. ""The parts of the young and fair, " he said, "were distorted byVoltaire's fat and ugly niece. " Despite this criticism, theseperformances fostered a taste for the French theater, to the abatementof his idolatry for Shakespeare, which seemed to him to be "inculcatedfrom our infancy as the first duty of an Englishman. "[91] Personally, Voltaire and Gibbon did not get on well together. Dr. Hill suggests thatVoltaire may have slighted the "English youth, " and if this is correct, Gibbon was somewhat spiteful to carry the feeling more than thirtyyears. Besides the criticism of the acting, he called Voltaire "theenvious bard" because it was only with much reluctance and ill-humorthat he permitted the performance of Iphigenie of Racine. Nevertheless, Gibbon is impressed with the social influence of the great Frenchman. "The wit and philosophy of Voltaire, his table and theatre, " he wrote, "refined in a visible degree the manners of Lausanne, and howeveraddicted to study, I enjoyed my share of the amusements of society. After the theatrical representations, I sometimes supped with theactors: I was now familiar in some, and acquainted in many, houses; andmy evenings were generally devoted to cards and conversation, either inprivate parties or numerous assemblies. "[92]

Gibbon was twenty-one when he returned to England. Dividing his timebetween London and the country, he continued his self-culture. He readEnglish, French, and Latin, and took up the study of Greek. "Every day, every hour, " he wrote, "was agreeably filled"; and "I was never lessalone than when by myself. "[93] He read repeatedly Robertson and Hume, and has in the words of Sainte-Beuve left a testimony so spirited and sodelicately expressed as could have come only from a man of taste whoappreciated Xenophon. [94] "The perfect composition, the nervouslanguage, " wrote Gibbon, "the well-turned periods of Dr. Robertsoninflamed me to the ambitious hope that I might one day tread in hisfootsteps; the calm philosophy, the careless inimitable beauties of hisfriend and rival, often forced me to close the volume with a mixedsensation of delight and despair. "[95] He made little progress in Londonsociety and his solitary evenings were passed with his books, but heconsoled himself by thinking that he lost nothing by a withdrawal from a"noisy and expensive scene of crowds without company, and dissipationwithout pleasure. " At twenty-four he published his "Essay on the Studyof Literature, " begun at Lausanne and written entirely in French. Thispossesses no interest for the historical student except to know the barefact of the writing and publication as a step in the intellectualdevelopment of the historian. Sainte-Beuve in his two essays on Gibbondevoted three pages to an abstract and criticism of it, perhaps becauseit had a greater success in France than in England; and his opinion ofGibbon's language is interesting. "The French" Sainte-Beuve wrote, "isthat of one who has read Montesquieu much and imitates him; it iscorrect, but artificial French. "[96]

Then followed two and a half years' service in the Hampshire militia. But he did not neglect his reading. He mastered Homer, whom he termed"the Bible of the ancients, " and in the militia he acquired "a just andindelible knowledge" of what he called "the first of languages. " And hislove for Latin abided also: "On every march, in every journey, Horacewas always in my pocket and often in my hand. "[97] Practical knowledgehe absorbed almost insensibly. "The daily occupations of the militia, "he wrote, "introduced me to the science of Tactics" and led to the studyof "the precepts of Polybius and Cæsar. " In this connection occurs theremark which admirers of Gibbon will never tire of citing: "A familiarview of the discipline and evolutions of a modern battalion gave me aclearer notion of the Phalanx and the Legion; and the Captain of theHampshire Grenadiers (the reader may smile) has not been useless to thehistorian of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. "[98] The grandtour followed his militia service. Three and a half months in Paris, anda revisit to Lausanne preceded the year that he passed in Italy. Of theconception of the History of the Decline and Fall, during his stay inRome, I have already spoken. 

On his return to England, contemplating "the decline and fall of Rome atan awful distance, " he began, in collaboration with the Swiss Deyverdun, his bosom friend, a history of Switzerland written in French. During thewinter of 1767, the first book of it was submitted to a literary societyof foreigners in London. As the author was unknown the strictures werefree and the verdict unfavorable. Gibbon was present at the meeting andrelated that "the momentary sensation was painful, " but, on coolerreflection, he agreed with his judges and intended to consign hismanuscript to the flames. But this, as Lord Sheffield, his literaryexecutor and first editor, shows conclusively, he neglected to do. [99]This essay of Gibbon's possesses interest for us, inasmuch as David Humeread it, and wrote to Gibbon a friendly letter, in which he said: "Ihave perused your manuscript with great pleasure and satisfaction. Ihave only one objection, derived from the language in which it iswritten. Why do you compose in French, and carry faggots into the wood, as Horace says with regard to Romans who wrote in Greek?"[100] Thiscritical query of Hume must have profoundly influenced Gibbon. Next yearhe began to work seriously on "The Decline and Fall" and five yearslater began the composition of it in English. It does not appear that hehad any idea of writing his magnum opus in French. 

In this rambling discourse, in which I have purposely avoided relatingthe life of Gibbon in anything like a chronological order, we returnagain and again to the great History. And it could not well beotherwise. For if Edward Gibbon could not have proudly said, I am theauthor of "six volumes in quartos"[101] he would have had no interestfor us. Dr. Hill writes, "For one reader who has read his 'Decline andFall, ' there are at least a score who have read his Autobiography, andwho know him, not as the great historian, but as a man of a mostoriginal and interesting nature. "[102] But these twenty people wouldnever have looked into the Autobiography had it not been the life of agreat historian; indeed the Autobiography would never have been writtenexcept to give an account of a great life work. "The Decline and Fall, "therefore, is the thing about which all the other incidents of his liferevolve. The longer this history is read and studied, the greater is theappreciation of it. Dean Milman followed Gibbon's track through manyportions of his work, and read his authorities, ending with a deliberatejudgment in favor of his "general accuracy. " "Many of his seemingerrors, " he wrote, "are almost inevitable from the close condensation ofhis matter. "[103] Guizot had three different opinions based on threevarious readings. After the first rapid perusal, the dominant feelingwas one of interest in a narrative, always animated in spite of itsextent, always clear and limpid in spite of the variety of objects. During the second reading, when he examined particularly certain points, he was somewhat disappointed; he encountered some errors either in thecitations or in the facts and especially shades and strokes ofpartiality which led him to a comparatively rigorous judgment. In theensuing complete third reading, the first impression, doubtlesscorrected by the second, but not destroyed, survived and wasmaintained; and with some restrictions and reservations, Guizot declaredthat, concerning that vast and able work, there remained with him anappreciation of the immensity of research, the variety of knowledge, thesagacious breadth and especially that truly philosophical rectitude of amind which judges the past as it would judge the present. [104] Mommsensaid in 1894: "Amid all the changes that have come over the study of thehistory of the Roman Empire, in spite of all the rush of the newevidence that has poured in upon us and almost overwhelmed us, in spiteof changes which must be made, in spite of alterations of view, oralterations even in the aspect of great characters, no one would in thefuture be able to read the history of the Roman Empire unless he read, possibly with a fuller knowledge, but with the broad views, the clearinsight, the strong grasp of Edward Gibbon. "[105]

It is difficult for an admirer of Gibbon to refrain from quoting some ofhis favorite passages. The opinion of a great historian on historyalways possesses interest. History, wrote Gibbon, is "little more thanthe register of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind. " Again, "Wars and the administration of public affairs are the principalsubjects of history. " And the following cannot fail to recall a similarthought in Tacitus, "History undertakes to record the transactions ofthe past for the instruction of future ages. "[106] Two references toreligion under the Pagan empire are always worth repeating. "The variousmodes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world, " he wrote, "wereall considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher asequally false; and by the magistrate as equally useful. " "The fashion ofincredulity was communicated from the philosopher to the man ofpleasure or business, from the noble to the plebeian, and from themaster to the menial slave who waited at his table and who equallylistened to the freedom of his conversation. "[107] Gibbon's idea of thehappiest period of mankind is interesting and characteristic. "If, " hewrote, "a man were called to fix the period in the history of the worldduring which the condition of the human race was most happy andprosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that which elapsed fromthe death of Domitian to the accession of Commodus. "[108] This periodwas from A. D. 96 to 180, covering the reigns of Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius. Professor Carter, in a lecture inRome in 1907, drew, by a modern comparison, a characterization of thefirst three named. When we were studying in Germany, he said, we wereaccustomed to sum up the three emperors, William I, Frederick III, andWilliam II, as der greise Kaiser, der weise Kaiser, und der reiseKaiser. The characterizations will fit well Nerva, Trajan, and Hadrian. Gibbon speaks of the "restless activity" of Hadrian, whose life "wasalmost a perpetual journey, " and who during his reign visited everyprovince of his empire. [109]

A casual remark of Gibbon's, "Corruption [is] the most infalliblesymptom of constitutional liberty, "[110] shows the sentiment of theeighteenth century. The generality of the history becomes specific in aletter to his father, who has given him hopes of a seat in Parliament. "This seat, " so Edward Gibbon wrote, "according to the custom of ourvenal country was to be bought, and fifteen hundred pounds werementioned as the price of purchase. "[111]

Gibbon anticipated Captain Mahan. In speaking of a naval battle betweenthe fleet of Justinian and that of the Goths in which the galleys of theEastern empire gained a signal victory, he wrote, "The Goths affected todepreciate an element in which they were unskilled; but their ownexperience confirmed the truth of a maxim, that the master of the seawill always acquire the dominion of the land. "[112] But Gibbon'santicipation was one of the frequent cases where the same idea hasoccurred to a number of men of genius, as doubtless Captain Mahan wasnot aware of this sentence any more than he was of Bacon's and Raleigh'sepitomes of the theme which he has so originally and brilliantlytreated. [113]

No modern historian has been the subject of so much critical comment asGibbon. I do not know how it will compare in volume with either of thesimilar examinations of Thucydides and Tacitus; but the criticism is ofa different sort. The only guarantee of the honesty of Tacitus, wroteSainte-Beuve, is Tacitus himself;[114] and a like remark will apply toThucydides. But a fierce light beats on Gibbon. His voluminous notesfurnish the critics the materials on which he built his history, which, in the case of the ancient historians, must be largely a matter ofconjecture. With all the searching examination of "The Decline andFall, " it is surprising how few errors have been found and, of theerrors which have been noted, how few are really important. Guizot, Milman, Dr. Smith, Cotter Morison, Bury, and a number of lesser lightshave raked his text and his notes with few momentous results. We have, writes Bury, improved methods over Gibbon and "much new material ofvarious kinds, " but "Gibbon's historical sense kept him constantly rightin dealing with his sources"; and "in the main things he is still ourmaster. "[115] The man is generally reflected in his book. That Gibbonhas been weighed and not found wanting is because he was as honest andtruthful as any man who ever wrote history. The autobiographies andletters exhibit to us a transparent man, which indeed some of thepersonal allusions in the history might have foreshadowed. "I have oftenfluctuated and shall _tamely_ follow the Colbert Ms. , " he wrote, wherethe authenticity of a book was in question. [116] In another case "thescarcity of facts and the uncertainty of dates" opposed his attempt todescribe the first invasion of Italy by Alaric. [117] In the beginning ofthe famous Chapter XLIV which is "admired by jurists as a brief andbrilliant exposition of the principles of Roman law, "[118] Gibbon wrote, "Attached to no party, interested only for the truth and candor ofhistory, and directed by the most temperate and skillful guides, I enterwith just diffidence on the subject of civil law. "[119] In speaking ofthe state of Britain between 409 and 449, he said, "I owe it to myselfand to historic truth to declare that some _circumstances_ in thisparagraph are founded only on conjecture and analogy. "[120] Throughouthis whole work the scarcity of materials forces Gibbon to the frequentuse of conjecture, but I believe that for the most part his conjecturesseem reasonable to the critics. Impressed with the correctness of hisaccount of the Eastern empire a student of the subject once told me thatGibbon certainly possessed the power of wise divination. 

Gibbon's striving after precision and accuracy is shown in some marginalcorrections he made in his own printed copy of "The Decline and Fall. "On the first page in his first printed edition and as it now stands, hesaid, "To deduce the most important circumstances of its decline andfall: a revolution which will ever be remembered and is still felt bythe nations of the earth. " For this the following is substituted: "Toprosecute the decline and fall of the empire of Rome: of whose language, religion, and laws the impression will be long preserved in our own andthe neighboring countries of Europe. " He thus explains the change: "Mr. Hume told me that, in correcting his history, he always labored toreduce superlatives and soften positives. Have Asia and Africa, fromJapan to Morocco, any feeling or memory of the Roman Empire?"

On page 6, Bury's edition, the text is, "The praises of Alexander, transmitted by a succession of poets and historians, had kindled adangerous emulation in the mind of Trajan. " We can imagine that Gibbonreflected, What evidence have I that Trajan had read these poets andhistorians? Therefore he made this change: "Late generations and fardistant climates may impute their calamities to the immortal author ofthe Iliad. The spirit of Alexander was inflamed by the praises ofAchilles; and succeeding heroes have been ambitious to tread in thefootsteps of Alexander. Like him, the Emperor Trajan aspired to theconquest of the East. "[121]

The "advertisement" to the first octavo edition published in 1783 is aninstance of Gibbon's truthfulness. He wrote, "Some alterations andimprovements had presented themselves to my mind, but I was unwilling toinjure or offend the purchasers of the preceding editions. " Then heseems to reflect that this is not quite the whole truth and adds, "Perhaps I may stand excused if, amidst the avocations of a busy winter, I have preferred the pleasures of composition and study to the minutediligence of revising a former publication. "[122]

The severest criticism that Gibbon has received is on his famouschapters XV and XVI which conclude his first volume in the originalquarto edition of 1776. We may disregard the flood of contemporarycriticism from certain people who were excited by what they deemed anattack on the Christian religion. Dean Milman, who objected seriously tomuch in these chapters, consulted these various answers to Gibbon on thefirst appearance of his work with, according to his own confession, little profit. [123] "Against his celebrated fifteenth and sixteenthchapters, " wrote Buckle, "all the devices of controversy have beenexhausted; but the only result has been, that while the fame of thehistorian is untarnished, the attacks of his enemies are falling intocomplete oblivion. The work of Gibbon remains; but who is there whofeels any interest in what was written against him?"[124] During thelast generation, however, criticism has taken another form andscientific men now do not exactly share Buckle's gleeful opinion. BothBury and Cotter Morison state or imply that well-grounded exceptions maybe taken to Gibbon's treatment of the early Christian church. He ignoredsome facts; his combination of others, his inferences, his opinions arenot fair and unprejudiced. A further grave objection may be made to thetone of these two chapters: sarcasm pervades them and the Gibbon sneerhas become an apt characterization. 

Francis Parkman admitted that he was a reverent agnostic, and if Gibbonhad been a reverent free-thinker these two chapters would have been fardifferent in tone. Lecky regarded the Christian church as a greatinstitution worthy of reverence and respect although he stated thecentral thesis of Gibbon with emphasis just as great. Of the conversionof the Roman Empire to Christianity, Lecky wrote, "it may be boldlyasserted that the assumption of a moral or intellectual miracle isutterly gratuitous. Never before was a religious transformation somanifestly inevitable. "[125] Gibbon's sneering tone was a characteristicof his time. There existed during the latter part of the eighteenthcentury, wrote Sir James Mackintosh, "an unphilosophical and indeedfanatical animosity against Christianity. " But Gibbon's private defenseis entitled to consideration as placing him in a better light. "Theprimitive church, which I have treated with some freedom, " he wrote toLord Sheffield in 1791, "was itself at that time an innovation, and Iwas attached to the old Pagan establishment. "[126] "Had I believed, " hesaid in his Autobiography, "that the majority of English readers were sofondly attached to the name and shadow of Christianity, had I foreseenthat the pious, the timid, and the prudent would feel, or affect tofeel, with such exquisite sensibility, I might perhaps have softened thetwo invidious chapters. "[127]

On the other hand Gibbon's treatment of Julian the Apostate is inaccordance with the best modern standard. It might have been supposedthat a quasi-Pagan, as he avowed himself, would have emphasized Julian'svirtues and ignored his weaknesses as did Voltaire, who invested himwith all the good qualities of Trajan, Cato, and Julius Cæsar, withouttheir defects. [128] Robertson indeed feared that he might fail in thispart of the history;[129] but Gibbon weighed Julian in the balance, dulyestimating his strength and his weakness, with the result that he hasgiven a clear and just account in his best and most dignifiedstyle. [130]

Gibbon's treatment of Theodora, the wife of Justinian, is certainly opento objection. Without proper sifting and a reasonable skepticism, he hasincorporated into his narrative the questionable account with all itssalacious details which Procopius gives in his Secret History, Gibbon'slove of a scandalous tale getting the better of his historicalcriticism. He has not neglected to urge a defense. "I am justified, " hewrote, "in painting the manners of the times; the vices of Theodora forman essential feature in the reign and character of Justinian. .. . MyEnglish text is chaste, and all licentious passages are left in theobscurity of a learned language. "[131] This explanation satisfiesneither Cotter Morison nor Bury, nor would it hold for a moment as ajustification of a historian of our own day. Gibbon is really soscientific, so much like a late nineteenth-century man, that we do rightto subject him to our present-day rigid tests. 

There has been much discussion about Gibbon's style, which we all knowis pompous and Latinized. On a long reading his rounded and sonorousperiods become wearisome, and one wishes that occasionally a sentencewould terminate with a small word, even a preposition. One feels as didDickens after walking for an hour or two about the handsome but"distractingly regular" city of Philadelphia. "I felt, " he wrote, "thatI would have given the world for a crooked street. "[132] Despite thepomposity, Gibbon's style is correct, and the exact use of words is amarvel. It is rare, I think, that any substitution or change of wordswill improve upon the precision of the text. His compression andselection of salient points are remarkable. Amid some commonplacephilosophy he frequently rises to a generalization as brilliant as it istruthful. Then, too, one is impressed with the dignity of history; onefeels that Gibbon looked upon his work as very serious, and thought withThucydides, "My history is an everlasting possession, not a prizecomposition which is heard and forgotten. "

To a writer of history few things are more interesting than a greathistorian's autobiographical remarks which relate to the composition ofhis work. "Had I been more indigent or more wealthy, " wrote Gibbon inhis Autobiography, "I should not have possessed the leisure or theperseverance to prepare and execute my voluminous history. "[133]"Notwithstanding the hurry of business and pleasure, " he wrote fromLondon in 1778, "I steal some moments for the Roman Empire. "[134]Between the writing of the first three and the last three volumes, hetook a rest of "near a twelvemonth" and gave expression to a thoughtwhich may be echoed by every studious writer, "Yet in the luxury offreedom, I began to wish for the daily task, the active pursuit whichgave a value to every book and an object to every inquiry. "[135] Everyone who has written a historical book will sympathize with the followingexpression of personal experience as he approached the completion of"The Decline and Fall": "Let no man who builds a house or writes a bookpresume to say when he will have finished. When he imagines that he isdrawing near to his journey's end, Alps rise on Alps, and he continuallyfinds something to add and something to correct. "[136]

Plain truthful tales are Gibbon's autobiographies. The style is that ofthe history, and he writes of himself as frankly as he does of any ofhis historical characters. His failings--what he has somewhere termed"the amiable weaknesses of human nature"--are disclosed with theopenness of a Frenchman. All but one of the ten years between 1783 and1793, between the ages of 46 and 56, he passed at Lausanne. There hecompleted "The Decline and Fall, " and of that period he spent fromAugust, 1787, to July, 1788, in England to look after the publication ofthe last three volumes. His life in Lausanne was one of study, writing, and agreeable society, of which his correspondence with his Englishfriends gives an animated account. The two things one is most impressedwith are his love for books and his love for Madeira. "Though a lover ofsociety, " he wrote, "my library is the room to which I am mostattached. "[137] While getting settled at Lausanne, he complains that hisboxes of books "loiter on the road. "[138] And then he harps on anotherstring. "Good Madeira, " he writes, "is now become essential to my healthand reputation;"[139] yet again, "If I do not receive a supply ofMadeira in the course of the summer, I shall be in great shame anddistress. "[140] His good friend in England, Lord Sheffield, regarded hisprayer and sent him a hogshead of "best old Madeira" and a tierce, containing six dozen bottles of "finest Malmsey, " and at the same timewrote: "You will remember that a hogshead is on his travels through thetorrid zone for you. .. . No wine is meliorated to a greater degree bykeeping than Madeira, and you latterly appeared so ravenous for it, thatI must conceive you wish to have a stock. "[141] Gibbon's devotion toMadeira bore its penalty. At the age of forty-eight he sent this accountto his stepmother: "I was in hopes that my old Enemy the Gout had givenover the attack, but the Villain, with his ally the winter, convincedme of my error, and about the latter end of March I found myself aprisoner in my library and my great chair. I attempted twice to rise, hetwice knocked me down again and kept possession of both my feet andknees longer (I must confess) than he ever had done before. "[142] Eagerto finish his history, he lamented that his "long gout" lost him "threemonths in the spring. " Thus as you go through his correspondence, youfind that orders for Madeira and attacks of gout alternate withregularity. Gibbon apparently did not connect the two as cause andeffect, as in his autobiography he charged his malady to his service inthe Hampshire militia, when "the daily practice of hard and evenexcessive drinking" had sown in his constitution "the seeds of thegout. "[143]

Gibbon has never been a favorite with women, owing largely to hisaccount of his early love affair. While at Lausanne, he had heard muchof "the wit and beauty and erudition of Mademoiselle Curchod" and whenhe first met her, he had reached the age of twenty. "I saw and loved, "he wrote. "I found her learned without pedantry, lively in conversation, pure in sentiment, and elegant in manners. .. . She listened to the voiceof truth and passion. .. . At Lausanne I indulged my dream of felicity";and indeed he appeared to be an ardent lover. "He was seen, " said acontemporary, "stopping country people near Lausanne and demanding atthe point of a naked dagger whether a more adorable creature existedthan Suzanne Curchod. "[144] On his return to England, however, he soondiscovered that his father would not hear of this alliance, and he thusrelated the sequence: "After a painful struggle, I yielded to myfate. .. . I sighed as a lover, I obeyed as a son. "[145] From England hewrote to Mademoiselle Curchod breaking off the engagement. Perhaps it isbecause of feminine criticism that Cotter Morison indulges in anelaborate defense of Gibbon, which indeed hardly seems necessary. Rousseau, who was privy to the love affair, said that "Gibbon was toocold-blooded a young man for his taste or for Mademoiselle Curchod'shappiness. "[146] Mademoiselle Curchod a few years later married Necker, a rich Paris banker, who under Louis XVI held the office ofdirector-general of the finances. She was the mother of Madame de Staël, was a leader of the literary society in Paris and, despite the troubloustimes, must have led a happy life. One delightful aspect of the story isthe warm friendship that existed between Madame Necker and EdwardGibbon. This began less than a year after her marriage. "The Curchod(Madame Necker) I saw at Paris, " he wrote to his friend Holroyd. "Shewas very fond of me and the husband particularly civil. Could theyinsult me more cruelly? Ask me every evening to supper; go to bed, andleave me alone with his wife--what an impertinent security!"[147]

If women read the Correspondence as they do the Autobiography, I thinkthat their aversion to the great historian would be increased by theseconfiding words to his stepmother, written when he was forty-nine: "Thehabits of female conversation have sometimes tempted me to acquire thepiece of furniture, a wife, and could I unite in a single Woman thevirtues and accomplishments of half a dozen of my acquaintance, I wouldinstantly pay my addresses to the Constellation. "[148]

I have always been impressed with Gibbon's pride at being the author of"six volumes in quartos"; but as nearly all histories now are publishedin octavo, I had not a distinct idea of the appearance of a quartovolume until the preparation of this essay led me to look at differenteditions of Gibbon in the Boston Athenæum. There I found the quartos, the first volume of which is the third edition, published in 1777 [itwill be remembered that the original publication of the first volume wasin February, 1776]. The volume is 11¼ inches long by 9 inches wide andis much heavier than our very heavy octavo volumes. With this volume inmy hand I could appreciate the remark of the Duke of Gloucester whenGibbon brought him the second volume of the "Decline and Fall. " Layingthe quarto on the table he said, "Another d--d thick square book! Alwaysscribble, scribble, scribble! Eh! Mr. Gibbon?"[149]

During my researches at the Athenæum, I found an octavo edition, thefirst volume of which was published in 1791, and on the cover waswritten, "Given to the Athenæum by Charles Cabot. Received December 10, 1807. " This was the year of the foundation of the Athenæum. On thequarto of 1777 there was no indication, but the scholarly cataloguerinformed me that it was probably also received in 1807. Three latereditions than these two are in this library, the last of which is Bury'sof 1900 to which I have constantly referred. Meditating in the quietalcove, with the two early editions of Gibbon before me, I found ananswer to the comment of H. G. Wells in his book "The Future in America"which I confess had somewhat irritated me. Thus wrote Wells: "Frankly Igrieve over Boston as a great waste of leisure and energy, as afrittering away of moral and intellectual possibilities. We give toomuch to the past. .. . We are obsessed by the scholastic prestige of mereknowledge and genteel remoteness. "[150] Pondering this iconoclasticutterance, how delightful it is to light upon evidence in the way ofwell-worn volumes that, since 1807, men and women here have beencarefully reading Gibbon, who, as Dean Milman said, "has bridged theabyss between ancient and modern times and connected together the twoworlds of history. "[151] A knowledge of "The Decline and Fall" is abasis for the study of all other history; it is a mental discipline, anda training for the problems of modern life. These Athenæum readers didnot waste their leisure, did not give too much to the past. They weresupremely right to take account of the scholastic prestige of Gibbon, and to endeavor to make part of their mental fiber this greatest historyof modern times. 

I will close with a quotation from the Autobiography, which in itssincerity and absolute freedom from literary cant will be cherished byall whose desire is to behold "the bright countenance of truth in thequiet and still air of delightful studies. " "I have drawn a high prizein the lottery of life, " wrote Gibbon. "I am disgusted with theaffectation of men of letters, who complain that they have renounced asubstance for a shadow and that their fame affords a poor compensationfor envy, censure, and persecution. My own experience at least hastaught me a very different lesson: twenty happy years have been animatedby the labor of my history; and its success has given me a name, a rank, a character in the world, to which I should not otherwise have beenentitled. .. . D'Alembert relates that as he was walking in the gardens ofSans-souci with the King of Prussia, Frederick said to him, 'Do you seethat old woman, a poor weeder, asleep on that sunny bank? She isprobably a more happy Being than either of us. '" Now the comment ofGibbon: "The King and the Philosopher may speak for themselves; for mypart I do not envy the old woman. "[152]

 [46] Autobiography, 270. 

 [47] Autobiography, 333. 

 [48] Autobiography, 311. 

 [49] Lectures, 763. 

 [50] Chief Periods European Hist. , 75. 

 [51] Introduction, lxvii. 

 [52] Introduction, xxxi. 

 [53] Preface, ix. 

 [54] Introduction, xli. 

 [55] p. 324. 

 [56] Letters, I, 23. 

 [57] Autobiography, 310. 

 [58] Letters, II, 36. 

 [59] _Ibid. _, 127. 

 [60] Autobiography, 196. 

 [61] Autobiography, 310. "I am more and more convinced that we have both the right and power on our side. " Letters, I, 248. 

 [62] Hill's ed. Gibbon Autobiography, 212, 213, 314. 

 [63] Letters, II, 249. 

 [64] Autobiography, 342. 

 [65] Letters, II, 310. 

 [66] Causeries du Lundi, viii, 469. 

 [67] Letters, II, 98. 

 [68] Trevelyan, II, 232. 

 [69] Lectures on the Hist. Of Literature, 185. 

 [70] Autobiography, 196. 

 [71] Bury's ed. , xxxv. 

 [72] Decline and Fall, Smith's ed. , 236. 

 [73] _Ibid. _, I, 349. 

 [74] Decline and Fall, Smith's ed. , II, 35. 

 [75] II, 235. 

 [76] History, I, 1. 

 [77] Annals, I, 11. 

 [78] Bury's introduction, xxxv. 

 [79] Autobiography, 193. 

 [80] _Ibid. _, 48, 59. 

 [81] _Ibid. _, 67. 

 [82] Autobiography, 86 _et seq. _; Hill's ed. , 69, 291. 

 [83] Autobiography, 131. 

 [84] _Ibid. _, 137. 

 [85] _Ibid. _, 134. 

 [86] Autobiography, 139-142. 

 [87] V, 108, 130, 231. 

 [88] Autobiography, 141. 

 [89] Autobiography, 133. 

 [90] Hill's ed. , 89, 293. 

 [91] Autobiography, 149. 

 [92] Autobiography, 149. 

 [93] _Ibid. _, 161. 

 [94] Causeries du Lundi, VIII, 445. 

 [95] Autobiography, 167. 

 [96] Causeries du Lundi, VIII, 446. 

 [97] Autobiography, Hill's ed. , 142. 

 [98] Autobiography, 258. 

 [99] _Ibid. _, 277. 

 [100] _Ibid. _

 [101] Letters, II, 279. 

 [102] Preface, x. 

 [103] Smith's ed. , I, xi. 

 [104] Causeries du Lundi, VIII, 453. 

 [105] _London Times_, November 16, 1894. 

 [106] Smith's ed. , I, 215, 371; II, 230. 

 [107] Smith's ed. , I, 165; II, 205. 

 [108] _Ibid. _, I, 216. 

 [109] _Ibid. _, I, 144. 

 [110] _Ibid. _, III, 78. 

 [111] Letters, I, 23. 

 [112] Smith's ed. , V, 230. 

 [113] See Mahan's From Sail to Steam, 276. 

 [114] Causeries du Lundi, I, 153. 

 [115] Introduction, xlv, l, lxvii. 

 [116] Smith's ed. , III, 14. 

 [117] _Ibid. _, IV, 31. 

 [118] Bury, lii. 

 [119] Smith's ed. , V, 258. 

 [120] _Ibid. _, IV, 132 n. 

 [121] Bury's ed. , xxxv, xxxvi. 

 [122] Smith's ed. , I, xxi. 

 [123] Smith's ed. , I, xvii. 

 [124] History of Civilization, II, 308 n. 

 [125] Morals, I, 419. 

 [126] Letters, II, 237. 

 [127] Autobiography, 316. 

 [128] Cotter Morison, 118. 

 [129] Sainte-Beuve, 458. 

 [130] Cotter Morison, 120. 

 [131] Autobiography, 337 n. 

 [132] American Notes, Chap. VII. 

 [133] p. 155. 

 [134] Letters, I, 331. 

 [135] Autobiography, 325. 

 [136] Letters, II, 143. 

 [137] Letters, II, 130. 

 [138] _Ibid. _, 89. 

 [139] _Ibid. _, 211. 

 [140] _Ibid. _, 217. 

 [141] _Ibid. _, II, 232. 

 [142] Letters, II, 129. 

 [143] _Ibid. _, 189. 

 [144] _Ibid. _, I, 40. 

 [145] Autobiography, pp. 151, 239. 

 [146] Letters, I, 41. 

 [147] Letters, I, 81. In 1790 Madame de Staël, then at Coppet, wrote: "Nous possédons dans ce château M. Gibbon, l'ancien amoreux de ma mère, celui qui voulait l'épouser. Quand je le vois, je me demande si je serais née de son union avec ma mère: je me reponds que non et qu'il suffisait de mon père seul pour que je vinsse au monde. "--Hill's ed. , 107, n. 2. 

 [148] Letters, II, 143. 

 [149] Birkbeck Hill's ed. , 127. 

 [150] p. 235. 

 [151] Smith's ed. , I, vii. 

 [152] Autobiography, 343, 346. 

SAMUEL RAWSON GARDINER

A paper read before the Massachusetts Historical Society at the Marchmeeting of 1902, and printed in the _Atlantic Monthly_, May, 1902. 

SAMUEL RAWSON GARDINER

It is my purpose to say a word of Samuel Rawson Gardiner, the Englishhistorian, who died February 23, 1902, and who in his research andmanner of statement represents fitly the scientific school of historicalwriters. He was thorough in his investigation, sparing neither labor norpains to get at the truth. It may well enough be true that thedesignedly untruthful historian, like the undevout astronomer, is ananomaly, for inaccuracy comes not from purpose, but from neglect. NowGardiner went to the bottom of things, and was not satisfied until hehad compassed all the material within his reach. As a matter of coursehe read many languages. Whether his facts were in Spanish, Italian, French, German, Dutch, Swedish, or English made apparently nodifference. Nor did he stop at what was in plain language. He read adiary written chiefly in symbols, and many letters in cipher. A largepart of his material was in manuscript, which entailed greater laborthan if it had been in print. As one reads the prefaces to his variousvolumes and his footnotes, amazement is the word to express the feelingthat a man could have accomplished so much in forty-seven years. Onefeels that there is no one-sided use of any material. The Spanish, theVenetian, the French, the Dutch nowhere displaces the English. InFroude's Elizabeth one gets the impression that the Simancas manuscriptsfurnish a disproportionate basis of the narrative; in Ranke's England, that the story is made up too much from the Venetian archives. Gardinerhimself copied many Simancas manuscripts in Spain, and he studied thearchives in Venice, Paris, Brussels, and Rome, but these, and all theother great mass of foreign material, are kept adjunctive to that foundin his own land. My impression from a study of his volumes is that morethan half of his material is in manuscript, but because he has matterwhich no one else had ever used, he does not neglect the printed pagesopen to every one. To form "a judgment on the character and aims ofCromwell, " he writes, "it is absolutely necessary to take Carlyle'smonumental work as a starting point;"[153] yet, distrusting Carlyle'sprinted transcripts, he goes back to the original speeches and lettersthemselves. Carlyle, he says, "amends the text without warning" in manyplaces; these emendations Gardiner corrects, and out of the abundance ofhis learning he stops a moment to show how Carlyle has misled thelearned Dr. Murray in attributing to Cromwell the use of the word"communicative" in its modern meaning, when it was on the contraryemployed in what is now an obsolete sense. [154]

Gardiner's great work is the History of England from 1603 to 1656. Inthe revised editions there are ten volumes called the "History ofEngland, from the Accession of James I to the Outbreak of the CivilWar, " and four volumes on the Great Civil War. Since this revision hehas published three volumes on the History of the Commonwealth and theProtectorate. He was also the author of a number of smaller volumes, acontributor to the Encyclopædia Britannica and the Dictionary ofNational Biography, and for ten years editor-in-chief of the _EnglishHistorical Review_. 

I know not which is the more remarkable, the learning, accuracy, anddiligence of the man, or withal his modesty. With his great store ofknowledge, the very truthfulness of his soul impels him to be forwardin admitting his own mistakes. Lowell said in 1878 that Darwin was"almost the only perfectly disinterested lover of truth" he had everencountered. Had Lowell known the historian as we know him, he wouldhave placed Gardiner upon the same elevation. In the preface to therevised ten-volume edition he alludes to the "defects" of his work. "Much material, " he wrote, "has accumulated since the early volumes werepublished, and my own point of view is not quite the same as it was whenI started with the first years of James I. "[155] The most importantcontribution to this portion of his period had been Spedding's editionof Bacon's Letters and Life. In a note to page 208 of his second volumehe tells how Spedding's arguments have caused him to modify some of hisstatements, although the two regard the history of the seventeenthcentury differently. Writing this soon after the death of Spedding, towhich he refers as "the loss of one whose mind was so acute and whosenature was so patient and kindly, " he adds, "It was a true pleasure tohave one's statements and arguments exposed to the testing fire of hishostile criticism. " Having pointed out later some inaccuracies in thework of Professor Masson, he accuses himself. "I have little doubt, " hewrites, "that if my work were subjected to as careful a revision, itwould yield a far greater crop of errors. "[156]

Gardiner was born in 1829. Soon after he was twenty-six years old heconceived the idea of writing the history of England from the accessionof James I to the restoration of Charles II. It was a noble conception, but his means were small. Having married, as his first wife, theyoungest daughter of Edward Irving, the enthusiastic founder of theCatholic Apostolic Church, he became an Irvingite. Because he was anIrvingite, his university, --he was a son of Oxford, --so it is commonlysaid, would give him no position whereby he might gain his living. Nevertheless, Gardiner studied and toiled, and in 1863 published twovolumes entitled "A History of England from the Accession of James I tothe Disgrace of Chief Justice Coke. " Of this work only one hundred andforty copies were sold. Still he struggled on. In 1869 two volumescalled "Prince Charles and the Spanish Marriage" were published and soldfive hundred copies. Six years later appeared two volumes entitled "AHistory of England under the Duke of Buckingham and Charles I. " Thisinstallment paid expenses, but no profit. One is reminded of whatCarlyle said about the pecuniary rewards of literary men in England:"Homer's Iliad would have brought the author, had he offered it to Mr. Murray on the half-profit system, say five-and-twenty guineas. TheProphecies of Isaiah would have made a small article in a review which. .. Could cheerfully enough have remunerated him with a five-poundnote. " The first book from which Gardiner received any money was alittle volume for the Epochs of Modern History Series on the ThirtyYears' War, published in 1874. Two more installments of the historyappearing in 1877 and 1881 made up the first edition of what is now ourten-volume history, but in the meantime some of the volumes went out ofprint. It was not until 1883, the year of the publication of the revisededition, that the value of his labors was generally recognized. Duringthis twenty-eight years, from the age of twenty-six to fifty-four, Gardiner had his living to earn. He might have recalled the remark made, I think, by either Goldsmith or Lamb, that the books which will live arenot those by which we ourselves can live. Therefore Gardiner got hisbread by teaching. He became a professor in King's College, London, andhe lectured on history for the London Society for the Extension ofUniversity Teaching, having large audiences all over London, and beingwell appreciated in the East End. He wrote schoolbooks on history. Finally success came twenty-eight years after his glorious conception, twenty years after the publication of his first volume. He had had ahard struggle for a living with money coming in by driblets. Bread wonin such a way is come by hard, yet he remained true to his ideal. Hispotboilers were good and honest books; his brief history on the ThirtyYears' War has received the praise of scholars. Recognition brought himmoney rewards. In 1882 Mr. Gladstone bestowed upon him a civil listpension of £150 a year. Two years later All Souls College, Oxford, elected him to a research fellowship; when this expired Merton made hima fellow. Academic honors came late. Not until 1884, when he wasfifty-five, did he take his degree of M. A. Edinburgh conferred upon himan LL. D. , and Göttingen a Ph. D. ; but he was sixty-six when he receivedthe coveted D. C. L. From his own university. The year previous LordRosebery offered him the Regius Professorship of History at Oxford, buthe declined it because the prosecution of his great work required him tobe near the British Museum. It is worthy of mention that in 1874, nineyears before he was generally appreciated in England, the MassachusettsHistorical Society elected him a corresponding member. [157]

During the latter part of his life Gardiner resided in the country nearLondon, whence it took him about an hour to reach the British Museum, where he did his work. He labored on his history from eleven o'clock tohalf-past four, with an intermission of half an hour for luncheon. Hedid not dictate to a stenographer, but wrote everything out. Totallyunaccustomed to collaboration, he never employed a secretary orassistant of any kind. In his evenings he did no serious labor; he spentthem with his family, attended to his correspondence, or read a novel. Thus he wrought five hours daily. What a brain, and what a splendidtraining he had given himself to accomplish such results in so short aworking day!

In the preface to his first volume of the "History of the Commonwealth, "published in 1894, Gardiner said that he was "entering upon the thirdand last stage of a task the accomplishment of which seemed to me manyyears ago to be within the bounds of possibility. " One more volumebringing the history down to the death of Cromwell would have completedthe work, and then Mr. Charles H. Firth, a fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, was to take up the story. Firth now purposes to begin hisnarrative with the year 1656. Gardiner's mantle has fallen on worthyshoulders. 

Where historical scholars congregate in England and America, Gardiner ishighly esteemed. But the critics must have their day. They cannot attackhim for lack of diligence and accuracy, which according to Gibbon, themaster of us all, are the prime requisites of a historian, so theyassert that he was deficient in literary style, he had no dramaticpower, his work is not interesting and will not live. Gardiner is theproduct solely of the university and the library. You may visualize himat Oxford, in the British Museum, or at work in the archives on theContinent, but of affairs and of society by personal contact he knewnothing. In short, he was not a man of the world, and the histories mustbe written, so these critics aver, by those who have an actual knowledgeby experience of their fellow-men. It is profitable to examine thesedicta by the light of concrete examples. Froude saw much of society, andwas a man of the world. He wrote six volumes on the reign of Elizabeth, from which we get the distinct impression that the dominantcharacteristics of Elizabeth were meanness, vacillation, selfishness, and cruelty. Gardiner in an introductory chapter of forty-three pagesrestores to us the great queen of Shakespeare, who brought upon her land"a thousand, thousand blessings. " She loved her people well, he writes, and ruled them wisely. She "cleared the way for liberty, though sheunderstood it not. "[158] Elsewhere he speaks of "her high spirit andenlightened judgment. "[159] The writer who has spent his life in thelibrary among dusty archives estimates the great ruler more correctlythan the man of the world. We all know Macaulay, a member of Parliament, a member of the Supreme Council of India, a cabinet minister, ahistorian of great merit, a brilliant man of letters. In such a one, according to the principles laid down by these critics, we should expectto find a supreme judge of men. Macaulay in his essays and the firstchapter of the History painted Wentworth and Laud in the very blackestof colors, which "had burned themselves into the heart of the people ofEngland. " Gardiner came. Wentworth and Laud, he wrote, were controlledby a "noble ambition, " which was "not stained with personal selfishnessor greed. "[160] "England may well be proud of possessing in Wentworth anobler if a less practical statesman than Richelieu, of the type towhich the great cardinal belonged. "[161] Again Wentworth was "thehigh-minded, masterful statesman, erring gravely through defects oftemper and knowledge. "[162] From Macaulay we carry away the impressionthat Wentworth was very wicked and that Cromwell was very good. Gardinerloved Cromwell not less than did Macaulay, but thus he speaks of hisgovernment: "Step by step the government of the Commonwealth wascompelled . .. To rule by means which every one of its members would havecondemned if they had been employed by Charles or Wentworth. " Is it nota triumph for the bookish man that in his estimate of Wentworth and Laudhe has with him the consensus of the historical scholars of England?

What a change there has been in English opinion of Cromwell in the lasthalf century! Unquestionably that is due to Carlyle more than to anyother one man, but there might have been a reaction from the conceptionof the hero worshiper had it not been supported and somewhat modified byso careful and impartial a student as Gardiner. 

The alteration of sentiment toward Wentworth and Laud is principally dueto Gardiner, that toward Cromwell is due to him in part. These are twoof the striking results, but they are only two of many things we seedifferently because of the single-minded devotion of this greathistorian. We know the history in England from 1603 to 1656 better thanwe do that of any other period of the world; and for this we areindebted mainly to Samuel Rawson Gardiner. 

 [153] History of the Great Civil War, I, viii. 

 [154] History of the Commonwealth and the Protectorate, III, 27. 

 [155] History, I, v. 

 [156] _Ibid. _, IX, viii. 

 [157] He was transferred to the roll of honorary members in October, 1896. 

 [158] History, I, 43. 

 [159] _Ibid. _, VIII, 36. 

 [160] _Ibid. _, 67. 

 [161] _Ibid. _, 215. 

 [162] _Ibid. _, IX, 229. 

WILLIAM E. H. LECKY

A paper read before the Massachusetts Historical Society at the Novembermeeting of 1903. 

WILLIAM E. H. LECKY

Amazement was the feeling of the reading world on learning that theauthor of the History of Rationalism was only twenty-seven, and thewriter of the History of European Morals only thirty-one. The sentimentwas that a prodigy of learning had appeared, and a perusal of theseworks now renders comprehensible the contemporary astonishment. TheMorals (published in 1869) is the better book of the two, and, if I mayjudge from my own personal experience, it may be read with delight whenyoung, and re-read with respect and advantage at an age when theenthusiasms of youth have given way to the critical attitude ofexperience. Grant all the critics say of it, that the reasoning by whichLecky attempts to demolish the utilitarian theory of morals is no longerof value, and that it lacks the consistency of either the orthodox orthe agnostic, that there is no new historical light, and that much ofthe treatise is commonplace, nevertheless the historical illustrationsand disquisitions, the fresh combination of well-known facts arevaluable for instruction and for a new point of view. His analysis ofthe causes of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire is drawn, ofcourse, from Gibbon, but I have met those who prefer the interestingstory of Lecky to the majestic sweep of the great master. Much lessbrilliant than Buckle's "History of Civilization, " the first volume ofwhich appeared twelve years earlier, the Morals has stood better thetest of time. 

The intellectual biography of so precocious a writer is interesting, andfortunately it has been related by Lecky himself. When he enteredTrinity College, Dublin, in 1856, "Mill was in the zenith of his fameand influence"; Hugh Miller was attempting to reconcile the recentdiscoveries of geology with the Mosaic cosmogony. "In poetry, " wroteLecky, "Tennyson and Longfellow reigned, I think with an approach toequality which has not continued. " In government the orthodox politicaleconomists furnished the theory and the Manchester school the practice. All this intellectual fermentation affected this inquiring youngstudent; but at first Bishop Butler's Analogy and sermons, which werethen much studied at Dublin, had the paramount influence. Of the livingmen, Archbishop Whately, then at Dublin, held sway. Other writers whomhe mastered were Coleridge, Newman, and Emerson, Pascal, Bossuet, Rousseau, and Voltaire, Dugald Stewart, and Mill. In 1857 Buckle burstupon the world, and proved a stimulus to Lecky as well as to mostserious historical students. The result of these studies, Lecky relates, was his History of Rationalism, published in the early part of 1865. 

The claim made by many of Lecky's admirers, that he was a philosophichistorian, as distinct from literary historians like Carlyle andMacaulay, and scientific like Stubbs and Gardiner, has injured him inthe eyes of many historical students who believe that if there be such athing as the philosophy of history the narrative ought to carry itnaturally. To interrupt the relation of events or the delineation ofcharacter with parading of trite reflections or with rashly broadgeneralizations is neither science nor art. Lecky has sometimes beencondemned by students who, revolting at the term "philosophy" inconnection with history, have failed to read his greatest work, the"History of England in the Eighteenth Century. " This is a decidedadvance on the History of Morals, and shows honest investigation inoriginal material, much of it manuscript, and an excellent power ofgeneralization widely different from that which exhibits itself in apaltry philosophy. These volumes are a real contribution to historicalknowledge. Parts of them which I like often to recur to are the accountof the ministry of Walpole, the treatment of "parliamentary corruption, "of the condition of London, and of "national tastes and manners. " HisChapter IX, which relates the rise of Methodism, has a peculiarlyattractive swing and go, and his use of anecdote is effective. 

Chapter XX, on the "Causes of the French Revolution, " covering onehundred and forty-one pages, is an ambitious effort, but it shows athorough digestion of his material, profound reflection, and a livelypresentation of his view. Mr. Morse Stephens believes that it is idle toattempt to inquire into the causes of this political and socialoverturn. If a historian tells the _how_, he asserts he should not beasked to tell the _why_. This is an epigrammatic statement of a tenet ofthe scientific historical school of Oxford, but men will always beinterested in inquiring why the French Revolution happened, and suchchapters as this of Lecky, a blending of speculation and narrative, willhold their place. These volumes have much well and impartially writtenIrish history, and being published between 1878 and 1890, at the timewhen the Irish question in its various forms became acute, theyattracted considerable attention from the political world. Gladstone wasan admirer of Lecky, and said in a chat with John Morley: "Lecky hasreal insight into the motives of statesmen. Now Carlyle, so mighty as heis in flash and penetration, has no eye for motives. Macaulay, too, isso caught by a picture, by color, by surface, that he is seldom to becounted on for just account of motive. " The Irish chapters furnishedarguments for the Liberals, but did not convert Lecky himself to thepolicy of home rule. When Gladstone and his party adopted it, he becamea Liberal Unionist, and as such was elected in 1895 a member of theHouse of Commons by Dublin University. In view of the many comments thathe was not successful in parliamentary life, I may say that the electionnot only came to him unsought, but that he recognized that he was tooold to adapt himself to the atmosphere of the House of Commons; heaccepted the position in the belief which was pressed upon him by manyfriends that he could in Parliament be useful to the University. 

Within less than three years have we commemorated in this hall threegreat English historians--Stubbs, Gardiner, and Lecky. The one we honorto-day was the most popular of the three. Not studied so much at theseats of learning, he is better known to journalists, to statesmen, tomen of affairs, in short to general readers. Even our Society made himan honorary member fourteen years before it so honored Gardiner, although Gardiner was the older man and two volumes of his history hadbeen published before Lecky's Rationalism, and two volumes more in thesame year as the Morals. One year after it was published, Rationalismwent into a third edition. Gardiner's first volumes sold one hundred andforty copies. It must, however, be stated that the Society recognizedGardiner's work as early as 1874 by electing him a corresponding member. 

It is difficult to guess how long Lecky will be read. His popularity isdistinct. He was the rare combination of a scholar and a man of theworld, made so by his own peculiar talent and by lucky opportunities. Hewas not obliged to earn his living. In early life, by intimate personalintercourse, he drew intellectual inspiration from Dean Milman, andlater he learned practical politics through his friendship with LordRussell. He knew well Herbert Spencer, Huxley, and Tyndall. In privateconversation he was a very interesting man. His discourse ran on booksand on men; he turned from one to the other and mixed up the two with aready familiarity. He went much into London society, and though entirelyserious and without having, so far as I know, a gleam of humor, he was afluent and entertaining talker. 

Mr. Lecky was vitally interested in the affairs of this country, andsympathized with the North during our Civil War. He once wrote to me: "Iam old enough to remember vividly your great war, and was then much withan American friend--a very clever lawyer named George Bemis--whom I cameto know very well at Rome. .. . I was myself a decided Northerner, but the'right of revolution' was always rather a stumbling block. " Talking withMr. Lecky in 1895, not long after the judgment of the United StatesSupreme Court that the income tax was unconstitutional, he expressed theopinion that it was a grand decision, evidencing a high respect forprivate property, but in the next breath came the question, "How are youever to manage continuing the payment of those enormous pensions ofyours?"

It is not, I think, difficult to explain why Stubbs and Gardiner aremore precious possessions for students than Lecky. Gardiner devoted hislife to the seventeenth century. If we may reckon the previouspreparation and the ceaseless revision, Stubbs devoted a good part ofhis life to the constitutional history from the beginnings of it toHenry VII. Lecky's eight volumes on the eighteenth century werepublished in thirteen years. A mastery of such an amount of originalmaterial as Stubbs and Gardiner mastered was impossible within thattime. Lecky had the faculty of historic divination which compensated tosome extent for the lack of a more thorough study of the sources. Geniusstood in the place of painstaking engrossment in a single task. 

The last important work of Lecky, "Democracy and Liberty, " was a braveundertaking. Many years ago he wrote: "When I was deeply immersed in the'History of England in the Eighteenth Century, ' I remember being struckby the saying of an old and illustrious friend that he could notunderstand the state of mind of a man who, when so many questions ofburning and absorbing interest were rising around him, could devote thebest years of his life to the study of a vanished past. " Hence the bookwhich considered present issues of practical politics and partycontroversies, and a result that satisfied no party and hardly anyfaction. It is an interesting question who chose the better part, --he orStubbs and Gardiner--they who devoted themselves entirely to the past orhe who made a conscientious endeavor to bring to bear his study ofhistory upon the questions of the present. 

SIR SPENCER WALPOLE

A paper read before the Massachusetts Historical Society at the Novembermeeting of 1907. 

SIR SPENCER WALPOLE

Sir Spencer Walpole was an excellent historian and industrious writer. His first important work, entitled "The History of England from 1815, "was published at intervals from 1878 to 1886; the first installmentappeared when he was thirty-nine years old. This in six volumes carriedthe history to 1858 in an interesting, accurate, and impartialnarrative. Four of the five chapters of the first volume are entitled"The Material Condition of England in 1815, " "Society in England, ""Opinion in 1815, " "The Last of the Ebb Tide, " and they are masterly intheir description and relation. During the Napoleonic wars business wasgood. The development of English manufactures, due largely to theintroduction of steam as a motive power, was marked. "Twenty years ofwar, " he wrote, "had concentrated the trade of the world in the BritishEmpire. " Wheat was dear; in consequence the country gentlemen receivedhigh rents. The clergy, being largely dependent on tithes, --the tenth ofthe produce, --found their incomes increased as the price of cornadvanced. But the laboring classes, both those engaged in manufacturesand agriculture, did not share in the general prosperity. Either theirwages did not rise at all or did not advance commensurately with theincrease of the cost of living and the decline in the value of thecurrency. Walpole's detailed and thorough treatment of this subject ishistoric work of high value. 

In the third volume I was much impressed with his account of the ReformAct of 1832. We all have read that wonderful story over and over again, but I doubt whether its salient points have been better combined andpresented than in Walpole's chapter. I had not remembered the reason ofthe selection of Lord John Russell to present the bill in the House ofCommons when he was only Paymaster of the Forces, without a seat in theCabinet. It will, of course, be recalled that Lord Grey, the PrimeMinister, was in the House of Lords, and, not so readily I think, thatAlthorp was Chancellor of the Exchequer and the leader of the House ofCommons. On Althorp, under ordinary circumstances, it would have beenincumbent to take charge of this highly important measure, which hadbeen agreed upon by the Cabinet after counsel with the King. Russell wasthe youngest son of the Duke of Bedford; and the Duke was one of thelarge territorial magnates and a proprietor of rotten boroughs. "A billrecommended by his son's authority, " wrote Walpole, "was likely toreassure timid or wavering politicians. " "Russell, " Walpole continued, "told his tale in the plainest language. But the tale which he had totell required no extraordinary language to adorn it. The Radicals hadnot dared to expect, the Tories, in their wildest fears, had notapprehended, so complete a measure. Enthusiasm was visible on one sideof the House; consternation and dismay on the other. At last, whenRussell read the list of boroughs which were doomed to extinction, theTories hoped that the completeness of the measure would insure itsdefeat. Forgetting their fears, they began to be amused and burst intopeals of derisive laughter" (III, 208). 

Walpole's next book was the "Life of Lord John Russell, " two volumespublished in 1889. This was undertaken at the request of Lady Russell, who placed at his disposal a mass of private and official papers and"diaries and letters of a much more private nature. " She also acceded tohis request that she was not to see the biography until it was readyfor publication, so that the whole responsibility of it would beWalpole's alone. The Queen gave him access to three bound volumes ofRussell's letters to herself, and sanctioned the publication of certainletters of King William IV. Walpole wrote the biography in about twoyears and a half; and this, considering that at the time he held anactive office, displayed unusual industry. If I may judge the work by acareful study of the chapter on "The American Civil War, " it is avaluable contribution to political history. 

Passing over three minor publications, we come to Walpole's "History ofTwenty-five Years, " two volumes of which were published in 1904. A briefextract from his preface is noteworthy, written as it is by a man ofkeen intelligence, with great power of investigation and continuouslabor, and possessed of a sound judgment. After a reference to his"History of England from 1815, " he said: "The time has consequentlyarrived when it ought to be as possible to write the History of Englandfrom 1857 to 1880, as it was twenty years ago to bring down thenarrative of that History to 1856 or 1857. .. . So far as I am able tojudge, most of the material which is likely to be available for Britishhistory in the period with which these two volumes are concerned[1856-1870] is already accessible. It is not probable that much which iswholly new remains unavailable. " I read carefully these two volumes whenthey first appeared, and found them exceedingly fascinating. Palmerstonand Russell, Gladstone and Disraeli, are made so real that we followtheir contests as if we ourselves had a hand in them. A half dozen ormore years ago an Englishman told me that Palmerston and Russell were nolonger considered of account in England. But I do not believe one canrise from reading these volumes without being glad of a knowledge ofthese two men whose patriotism was of a high order. Walpole's severalcharacterizations, in a summing up of Palmerston, display his knowledgeof men. "Men pronounced Lord Melbourne indifferent, " he wrote, "SirRobert Peel cold, Lord John Russell uncertain, Lord Aberdeen weak, LordDerby haughty, Mr. Gladstone subtle, Lord Beaconsfield unscrupulous. Butthey had no such epithet for Lord Palmerston. He was as earnest as LordMelbourne was indifferent, as strong as Lord Aberdeen was weak, ashonest as Lord Beaconsfield was unscrupulous. Sir Robert Peel repelledmen by his temper; Lord John Russell, by his coldness; Lord Derbyoffended them by his pride; Mr. Gladstone distracted them by hissubtlety. But Lord Palmerston drew both friends and foes together by thewarmth of his manners and the excellence of his heart" (I, 525). 

Walpole's knowledge of continental politics was apparently thorough. Atall events, any one who desires two entrancing tales, should read thechapter on "The Union of Italy, " of which Cavour and Napoleon III arethe heroes; and the two chapters entitled "The Growth of Prussia and theDecline of France" and "The Fall of the Second Empire. " In these twochapters Napoleon III again appears, but Bismarck is the hero. Walpole'schapter on "The American Civil War" is the writing of a broad-minded, intelligent man, who could look on two sides. 

Of Walpole's last book, "Studies in Biography, " published in 1907, Ihave left myself no time to speak. Those who are interested in it shouldread the review of it in the _Nation_ early this year, which awards ithigh and unusual commendation. 

The readers of Walpole's histories may easily detect in them a treatmentnot possible from a mere closet student of books and manuscripts. Aknowledge of the science of government and of practical politics isthere. For Walpole was of a political family. He was of the same houseas the great Whig Prime Minister, Sir Robert; and his father was HomeSecretary in the Lord Derby ministry of 1858, and again in 1866, when hehad to deal with the famous Hyde Park meeting of July 23. On hismother's side he was a grandson of Spencer Perceval, the Prime Ministerwho in 1812 was assassinated in the lobby of the House of Commons. Walpole's earliest publication was a biography of Perceval. 

And Spencer Walpole himself was a man of affairs. A clerk in the WarOffice in 1858, private secretary to his father in 1866, next yearInspector of Fisheries, later Lieutenant-Governor of the Isle of Man, and from 1893 to 1899 Secretary to the Post-office. In spite of all thisadministrative work his books show that he was a wide, general reader, apart from his special historical studies. He wrote in an agreeableliterary style, with Macaulay undoubtedly as his model, although he wasby no means a slavish imitator. His "History of Twenty-five Years" seemsto me to be written with a freer hand than the earlier history. He ishere animated by the spirit rather than the letter of Macaulay. I nolonger noticed certain tricks of expression which one catches so easilyin a study of the great historian, and which seem so well to suitMacaulay's own work, but nobody else's. 

An article by Walpole on my first four volumes, in the _EdinburghReview_ of January, 1901, led to a correspondence which resulted in myreceiving an invitation last May to pass Sunday with him at HartfieldGrove, his Sussex country place. We were to meet at Victoria station andtake an early morning train. Seeing Mr. Frederic Harrison the dayprevious, I asked for a personal description of his friend Walpole inorder that I might easily recognize him. "Well, " says Harrison, "perhapsI can guide you. A while ago I sat next to a lady during a dinner whotook me for Walpole and never discovered her mistake until, when sheaddressed me as Sir Spencer, I undeceived her just as the ladies wereretiring from the table. Now I am the elder by eight years and I don'tthink I look like Walpole, but that good lady had another opinion. "Walpole and Harrison met that Saturday evening at the Academy dinner, and Walpole obtained a personal description of myself. This caution onboth our parts was unnecessary. We were the only historians travelingdown on the train and could not possibly have missed one another. Ifound him a thoroughly genial man, and after fifteen minutes in therailway carriage we were well acquainted. The preface to his "History ofTwenty-five Years" told that the two volumes were the work of fiveyears. I asked him how he was getting on with the succeeding volumes. Hereplied that he had done a good deal of work on them, and now that hewas no longer in an administrative position he could concentrate hisefforts, and he expected to have the work finished before long. Iinquired if the prominence of his family in politics hampered him at allin writing so nearly contemporary history, and he said, "Not a bit. " Anhour of the railroad and a half-hour's drive brought us to his home. Itwas not an ancestral place, but a purchase not many years back. An oldhouse had been remodeled with modern improvements, and comfort and easewere the predominant aspects. Sir Spencer proposed a "turn" beforeluncheon, which meant a short walk, and after luncheon we had a realwalk. I am aware that the English mile and our own are alike 5280 feet, but I am always impressed with the fact that the English mile seemslonger, and so I was on this Sunday. For after a good two hours'exertion over hills and meadows my host told me that we had gone onlyfive miles. Only by direct question did I elicit the fact that had hebeen alone he would have done seven miles in the same time. 

There were no other guests, and Lady Walpole, Sir Spencer, and I had allof the conversation at luncheon and dinner and during the evening. Wetalked about history and literature, English and American politics, andpublic men. He was singularly well informed about our country, althoughhe had only made one brief visit and then in an official capacity. English expressions of friendship are now so common that I will notquote even one of the many scattered through his volumes, but hedisplayed everywhere a candid appreciation of our good traits andcreditable doings. I was struck with his knowledge and love of lyricpoetry. Byron, Shelley, Keats, Tennyson, Longfellow, and Lowell werethoroughly familiar to him. He would repeat some favorite passage ofKeats, and at once turn to a discussion of the administrative details ofhis work in the post-office. Of course the day and evening passed veryquickly, --it was one of the days to be marked with a white stone, --andwhen I bade Walpole good-by on the Monday morning I felt as if I wereparting from a warm friend. I found him broad-minded, intelligent, sympathetic, affable, and he seemed as strong physically as he was soundintellectually. His death on Sunday, July 7, of cerebral hemorrhage wasalike a shock and a grief. 

JOHN RICHARD GREEN

Address at a gathering of historians on June 5, 1909, to mark theplacing of a tablet in the inner quadrangle of Jesus College, Oxford, tothe memory of John Richard Green. 

JOHN RICHARD GREEN

I wish indeed that I had the tongues of men and of angels to express theadmiration of the reading public of America for the History of JohnRichard Green. I suppose that he has had more readers in our countrythan any other historian except Macaulay, and he has shaped the opinionsof men who read, more than any writers of history except those whom JohnMorley called the great born men of letters, --Gibbon, Macaulay, andCarlyle. 

I think it is the earlier volumes rather than the last volume of hismore extended work which have taken hold of us. Of course we thrill athis tribute to Washington, where he has summed up our reverence, trust, and faith in him in one single sentence which shows true appreciationand deep feeling; and it flatters our national vanity, of which we havea goodly stock, to read in his fourth volume that the creation of theUnited States was one of the turning points in the history of the world. 

No saying is more trite, at any rate to an educated American audience, than that the development of the English nation is one of the mostwonderful things, if not the most wonderful thing, which historyrecords. That history before James I is our own, and, to our generalreaders, it has never been so well presented as in Green's first twovolumes. The victories of war are our own. It was our ancestors whopreserved liberty, maintained order, set the train moving towardreligious toleration, and wrought out that language and literature whichwe are proud of, as well as you. 

For my own part, I should not have liked to miss reading and re-readingthe five chapters on Elizabeth in the second volume. What eloquence insimply the title of the last, --The England of Shakespeare! And in factmy conception of Elizabeth, derived from Shakespeare, is confirmed byGreen. As I think how much was at stake in the last half of thesixteenth century, and how well the troubles were met by that greatmonarch and the wise statesman whom she called to her aid, I feel thatwe could not be what we are, had a weak, irresolute sovereign been atthe head of the state. 

With the power of a master Green manifests what was accomplished. At theaccession of Elizabeth--"Never" so he wrote--"had the fortunes ofEngland sunk to a lower ebb. The loss of Calais gave France the masteryof the Channel. The French King in fact 'bestrode the realm, having onefoot in Calais, and the other in Scotland. '"

And at the death of Elizabeth, thus Green tells the story: "The dangerwhich had hitherto threatened our national existence and our nationalunity had disappeared: France clung to the friendship of England, Spaintrembled beneath its blows. "

With the wide range of years of his subject, with a grasp of an extendedperiod akin to Gibbon's, complete accuracy was, of course, notattainable, but Samuel R. Gardiner once told me that Green, althoughsometimes inaccurate in details, gave a general impression that wasjustifiable and correct; and that is in substance the published opinionof Stubbs. 

Goethe said that in reading Molière you perceive that he possessed thecharm of an amiable nature in habitual contact with good society. So we, who had not the advantage of personal intercourse, divined was the caseof Green; and when the volume of Letters appeared, we saw that we hadguessed correctly. But not until then did we know of his devotion to hiswork, and his heroic struggle, which renders the story of his short andbrilliant career a touching and fascinating biography of a historian whomade his mark upon his time. 

EDWARD L. PIERCE

A paper read before the Massachusetts Historical Society at the Octobermeeting of 1897. 

EDWARD L. PIERCE

I shall first speak of Mr. Pierce as an author. His Life of Sumner itseems to me is an excellent biography, and the third and fourth volumesof it are an important contribution to the history of our country. Anyone who has gone through the original material of the period he embracesmust be struck not only with the picture of Sumner, but with the skillof the biographer in the use of his data to present a general historicalview. The injunction of Cicero, "Choose with discretion out of theplenty that lies before you, " Mr. Pierce observed. To those who know howextensive was his reading of books, letters, newspaper files, how muchhe had conversed with the actors in those stirring scenes--and who willtake into account the mass of memories that crowd upon the mind of onewho has lived through such an era--this biography will seem not too longbut rather admirable in its relative brevity. In a talk that I had withMr. Pierce I referred to the notice in an English literary weekly of histhird and fourth volumes which maintained that the biography was twicetoo long, and I took occasion to say that in comparison with otherAmerican works of the kind the criticism seemed unjust. "Moreover, " Iwent on, "I think you showed restraint in not making use of much of yourvaluable material, --of the interesting and even important unprintedletters of Cobden, the Duke of Argyll, and of John Bright. " "Yes, "replied Mr. Pierce, with a twinkle in his eye, "I can say with LordClive, 'Great Heavens, at this moment I stand astonished at my ownmoderation. '"

Any one who has studied public sentiment in this country for any periodknows how easy it is to generalize from a few facts, and yet, if thesubject be more thoroughly investigated, it becomes apparent howunsatisfactory such generalizations are apt to be; not that they areessentially untrue, but rather because they express only a part of thetruth. If a student should ask me in what one book he would find thebest statement of popular opinion at the North during the Civil War, Ishould say, Read Sumner's letters as cited in Mr. Pierce's biographywith the author's comments. The speeches of Sumner may smell too much ofthe lamp to be admirable, but the off-hand letters written to hisEnglish and to a few American friends during our great struggle areworthy of the highest esteem. From his conversations with the President, the Cabinet ministers, his fellow-senators and congressmen, hisnewspaper reading, --in short, from the many impressions that go to makeup the daily life of an influential public man, --there has resulted anaccurate statement of the popular feeling from day to day. In spite ofhis intense desire to have Englishmen of power and position espouse theright side, he would not misrepresent anything by the suppression offacts, any more than he would make a misleading statement. In theselection of these letters Mr. Pierce has shown a nice discrimination. 

Sumner, whom I take to have been one of the most truthful of men, wasfortunate in having one of the most honest of biographers. Mr. Piercewould not, I think, have wittingly suppressed anything that told againsthim. I love to think of one citation which would never have been made byan idolizing biographer, so sharply did it bring out the folly of theopinion expressed. Sumner wrote, May 3, 1863: "There is no doubt hereabout Hooker. He told Judge Bates . .. That he 'did not mean to drive theenemy but to bag him. ' It is thought he is now doing it. " Thebiographer's comment is brief, "The letter was written on the day ofHooker's defeat at Chancellorsville. "

It seems to me that Mr. Pierce was as impartial in his writing as ispossible for a man who has taken an active part in political affairs, who is thoroughly in earnest, and who has a positive manner ofexpression. It is not so difficult as some imagine for a student ofhistory whose work is done in the library to be impartial, provided hehas inherited or acquired the desire to be fair and honest, and providedhe has the diligence and patience to go through the mass of evidence. His historical material will show him that to every question there aretwo sides. But what of the man who has been in the heat of the conflict, and who, when the fight was on, believed with Sumner that there was noother side? If such a man displays candor, how much greater his meritthan the impartiality of the scholar who shuns political activity andhas given himself up to a life of speculation!

I had the good fortune to have three long conversations with the Hon. Robert C. Winthrop, the last of which occurred shortly after thepublication of the third and fourth volumes of the Life of Sumner. "What, " said Mr. Winthrop to me, "do you think of the chapter on theAnnexation of Texas and the Mexican War?" "I think, " was my reply, "thatMr. Pierce has treated a delicate subject like a gentleman. " "From whatI have heard of it, " responded Mr. Winthrop, earnestly, "and from somuch as I have read of it, that is also my own opinion. " Such a privateconversation I could, of course, repeat, and, somewhat later theoccasion presenting itself, I did so to Mr. Pierce. "That is moregrateful to me, " he said, almost with tears in his eyes, "than all thepraise I have received for these volumes. "

Mr. Pierce had, I think, the historic sense. I consulted him severaltimes on the treatment of historical matters, taking care not to trenchon questions where, so different was our point of view, we could notpossibly agree, and I always received from him advice that wassuggestive, even if I did not always follow it to the letter. I sent tohim, while he was in London, my account of Secretary Cameron's reportproposing to arm the slaves and of his removal from office by PresidentLincoln. Mr. Pierce thought my inferences were far-fetched, and wrote:"I prefer the natural explanation. Horace says we must not introduce agod into a play unless it is necessary. "

As a friend, he was warm-hearted and true. He brought cheer andanimation into your house. His talk was fresh; his zeal for whatever wasuppermost in his mind was contagious, and he inspired you withenthusiasm. He was not good at conversation, in the French sense of theterm, for he was given to monologue; but he was never dull. Hisartlessness was charming. He gave you confidences that you would haveshrunk from hearing out of the mouth of any other man, in the fear thatyou intruded on a privacy where you had no right; but this openness ofmind was so natural in Mr. Pierce that you listened with concern andsympathized warmly. He took interest in everything; he had infiniteresources, and until his health began to fail, enjoyed life thoroughly. He loved society, conversation, travel; and while he had no passion forbooks, he listened to you attentively while you gave an abstract orcriticism of some book that was attracting attention. In all intercoursewith him you felt that you were in a healthy moral atmosphere. I neverknew a man who went out of his way oftener to do good works in whichthere was absolutely no reward, and at a great sacrifice of his time--tohim a most precious commodity. He was in the true sense of the word aphilanthropist, and yet no one would have approved more heartily thanhe this remark of Emerson: "The professed philanthropists are analtogether odious set of people, whom one would shun as the worst ofbores and canters. "

His interest in this Society the published Proceedings will show in somemeasure, but they cannot reflect the tone of devotion in which he spokeof it in conversation, or exhibit his loyalty to it as set forth in thepersonal letter. It was a real privation that his legislative dutiesprevented his attending these meetings last winter. 

Of Mr. Pierce as a citizen most of you, gentlemen, can speak better thanI, but it does appear to me an instance of rare civic virtue that a manof his age, political experience, ability, and mental resources couldtake pride and pleasure in his service in the House of Representativesof his Commonwealth. He was sixty-eight years old, suffering fromdisease, yet in his service last winter he did not miss one legislativesession nor a day meeting of his committee. His love for his town was amark of local attachment both praiseworthy and useful. "I would ratherbe moderator of the Milton town-meeting, " he said, "than hold any otheroffice in the United States. "

JACOB D. COX

A paper read before the Massachusetts Historical Society at the Octobermeeting of 1900. 

JACOB D. COX

A useful member of the legislature of his state, a general in the armyduring the Civil War, governor of his state, Secretary of the Interiorin President Grant's Cabinet, a member of Congress, the president of alarge railroad, a writer of books, dean and teacher in a law school, anda reviewer of books in the _Nation_, --such were the varied activities ofGeneral Cox. All this work was done with credit. He bore a prominentpart in the battle of Antietam, where Ropes speaks of his "brilliantsuccess"; he was the second in command at the battle of Franklin, andbore the brunt of the battle. "Brigadier-General J. D. Cox, " wroteSchofield, the commanding general, in his report, "deserves a very largeshare of credit for the brilliant victory at Franklin. "

The governor of the state of Ohio did not then have a great opportunityof impressing himself upon the minds of the people of his state, but Coxmade his mark in the canvass for that office. We must call to mind thatin the year 1865, when he was the Republican candidate for governor, President Johnson had initiated his policy of reconstruction, but hadnot yet made a formal break with his party. Negro suffrage, which only afew had favored during the last year of the war, was now advocated bythe radical Republicans, and the popular sentiment of the party wastending in that direction. Cox had been a strong antislavery man beforethe war, a supporter of President Lincoln in his emancipation measures, but soon after his nomination for governor he wrote a letter to hisradical friends at Oberlin in opposition to negro suffrage. "Youassume, " he said, "that the extension of the right of suffrage to theblacks, leaving them intermixed with the whites, will cure all thetrouble. I believe it would rather be like the decision in that outerdarkness of which Milton speaks where

 "'chaos umpire sits, And by decision more embroils the fray. '"

While governor, he said in a private conversation that he had come tothe conclusion "that so large bodies of black men and white as were inpresence in the Southern States never could share political power, andthat the insistence upon it on the part of the colored people would leadto their ruin. "

President Grant appointed General Cox Secretary of the Interior, and heremained for nearly two years in the Cabinet. James Russell Lowell, on avisit to Washington in 1870, gave expression to the feeling amongindependent Republicans. "Judge Hoar, " he wrote, "and Mr. Cox struck meas the only really strong men in the Cabinet. " This was long before theCivil Service Reform Act had passed Congress, but Secretary Cox put theInterior Department on a merit basis, and he was ever afterwards anadvocate of civil service reform by word of mouth and with his pen. Differences with the President, in which I feel pretty sure that theSecretary was in the right, caused him to resign the office. 

Elected to Congress in 1876, he was a useful member for one term. He hasalways been known to men in public life, and when President McKinleyoffered him the position of Minister to Spain something over three yearsago, it was felt that a well-known and capable man had been selected. For various reasons he did not accept the appointment, but if he haddone so, no one could doubt that he would have shown tact and judgmentin the difficult position. 

As president of the Wabash Railroad, one of the large railroads in theWest, he gained a name among business men, and five or six years ago wasoffered the place of Railroad Commissioner in New York City. This waspractically the position of arbitrator between the trunk lines, but hewas then Dean of the Cincinnati Law School and interested in a workwhich he did not care to relinquish. 

Besides a controversial monograph, he wrote three books on militarycampaigns: "Atlanta"; "The March to the Sea; Franklin and Nashville";"The Battle of Franklin"; and he wrote four excellent chapters forForce's "Life of General Sherman. " In these he showed qualities of amilitary historian of a high order. Before his death he had finished hisReminiscences, which will be brought out by the Scribners this autumn. 

His differences with President Grant while in his Cabinet left a wound, and in private conversation he was quite severe in his strictures ofmany of the President's acts, but he never let this feeling influencehim in the slightest degree in the consideration of Grant the General. He had a very high idea of Grant's military talents, which he has inmany ways emphatically stated. 

Since 1874 he had been a constant contributor to the literary departmentof the _Nation_. In his book reviews he showed a fine critical facultyand large general information, and some of his obituarynotices--especially those of Generals Buell, Grant, Sherman, Joseph E. Johnston, and Jefferson Davis--showed that power of impartialcharacterization which is so great a merit in a historian. He was anomnivorous reader of serious books. It was difficult to name anynoteworthy work of history or biography or any popular book on naturalscience with which he was not acquainted. 

As I saw him two years ago, when he was seventy years old, he was in thebest of health and vigor, which seemed to promise many years of life. Hewas tall, erect, with a frame denoting great physical strength, and hehad distinctively a military bearing. He was an agreeable companion, anexcellent talker, a scrupulously honest and truthful man, and agentleman. 

EDWARD GAYLORD BOURNE

A paper read before the Massachusetts Historical Society at the Marchmeeting of 1908. 

EDWARD GAYLORD BOURNE

When an associate dies who was not yet forty-eight years old, whom mostof us knew as a strong enduring man, who was capable of an immenseamount of intellectual work, it is a real calamity, --a calamity which inthis case History mourns, as Edward Gaylord Bourne was an excellentteacher and a thorough historical scholar. The physical details of anyillness are apt to be repulsive, but the malady in Bourne's case wassomehow so bound up in his life that an inquiry into it comes from nomorbid curiosity. When ten years old he was attacked with tuberculardisease of the hip, and for some weeks his life was despaired of; but hewas saved by the loving care of his parents, receiving particulardevotion from his father, who was a Congregational minister in charge ofa parish in Connecticut. As the left leg had out-grown the other, Bournewas obliged to use crutches for three years, when his father took him toa specialist in Boston, and the result was that he was able to abandoncrutches and in the end to get about by an appliance to adjust thelengths of the different legs, such as his friends were familiar with. Despite this disability he developed great physical strength, especiallyin the chest and arms, but his lameness prevented his accompanying hiscollege companions on long tramps, so that the bicycle was for him amost welcome invention. He became expert in the use of it, riding on itdown Pike's Peak at the time of his visit to Colorado; and he performeda similar feat of endurance on another occasion when stopping with me atJefferson in the White Mountains. Starting early in the morning, hetraveled by rail to the terminus of the mountain railroad, went up MountWashington on the railroad, and rode down the carriage road on his wheelto the Glen House, which ought to have been enough of fatigue andexertion for one day, but he then had about ten miles to make on hisbicycle over a somewhat rough mountain road to reach Jefferson. Jefferson he did make, but not until after midnight. 

During an acquaintance of over nineteen years with Bourne, I was alwaysimpressed with his physical strength and endurance; and I was thereforemuch surprised to learn, in a letter received from him last winter whileI was in Rome, that his youthful malady had attacked him, that he wasagain on crutches and had been obliged to give up his work at Yale. Intruth ever since the autumn of 1906 he has had a painful, hopelessstruggle. He has had the benefit of all the resources of medicine andsurgery, and he and his wife were buoyed up by hope until the last; butas the sequel of one of a series of operations death came to his reliefon February 24. 

Only less remarkable than his struggle for life and physical strengthwas his energy in acquiring an education. The sacrifices that parents inNew England and the rest of the country make in order to send their boysto school and college is a common enough circumstance, but not always isthe return so satisfactory as it was in the case of Edward Bourne, andhis brother. Edward went to the Norwich Academy, where his studiousdisposition and diligent purpose gained him the favor of the principal. Thence to Yale, where he attracted the attention of Professor William G. Sumner, who became to him a guide and a friend. Until his senior year atYale his favorite studies were Latin and Greek; and his brother, who wasin his class, informs me that ever since his preparatory school days, itwas his custom to read the whole of any author in hand as well as thepart set for the class. During recitations he recalls seeing him againand again reading ahead in additional books of the author, keeping atthe same time "a finger on the page where the class was translating, inorder not to be caught off his guard. " In his senior year at Yale, underthe influence of Professor Sumner, he became interested in economics andwon the Cobden medal. After graduation he wrote his first historicalbook, "The History of the Surplus Revenue of 1837, " published in 1885 inPutnam's "Questions of the Day" series. For this and his other graduatework his university later conferred upon him the degree of Ph. D. Since Ihave learned the story of his boyhood and youth, it is with peculiarappreciation that I read the dedication of this first book: "To myFather and Mother. " I may add in this connection that while pursuing hisindefatigable labors for the support of his large family, his father'ssickness and death overtaxed his strength, and the breakdown followed. 

At Yale during his graduate work he won the Foote scholarship; he wasinstructor in history there from 1886 to 1888, then took a similarposition at Adelbert College, Cleveland, becoming Professor of Historyin 1890. This post he held until 1895, when he was called to YaleUniversity as Professor of History, a position that he held at the timeof his death. 

Besides the doctor's thesis, Bourne published two books, the first ofwhich was "Essays in Historical Criticism, " one of the Yale bicentennialpublications, the most notable essay in which is that on Marcus Whitman. A paper read at the Ann Arbor session of the American Historical meetingin Detroit and later published in the _American Historical Review_ ishere amplified into a long and exhaustive treatment of the subject. Theoriginal paper gained Bourne some celebrity and subjected him to someharsh criticism, both of which, I think, he thoroughly enjoyed. Feelingsure of his facts and ground, he delighted in his final word to supportthe contention which he had read with emphasis and pleasure to anattentive audience in one of the halls of the University of Michigan. The final paragraph sums up what he set out to prove with undoubtedsuccess:

 That Marcus Whitman was a devoted and heroic missionary who braved every hardship and imperilled his life for the cause of Christian missions and Christian civilization in the far Northwest and finally died at his post, a sacrifice to the cause, will not be gainsaid. That he deserves grateful commemoration in Oregon and Washington is beyond dispute. But that he is a national figure in American history, or that he "saved" Oregon, must be rejected as a fiction [p. 100]. 

Bourne had a good knowledge of American history, and he specialized onthe Discoveries period, to which he gave close and continuous attention. He was indebted to Professor Hart's ambitious and excellent coöperativehistory, "The American Nation, " for the opportunity to obtain a hearingon his favorite subject. His "Spain in America, " his third publishedbook, is the book of a scholar. While the conditions of his narrativeallowed only forty-six pages to the story of Columbus, he hadundoubtedly material enough well arranged and digested to fill thevolume on this topic alone. I desire to quote a signal example ofcompression:

 It was November, 1504, when Columbus arrived in Seville, a broken man, something over twelve years from the time he first set sail from Palos. Each successive voyage since his first had left him at a lower point. On his return from the second he was on the defensive; after his third he was deprived of his viceroyalty; on his fourth he was shipwrecked. .. . The last blow, the death of his patron Isabella, soon followed. It was months before he was able to attend court. His strength gradually failed, he sank from public view, and on the eve of Ascension Day, May 20, 1506, he passed away in obscurity [p. 81]. 

And I am very fond of this final characterization:

 Columbus . .. Has revealed himself in his writings as few men of action have been revealed. His hopes, his illusions, his vanity, and love of money, his devotion to by-gone ideals, his keen and sensitive observation of the natural world, his credulity and utter lack of critical power in dealing with literary evidence, his practical abilities as a navigator, his tenacity of purpose and boldness of execution, his lack of fidelity as a husband and a lover, . .. All stand out in clear relief. .. . Of all the self-made men that America has produced, none has had a more dazzling success, a more pathetic sinking to obscurity, or achieved a more universal celebrity [p. 82]. 

His chapter on Magellan is thoroughly interesting. The treatment ofColumbus and Magellan shows what Bourne might have achieved inhistorical work if he could have had leisure to select his own subjectsand elaborate them at will. 

Before "Spain in America" appeared, he wrote a scholarly introduction tothe vast work on the "Philippine Islands" published by the Arthur H. Clark Company, of Cleveland, of which fifty-one volumes are already out. The study of this subject gave Bourne a chance for the exhibition of hisdry wit at one of the gatherings of the American Historical Association. It was asserted that in the acquisition of the Philippine Islands ourcountry had violated the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine, which properlyconfined our indulgence of the land hunger that is preying upon theworld to the Western hemisphere. Bourne took issue with this statement. He said that it might well be a question whether the Philippine Islandsdid not belong to the Western hemisphere and that--

 for the first three centuries of their recorded history, they were in a sense a dependency of America. As a dependency of New Spain they constituted the extreme western verge of the Spanish dominions and were commonly known as the Western Islands. When the sun rose in Madrid it was still early afternoon of the preceding day in Manila. Down to the end of the year 1844 the Manilan calendar was reckoned after that of Spain, that is, Manila time was about sixteen hours slower than Madrid time. 

Bourne undertook to write the Life of Motley for Houghton, Mifflin andCompany's American Men of Letters series, and he had done considerablework in the investigation of material. He was editor of a number ofpublications, one of which was John Fiske's posthumous volume, "NewFrance and New England, " and he wrote critical notices for the _Nation_, _New York Tribune_, and the _New York Times_. As I have said, he had alarge family to support, and he sought work of the potboiling order; butin this necessary labor he never sacrificed his ideal of thoroughness. Aremark that he made to me some while ago has come back with patheticinterest. After telling me what he was doing, how much time his teachingleft for outside work, why he did this and that because it brought himmoney, he said: "I can get along all right. I can support my family, educate my children, and get a little needed recreation, if only myhealth does not break down. "

Bourne took great interest in the American Historical Association, andrarely if ever missed an annual meeting. He frequently read papers, which were carefully prepared, and a number of them are printed in thevolume of Essays to which I have referred. He was the efficient chairmanof the programme committee at the meeting in New Haven in 1898; and aschairman of an important committee, or as member of the Council, heattended the November dinners and meetings in New York, so that he cameto be looked upon as one of the chief supporters of the Association. Interested also in the _American Historical Review_, he was a frequentcontributor of critical book notices. 

My acquaintance with Bourne began in 1888, the year in which I commencedthe composition of my history. We were both living in Cleveland, and, asit was his custom to dine with me once or twice a month, acquaintancegrew into friendship, and I came to have a great respect for histraining and knowledge as a historical scholar. The vastness ofhistorical inquiry impressed me, as it has all writers of history. Recognizing in Bourne a kindred spirit, it occurred to me whether Icould not hasten my work if he would employ part of his summer vacationin collecting material. I imparted the idea to Bourne, who received itfavorably, and he spent a month of the summer of 1889 at work for me inthe Boston Athenæum on my general specifications, laboring with industryand discrimination over the newspapers of the early '50's to which wehad agreed to confine his work. His task completed, he made me a visitof a few days at Bar Harbor, affording an opportunity for us to discussthe period and his material. I was so impressed with the value of hisassistance that, when the manuscript of my first two volumes wascompleted in 1891, I asked him to spend a month with me and work jointlyon its revision. We used to devote four or five hours a day to thislabor, and in 1894, when I had finished my third volume, we had asimilar collaboration. [163] I have never known a better test of generalknowledge and intellectual temper. 

Bourne was a slow thinker and worker, but he was sure, and, when he knewa thing, his exposition was clear and pointed. The chance of reflectionover night and the occasional discussion at meal times, outside of ourset hours, gave him the opportunity to recall all his knowledge bearingon the subject in hand, to digest and classify it thoroughly, so that, when he tackled a question, he talked, so to speak, like a book. Twochapters especially attracted him, --the one on Slavery in my firstvolume, and the one on general financial and social conditions at thebeginning of the third; and I think that I may say that not only everyparagraph and sentence, but every important word in these two chapterswas discussed and weighed. Bourne was a good critic, and, to set himentirely at ease, as he was twelve years younger, I told him to layaside any respect on account of age, and to speak out frankly, no matterhow hard it hit, adding that I had better hear disagreeable things fromhim than to have them said by critics after the volumes were printed. 

The intelligent note on page 51 of my third volume was written byBourne, as I state in the note itself, but I did not speak of the largeamount of study he gave to it. I never knew a man take keener interestin anything, and as we had all the necessary authorities at hand, heworked over them for two days, coming down on the morning of the thirdday with the triumphant air of one who had wrestled successfully with amathematical problem all night. He sat down and, as I remember it, wrotethe note substantially as it now stands in the volume. He was verystrong on all economic and sociological questions, displaying in amarked degree the intellectual stimulus he had derived from hisassociation with Professor Sumner. He was a born controversialist andliked to argue. "The appetite comes in eating" is a French saying, andwith Bourne his knowledge seemed to be best evolved by the actual jointworking and collision with another mind. 

I remember one felicitous suggestion of Bourne's which after muchworking over we incorporated into a paragraph to our commonsatisfaction; and this paragraph received commendation in some criticalnotice. Showing this to Bourne, I said: "That is the way of the world. You did the thinking, I got the credit. " Bourne had, however, forgottenhis part in the paragraph. His mind was really so full of knowledge, when one could get at it, that he did not remember giving off any partof it. In addition to his quality of close concentration, he acquired agood deal of knowledge in a desultory way. In my library whenconversation lagged he would go to the shelves and take down book afterbook, reading a little here or there, lighting especially upon any booksthat had been acquired since his previous visit, and with reading hewould comment. This love of browsing in a library he acquired when aboy, so his brother informs me, and when at Yale it was said that heknew the library as well as the librarian himself. 

It will be remembered that last spring our accomplished editor, Mr. Smith, decided that he could no longer bear the burden of this highlyimportant work; and the question of a fit successor came up at once inthe mind of our President. Writing to me while I was in Europe, heexpressed the desire of consulting with me on the subject as soon as Ireturned. I was unfortunately unable to get back in time for the Junemeeting of the Society; and afterwards when I reached Boston thePresident had gone West, and when he got home I was at Seal Harbor. Tospare me the trip to Boston and Lincoln, he courteously offered to cometo see me at Seal Harbor, where we had the opportunity to discuss thesubject in all its bearings. It will be quite evident from thisnarrative that my choice for editor would be no other than ProfessorBourne, and I was much gratified to learn that the President from hisown observation and reflection had determined on the same man. Mr. Adamshad been accustomed to see Bourne at meetings of the AmericanHistorical Association and at dinners of their Council; but, so heinformed me, he was not specially impressed by him until he read theessay on Marcus Whitman, which gave him a high idea of Bourne's power ofworking over material, and his faculty of trenchant criticism. Wearrived readily at the conclusion that Bourne would be an ideal editorand that the position would suit him perfectly. Relieved of the drudgeryof teaching, he could give full swing to his love of books and to hisdesire of running down through all the authorities some fact orreference bearing upon the subject in hand. The work would be a labor oflove on which he could bring to bear his knowledge, conscientiousendeavor, and historical training. It would have been a case of mutualbenefit. He would be fortunate in securing such a position, and theSociety might be congratulated on being able to get a man so peculiarlyqualified for editorial work. But there was the question of Bourne'shealth. We both knew that he had been failing, but we were not awarethat his case was hopeless. The President did not wish to present hisrecommendation to the Council until there was a reasonable chance of hisrecovery, and I undertook from time to time to get information from acommon friend in New Haven of his progress. But there was no good news. While Bourne, with the help of his devoted wife, made an energetic fightfor life, it was unavailing. In his death Yale lost an excellent teacherof history and this Society a candidate who, if he had been chosen, would have made an accomplished editor. 

 [163] Bourne also revised the manuscript of my fourth volume, but the conditions did not admit of our being together more than two days, and the revision was not so satisfactory to either of us as that of the first three volumes. 

THE PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE

Printed in _Scribner's Magazine_, of February, 1903. 

THE PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE

The English Constitution, as it existed between 1760 and 1787, was themodel of the American, but parts of it were inapplicable to theconditions in which the thirteen Colonies found themselves, and wherethe model failed the Convention struck out anew. The sagacity of theAmerican statesmen in this creative work may well fill Englishmen, soSir Henry Maine wrote, "with wonder and envy. " Mr. Bryce'sclassification of constitutions as flexible and rigid is apt: of ourConstitution it may be said that in the main it is rigid in thosematters which should not be submitted to the decision of a legislatureor to a popular vote without checks which secure reflection and a chancefor the sober second thought, and that it has proved flexible in itsadaptation to the growth of the country and to the development of thenineteenth century. Sometimes, though, it is flexible to the extent oflacking precision. An instance of this is the proviso for the countingof the electoral vote. "The votes shall then be counted" are the words. Thus, when in 1876 it was doubtful whether Tilden or Hayes had beenchosen President, a fierce controversy arose as to who should count thevotes, the President of the Senate or Congress. While many regretted theabsence of an incontrovertible provision, it was fortunate for thecountry that the Constitution did not provide that the vote should becounted by the President of the Senate, who, the Vice President havingdied in office, was in 1877 a creature of the partisan majority. It isdoubtful, too, if the decision of such an officer would have beenacquiesced in by the mass of Democrats, who thought that they had fairlyelected their candidate. There being no express declaration of theConstitution, it devolved upon Congress to settle the dispute; theability and patriotism of that body was equal to the crisis. By awell-devised plan of arbitration, Congress relieved the strain andprovided for a peaceful settlement of a difficulty which in mostcountries would have led to civil war. 

In the provisions conferring the powers and defining the duties of theexecutive the flexible character of the Constitution is shown in anotherway. Everything is clearly stated, but the statements go not beyond theelementary. The Convention knew what it wanted to say, and GouverneurMorris, who in the end drew up the document, wrote this part of it, asindeed all other parts, in clear and effective words. It is due to him, wrote Laboulaye, that the Constitution has a "distinctness entirelyFrench, in happy contrast to the complicated language of the Englishlaws. " Yet on account of the elementary character of the article of theConstitution on the powers of the President, there is room forinference, a chance for development, and an opportunity for a strong manto imprint his character upon the office. The Convention, writes Mr. Bryce, made its executive a George III "shorn of a part of hisprerogative, " his influence and dignity diminished by a reduction of theterm of office to four years. The English writer was thoroughly familiarwith the _Federalist_, and appreciated Hamilton's politic efforts todemonstrate that the executive of the Constitution was modeled after thegovernors of the states, and not after the British monarch; but "anenlarged copy of the state governor, " Mr. Bryce asserts, is one and thesame thing as "a reduced and improved copy of the English king. " But, onthe other hand, Bagehot did not believe that the Americans comprehendedthe English Constitution. "Living across the Atlantic, " he wrote, "andmisled by accepted doctrines, the acute framers of the FederalConstitution, even after the keenest attention, did not perceive thePrime Minister to be the principal executive of the BritishConstitution, and the sovereign a cog in the mechanism;" and he seems tothink that if this had been understood the executive power would havebeen differently constituted. 

It is a pertinent suggestion of Mr. Bryce's that the members of theConvention must have been thinking of their presiding officer, GeorgeWashington, as the first man who would exercise the powers of theexecutive office they were creating. So it turned out. Never did acountry begin a new enterprise with so wise a ruler. An admirable polityhad been adopted, but much depended upon getting it to work, and the manwho was selected to start the government was the man of all men for thetask. Histories many and from different points of view have been writtenof Washington's administration; all are interesting, and the subjectseems to ennoble the writers. Statesmen meeting with students to discussthe character and political acts of Washington marvel at his wisdom ingreat things and his patience in small things, at the dignity and goodsense with which he established the etiquette of his office, at the tactwhich retained in his service two such irreconcilable men as Jeffersonand Hamilton. The importance of a good start for an infant government iswell understood. But for our little state of four million people such astart was difficult to secure. The contentions which grew out of theratification of the Constitution in the different states had left bitterfeelings behind them, and these domestic troubles were heightened by ourintimate relations with foreign countries. We touched England, France, and Spain at delicate points, and the infancy of our nation was passedduring the turmoil of the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror. Inour midst there was an English and a French party. Moreover, in thejudgment of the world the experiment of the new government wasforedoomed to failure. Wrote Sir Henry Maine, "It is not at all easy tobring home to the men of the present day how low the credit of republicshad sunk before the establishment of the United States. " Hardly weresuccess to be won had we fallen upon quiet times; but with freegovernments discredited, and the word "liberty" made a reproach by thecourse of the French Revolution, it would seem impossible. 

Washington's prescience is remarkable. Recognizing, in October, 1789, that France had "gone triumphantly through the first paroxysm, " he feltthat she must encounter others, that more blood must be shed, that shemight run from one extreme to another, and that "a higher-toneddespotism" might replace "the one which existed before. " Mentallyprepared as he was, he met with skill the difficulties as they arose, sothat the conduct of our foreign relations during the eight years of hisadministration was marked by discretion and furnished a good pattern tofollow. During his foreign negotiations he determined a constitutionalquestion of importance. When the Senate had ratified and Washington, after some delay, had signed the Jay treaty, the House ofRepresentatives, standing for the popular clamor against it, asked thePresident for all the papers relating to the negotiation, on the groundthat the House of Representatives must give its concurrence. This demandhe resisted, maintaining that it struck at "the fundamental principlesof the Constitution, " which conferred upon the President and the Senatethe power of making treaties, and provided that these treaties when madeand ratified were the supreme law of the land. In domestic affairs heshowed discernment in selecting as his confidential adviser, AlexanderHamilton, a man who had great constructive talent; and he gave ademonstration of the physical strength of the government by puttingdown the whisky rebellion in Pennsylvania. During his eight years heconstrued the powers conferred upon the executive by the Constitutionwith wisdom, and exercised them with firmness and vigor. Washington wasa man of exquisite manners and his conduct of the office gave it adignity and prestige which, with the exception of a part of one term, ithas never lost. 

Four of the five Presidents who followed Washington were men ofeducation and ability, and all of them had large political training andexperience; they reached their position by the process of a naturalselection in politics, being entitled fitly to the places for which theywere chosen. The three first fell upon stormy times and did their workduring periods of intense partisan excitement; they were also subject topersonal detraction, but the result in the aggregate of theiradministrations was good, inasmuch as they either maintained the powerof the executive or increased its influence. Despite their many mistakesthey somehow overcame the great difficulties. Each one did something ofmerit and the country made a distinct gain from John Adams to Monroe. Any one of them suffers by comparison with Washington: the "era of goodfeeling" was due to Congress and the people as well as to the executive. Nevertheless, the three turbulent administrations and the two quiet oneswhich succeeded Washington's may at this distance from them becontemplated with a feeling of gratulation. The Presidents surroundedthemselves for the most part with men of ability, experience, andrefinement, who carried on the government with dignity and a sense ofproportion, building well upon the foundations which Washington hadlaid. 

A contrast between France and the United States leads to curiousreflections. The one has a past rich in art, literature, andarchitecture, which the other almost entirely lacks. But politically theolder country has broken with the past, while we have politicaltraditions peculiar to ourselves of the highest value. For the manAmerican-born they may be summed up in Washington, the rest of the"Fathers, " and the Constitution; and those who leave England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Germany, and Scandinavia to make their home in Americasoon come to share in these possessions. While the immigrants fromsouthern Europe do not comprehend the Constitution, they knowWashington. An object lesson may be had almost any pleasant Sunday orholiday in the public garden in Boston from the group of Italians whogather about the statue of Washington, showing, by their mobile facesand animated talk, that they revere him who is the father of theiradopted country. 

During these five administrations, at least two important extensions orassertions of executive power were made. In 1803 Jefferson boughtLouisiana, doing, he said, "an act beyond the Constitution. " He was astrict constructionist, and was deeply concerned at the variance betweenhis constitutional principles and a desire for the material advantage ofhis country. In an effort to preserve his consistency he suggested tohis Cabinet and political friends an amendment to the Constitutionapproving and confirming the cession of this territory, but they, deeming such an amendment entirely unnecessary, received his suggestioncoldly. In the debate on the Louisiana treaty in the Senate and theHouse, all speakers of both parties agreed that "the United Statesgovernment had the power to acquire new territory either by conquest orby treaty. "[164] Louisiana, "without its consent and against its will, "was annexed to the United States, and Jefferson "made himself monarch ofthe new territory, and wielded over it, against its protests, thepowers of its old kings. "[165]

The assertion by the President in 1823 of the Monroe Doctrine (which Mr. Worthington C. Ford has shown to be the John Quincy Adams doctrine) isan important circumstance in the development of the executive power. 

President John Quincy Adams was succeeded by Andrew Jackson, a man ofentirely different character from those who had preceded him in theoffice, and he represented different aims. Adams deserved another term. His sturdy Americanism, tempered by the cautiousness in procedure whichwas due to his rare training, made him an excellent public servant, andthe country erred in not availing itself of his further service. Thechange from the _régime_ of the first six Presidents to that of Jacksonwas probably inevitable. A high-toned democracy, based on a qualifiedsuffrage, believing in the value of training for public life andadministrative office, setting a value on refinement and good manners, was in the end sure to give way to a pure democracy based on universalsuffrage whenever it could find a leader to give it force and direction. Jackson was such a leader. His followers felt: "He is one of us. He isnot proud and does not care for style. "[166] The era of vulgarity innational politics was ushered in by Jackson, who as President introducedthe custom of rewarding political workers with offices, an innovationentirely indefensible; he ought to have continued the practice of hissix predecessors. The interaction between government and politics on theone hand and the life of the people on the other is persistent, and itmay be doubted whether the United States would have seemed as it did toDickens had not Jackson played such an important part in thevulgarization of politics. Yet it was a happy country, as the pages ofTocqueville bear witness. 

Jackson was a strong executive and placed in his Cabinet men who woulddo his will, and who, from his own point of view, were good advisers, since they counseled him to pursue the course he had marked out forhimself. Comparing his Cabinet officers to those of the Presidentspreceding him, one realizes that another plan of governing was set onfoot, based on the theory that any American citizen is fit for anyposition to which he is called. It was an era when special training foradministrative work began to be slighted, when education beyond therudiments was considered unnecessary except in the three professions, when the practical man was apotheosized and the bookish man despised. Jackson, uneducated and with little experience in civil life, showedwhat power might be exercised by an arbitrary, unreasonable man who hadthe people at his back. The brilliant three--Webster, Clay, andCalhoun--were unable to prevail against his power. 

Jackson's financial policy may be defended; yet had it not been for hiscourse during the nullification trouble, his declaration, "Our FederalUnion: It must be preserved, " and his consistent and vigorous action inaccordance with that sentiment it would be difficult to affirm that theinfluence of his two terms of office was good. It cannot be said that heincreased permanently the power of the executive, but he showed itscapabilities. It is somewhat curious, however, that Tocqueville, whoseobservations were made under Jackson, should have written: "ThePresident possesses almost royal prerogatives, which he never has anopportunity of using. .. . The laws permit him to be strong; circumstanceskeep him weak. "

The eight Presidents from Jackson to Lincoln did not raise the characterof the presidential office. Van Buren was the heir of Jackson. Of theothers, five owed their nominations to their availability. The evilwhich Jackson did lived after him; indeed, only a man as powerful forthe good as he had been for the bad could have restored the civilservice to the merit system which had prevailed before he occupied theWhite House. The offices were at stake in every election, and thescramble for them after the determination of the result was great andpressing. The chief business of a President for many months after hisinauguration was the dealing out of the offices to his followers andhenchmen. It was a bad scheme, from the political point of view, forevery President except him who inaugurated it. Richelieu is reported tohave said, on making an appointment, "I have made a hundred enemies andone ingrate. " So might have said many times the Presidents who succeededJackson. 

The Whig, a very respectable party, having in its ranks the majority ofthe men of wealth and education, fell a victim to the doctrine ofavailability when it nominated Harrison on account of his militaryreputation. He lived only one month after his inauguration, and Tyler, the Vice President, who succeeded him, reverted to his old politicalprinciples, which were Democratic, and broke with the Whigs. By anadroit and steady use of the executive power he effected the annexationof Texas, but the master spirit in this enterprise was Calhoun, hisSecretary of State. Polk, his Democratic successor, coveted Californiaand New Mexico, tried to purchase them, and not being able to do this, determined on war. In fact, he had decided to send in a war message toCongress before the news came that the Mexicans, goaded to it by theaction of General Taylor, under direct orders of the President, hadattacked an American force and killed sixteen of our dragoons. Thisgave a different complexion to his message, and enabled him to get astrong backing from Congress for his war policy. The actions of Tylerand of Polk illustrate the power inherent in the executive office. Itmight seem that the exercise of this authority, securing for us at smallmaterial cost the magnificent domains of Texas, California, and NewMexico, would have given these Presidents a fame somewhat like thatwhich Jefferson won by the purchase of Louisiana. But such has not beenthe case. The main reason is that the extension of slavery was involvedin both enterprises, and the histories of these times, which have moldedhistorical sentiment, have been written from the antislavery point ofview. It seems hardly probable that this sentiment will be changed inany time that we can forecast, but there is an undoubted tendency in theyounger historical students to look upon the expansion of the country asthe important consideration, and the slavery question as incidental. Professor von Holst thought this changing historical sentiment entirelynatural, but he felt sure that in the end men would come round to theantislavery view, of which he was so powerful an advocate. 

From Taylor to Lincoln slavery dominated all other questions. Taylor wasa Southern man and a slaveholder, and by his course on the Compromisemeasures attracted the favor of antislavery men; while Fillmore of NewYork, who succeeded this second President to die in office, and whoexerted the power of the Administration to secure the passage of Clay'sCompromise and signed the Fugitive Slave Law, had but a small politicalfollowing at the North. Pierce and Buchanan were weak, the more positivemen in their Cabinets and in the Senate swayed them. For a part of bothof their terms the House of Representatives was controlled by theopposition, the Senate remaining Democratic. These circumstances areevidence both of the length of time required to change the politicalcomplexion of the Senate and of the increasing power of the North, whichwas dominant in the popular House. For the decade before the Civil Warwe should study the Senate, the House of Representatives, the SupremeCourt, the action of the states, and popular sentiment. The executive isstill powerful, but he is powerful because he is the representative of aparty or faction which dictates the use that shall be made of hisconstitutional powers. The presidential office loses interest:irresolute men are in the White House, strong men everywhere else. 

Lincoln is inaugurated President; the Civil War ensues, and with it anextraordinary development of the executive power. It is an interestingfact that the ruler of a republic which sprang from a resistance to theEnglish king and Parliament should exercise more arbitrary power thanany Englishman since Oliver Cromwell, and that many of his acts shouldbe worthy of a Tudor. Lincoln was a good lawyer who reverenced theConstitution and the laws, and only through necessity assumed andexercised extra-legal powers, trying at the same time to give to theseactions the color of legality. Hence his theory of the war power of theConstitution, which may be construed to permit everything necessary tocarry on the war. Yet his dictatorship was different from Cæsar's anddifferent from the absolute authority of Napoleon. He acted under therestraints imposed by his own legal conscience and patriotic soul, whoseinfluence was revealed in his confidential letters and talks. We knowfurthermore that he often took counsel of his Cabinet officers beforedeciding matters of moment. Certain it is that in arbitrary arrestsSeward and Stanton were disposed to go further than Lincoln. The spiritof arbitrary power was in the air, and unwise and unjust acts were doneby subordinates, which, although Lincoln would not have done themhimself, he deemed it better to ratify than to undo. This was notablythe case in the arrest of Vallandigham. Again, Congress did not alwaysdo what Lincoln wished, and certain men of his own party in Congresswere strong enough to influence his actions in various ways. But, afterall, he was himself a strong man exercising comprehensive authority; andit is an example of the flexibility of the Constitution that, while itsurely did not authorize certain of Lincoln's acts, it did not expresslyforbid them. It was, for example, an open question whether theConstitution authorized Congress or the President to suspend the writ of_habeas corpus_. 

It seems to be pretty well settled by the common sense of mankind thatwhen a nation is fighting for its existence it cannot be fettered by allthe legal technicalities which obtain in the time of peace. Happy thecountry whose dictatorship, if dictator there must be, falls into wiseand honest hands! The honesty, magnanimity, and wisdom of Lincoln guidedhim aright, and no harm has come to the great principles of liberty fromthe arbitrary acts which he did or suffered to be done. On the otherhand he has so impressed himself upon the Commonwealth that he has madea precedent for future rulers in a time of national peril, and what heexcused and defended will be assumed as a matter of course because itwill be according to the Constitution as interpreted by Abraham Lincoln. This the Supreme Court foresaw when it rendered its judgment in theMilligan case, saying: "Wicked men ambitious of power, with hatred ofliberty and contempt of law, may fill the place once occupied byWashington and Lincoln, and if this right is conceded [that of acommander in a time of war to declare martial law within the lines ofhis military district and subject citizens as well as soldiers to therule of _his will_] and the calamities of war again befall us, thedangers to human liberty are frightful to contemplate. " No one can denythat a danger here exists, but it is not so great as the solemn words ofthe Supreme Court might lead one to believe. For Lincoln could not havepersisted in his arbitrary acts had a majority of Congress definitelyopposed them, and his real strength lay in the fact that he had thepeople at his back. This may be said of the period from the first callof troops in April, 1861, until the summer of 1862. McClellan's failureon the Peninsula, Pope's disaster at the second battle of Bull Run, thedefeats at Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville lost Lincoln theconfidence of many; and while the emancipation proclamation ofSeptember, 1862, intensified the support of others, it neverthelessalienated some Republicans and gave to the opposition of the Democrats anew vigor. But after Gettysburg and Vicksburg in July, 1863, Lincoln hadthe support of the mass of the Northern people. Whatever he did thepeople believed was right because he had done it. The trust each placedin the other is one of the inspiring examples of free government anddemocracy. Lincoln did not betray their confidence: they did not faltersave possibly for brief moments during the gloomy summer of 1864. Thepeople who gave their unreserved support to Lincoln were endued withintelligence and common sense; not attracted by any personal magnetismof the man, they had, by a process of homely reasoning, attained theirconvictions and from these they were not to be shaken. This is thesafety of a dictatorship as long as the same intelligence obtains amongthe voters as now; for the people will not support a ruler in theexercise of extra-legal powers unless he be honest and patriotic. Thedanger may come in a time of trouble from either an irresolute or anunduly obstinate executive. The irresolute man would baffle the bestintentions of the voters; the obstinate man might quarrel with Congressand the people. Either event in time of war would be serious and mightbe disastrous. But the chances are against another Buchanan or Johnsonin the presidential office. 

If the Civil War showed the flexibility of the Constitution in that theexecutive by the general agreement of Congress and the people was ableto assume unwarranted powers, the course of affairs under Johnsondemonstrated the strength that Congress derived from the organic act. The story is told in a sentence by Blaine: "Two thirds of each Houseunited and stimulated to one end can practically neutralize theexecutive power of the government and lay down its policy in defiance ofthe efforts and opposition of the President. "[167] What a contrastbetween the two administrations! Under Lincoln Congress, for the mostpart, simply registered the will of the President; under Johnson thePresident became a mere executive clerk of Congress. In the one case thepeople supported the President, in the other they sustained Congress. Nothing could better illustrate the flexibility of the Constitution thanthe contrast between these administrations; but it needs no argument toshow that to pass from one such extreme to another is not healthy forthe body politic. The violent antagonisms aroused during Johnson'sadministration, when the difficult questions to be settled needed thebest statesmanship of the country, and when the President and Congressshould have coöperated wisely and sympathetically, did incalculableharm. Johnson, by habits, manners, mind, and character, was unfit forthe presidential office, and whatever may have been the merit of hispolicy, a policy devised by angels could never have been carried on bysuch an advocate. The American people love order and decency; they havea high regard for the presidential office, and they desire to see itsoccupant conduct himself with dignity. Jackson and Lincoln lacked manyof the external graces of a gentleman, but both had native qualitieswhich enabled them to bear themselves with dignity on public occasions. Johnson degraded the office, and he is the only one of our Presidents ofwhom this can be said. Bagehot, writing in 1872, drew an illustrationfrom one of the darkest periods of our republic to show the superiorityof the English Constitution. If we have a Prime Minister who does notsuit Parliament and the people, he argued, we remove him by a simplevote of the House of Commons. The United States can only get rid of itsundesirable executive by a cumbrous and tedious process which can onlybe brought to bear during a period of revolutionary excitement; and eventhis failed because a legal case was not made against the President. Thecriticism was pregnant, but the remedy was not Cabinet responsibility. Whatever may be the merits or demerits of our polity, it has grown ashas the English; it has fitted itself to the people, and cabinetgovernment cannot be had without a complete change of the organic act, which is neither possible nor desirable. The lesson was that thenational conventions should exercise more care in naming theirvice-presidential candidates; and these bodies have heeded it. WhenGrant, popular throughout the country, nominated by the unanimous voteof the Republican convention, became President, Congress restored to theexecutive a large portion of the powers of which it had been shornduring Johnson's administration. Grant had splendid opportunities whichhe did not improve, and he left no especial impression on the office. Inthe opinion of one of his warm friends and supporters he made "a prettypoor President. " An able opposition to him developed in his own party;and as he was a sensitive man he felt keenly their attacks. Colonel JohnHay told me that, when on a visit to Washington during Grant'sadministration, he had arrived at the Arlington Hotel at an early hourand started out for a walk; in front of the White House he was surprisedto meet the President, who was out for the same purpose. The two walkedtogether to the Capitol and back, Grant showing himself to be anythingbut a silent man. Manifesting a keen sensitiveness to the attacks uponhim, he talked all of the time in a voluble manner, and the burden ofhis talk was a defense of his administrative acts. It is impossible inour minds to dissociate Grant the President from Grant the General, andfor this reason American historical criticism will deal kindly with him. The brilliant victor of Donelson, the bold strategist of Vicksburg, thecompeller of men at Chattanooga, the vanquisher of Robert E. Lee inMarch and April, 1865, the magnanimous conqueror at Appomattox, will betreated with charity by those who write about his presidential terms, because he meant well although he did not know how to do well. Moreover, the good which Grant did is of that salient kind which will not beforgotten. The victorious general, with two trusted militarysubordinates in the prime of life and a personnel for a strong navy, persisted, under the guidance of his wise Secretary of State, HamiltonFish, in negotiating a treaty which provided for arbitration andpreserved the peace with Great Britain; although, in the opinion of themajority, the country had a just cause of war in the escape of theFlorida and the Alabama. After the panic of 1873, when financiers andcapitalists lost their heads, and Congress with the approval of publicsentiment passed an act increasing the amount of United States notes incirculation, Grant, by a manly and bold veto, prevented this inflationof the currency. The wisdom of the framers of the Constitution in givingthe President the veto power was exemplified. Congress did not pass theact over the veto, and Grant has been justified by the later judgment ofthe nation. His action demonstrated what a President may do in resistingby his constitutional authority some transitory wave of popular opinion, and it has proved a precedent of no mean value. Johnson's vetoes becameridiculous. Grant's veto compensates for many of his mistakes. 

Said Chancellor Kent in 1826: "If ever the tranquillity of this nationis to be disturbed and its liberties endangered by a struggle for power, it will be upon this very subject of the choice of a President. This isthe question that is eventually to test the goodness and try thestrength of the Constitution, and if we shall be able for half a centuryhereafter to continue to elect the chief magistrate of the Union withdiscretion, moderation, and integrity we shall undoubtedly stamp thehighest value on our national character. " Just fifty years later came amore dangerous test than Kent could have imagined. Somewhat more thanhalf of the country believed that the states of Florida and Louisianashould be counted for Tilden, and that he was therefore elected. On theother hand, nearly one half of the voters were of the opinion that thoseelectoral votes should be given to Hayes, which would elect him by themajority of one electoral vote. Each of the parties had apparently agood case, and after an angry controversy became only the more firmlyand sincerely convinced that its own point of view was unassailable. TheSenate was Republican, the House Democratic. The great Civil War hadbeen ended only eleven years before, and the country was full offighting men. The Southern people were embittered against the dominantparty for the reason that Reconstruction had gone otherwise than theyhad expected in 1865 when they laid down their arms. The country was onthe verge of a civil war over the disputed Presidency--a war that mighthave begun with an armed encounter on the floor of the Senate or theHouse. This was averted by a carefully prepared congressional act, whichin effect left the dispute to a board of arbitration. To the statesmenof both parties who devised this plan and who coöperated in carrying themeasure through Congress; to the members of the Electoral Commission, who in the bitterest strife conducted themselves with dignity; to theDemocratic Speaker of the House and the Democrats who followed his lead, the eternal gratitude of the country is due. "He that ruleth his spiritis better than he that taketh a city. " The victories of Manila andSantiago are as nothing compared with the victorious restraint of theAmerican people in 1876 and 1877 and the acquiescence of one half of thecountry in what they believed to be an unrighteous decision. Hayes wasinaugurated peacefully, but had to conduct his administration in theview of 4, 300, 000 voters who believed that, whatever might be his legalclaim, he had no moral right to the place he occupied. The Democratscontrolled the House of Representatives during the whole of his term, and the Senate for a part of it, and at the outset he encountered theopposition of the stalwart faction of his own party. Nevertheless hemade a successful President, and under him the office gained in forceand dignity. Hayes was not a man of brilliant parts or wideintelligence, but he had common sense and decision of character. Surrounding himself with a strong Cabinet, three members of which werereally remarkable for their ability, he entered upon a distinct policyfrom which flowed good results. He withdrew the Federal troops from thestates of South Carolina and Louisiana, inaugurating in these states anera of comparative peace and tranquillity. Something was done in theinterest of Civil Service Reform. In opposition to the view of hisSecretary of the Treasury and confidential friend, John Sherman, hevetoed the act of 1878 for the remonetization of silver by the coinageof a certain amount of silver dollars--the first of those measures whichalmost brought us to the monetary basis of silver. His guiding principlewas embodied in a remark he made in his inaugural address, "He serveshis party best who serves the country best. " He and his accomplishedwife had a social and moral influence in Washington of no mean value. The Civil War had been followed by a period of corruption, profligacy, and personal immorality. In politics, if a man were sound on the mainquestion, which meant if he were a thorough-going Republican, all elsewas forgiven. Under Hayes account was again taken of character andfitness. The standard of political administration was high. While Mrs. Hayes undoubtedly carried her total abstinence principles to an extremenot warranted by the usage of good society, the moral atmosphere of theWhite House was that of most American homes. Mr. And Mrs. Hayes belongedto that large class who are neither rich nor poor, neither learned norignorant, but who are led both by their native common sense and by theirupbringing to have a high respect for learning, a belief in education, morality, and religion, and a lofty ideal for their own personalconduct. 

The salient feature of Garfield's few months of administration was aquarrel between him and the senators from New York State about animportant appointment. Into this discussion, which ended in a tragedy, entered so many factors that it is impossible to determine exactly theinfluence on the power of the President and the growing power of theSenate. One important result of it shall be mentioned. The Civil ServiceReform Bill, introduced into the Senate by a Democrat, was enactedduring Arthur's administration by a large and non-partisan majority. Itprovided for a non-partisan civil service commission, and establishedopen competitive examinations for applicants for certain offices, makinga commencement by law of the merit system, which before had dependedentirely upon executive favor. It was a victory for reformers who hadbeen advocating legislation of such a character from a period shortlyafter the close of the Civil War; for it was at that time that a fewbegan the work of educating public sentiment, which had acquiesced inthe rotation of offices as an American principle well worthy ofmaintenance. Consequences far-reaching and wholesome followed thepassage of this important act. Grant had attempted and Hayes hadaccomplished a measure of reform, but to really fix the merit system inthe civil service a law was needed. 

Regarded by the lovers of good government as a machine politician, Arthur happily disappointed them by breaking loose from his oldassociations and pursuing a manly course. He gave the country adignified administration; but, even had he been a man to impress hischaracter upon the office, conditions were against him. His party wastorn by internal dissensions and suffered many defeats, of which themost notable was in his own state of New York, where his Secretary ofthe Treasury and personal friend was overwhelmingly defeated forgovernor by Grover Cleveland. 

The unprecedented majority which Cleveland received in this election andhis excellent administration as Governor of New York secured for him theDemocratic nomination for President in 1884. New York State decided theelection, but the vote was so close that for some days the result was indoubt and the country was nervous lest there should be another disputedPresidency; in the end it was determined that Cleveland had carried thatstate by a plurality of 1149. Cleveland was the first DemocraticPresident elected since 1856; the Democrats had been out of office fortwenty-four years, and it had galled them to think that their historicparty had so long been deprived of power and patronage. While many oftheir leaders had a good record on the question of Civil Service Reform, the rank and file believed in the Jacksonian doctrine of rewarding partyworkers with the offices, or, as most of them would have put it, "To thevictors belong the spoils. " With this principle so fixed in the minds ofhis supporters, it became an interesting question how Cleveland wouldmeet it. No one could doubt that he would enforce fairly the statute, but would he content himself with this and use the offices not coveredby the act to reward his followers in the old Democratic fashion? Anavowed civil service reformer, and warmly supported by independents andsome former Republicans on that account, he justified the confidencewhich they had reposed in him and refused "to make a clean sweep. " Inresisting this very powerful pressure from his party he accomplishedmuch toward the establishment of the merit system in the civil service. It is true that he made political changes gradually, but his insistenceon a rule which gained him time for reflection in making appointmentswas of marked importance. It would be idle to assert that in his twoterms he lived wholly up to the ideal of the reformers; undoubtedly along list of backslidings might be made up, but in striking a fairbalance it is not too much to say that in this respect hisadministration made for righteousness. All the more credit is due him inthat he not only resisted personal pressure, but, aspiring to be a partyleader for the carrying out of a cherished policy on finance and thetariff, he made more difficult the accomplishment of these ends byrefusing to be a mere partisan in the question of the offices. In hissecond term it is alleged, probably with truth, that he made a skillfuluse of his patronage to secure the passage by the Senate of the repealof the Silver Act of 1890, which repeal had gone easily through theHouse. It seemed to him and to many financiers that unless this largepurchase of silver bullion should be stopped the country would be forcedon to a silver basis, the existing financial panic would be grievouslyintensified, and the road back to the sound money basis of the rest ofthe civilized world would be long and arduous. His course is defended asdoing a little wrong in order to bring about a great right; and thesequence of events has justified that defense. Harm was done to thecause of Civil Service Reform, but probably no permanent injury. Therepeal of the Silver Act of 1890 was the first important step in thedirection of insuring a permanent gold standard, and Grover Cleveland isthe hero of it. 

The presidential office gained in strength during Cleveland's two terms. As we look back upon them, the President is the central figure roundwhich revolves each policy and its success or failure. At the same time, it is his party more than he that is to be blamed for the failures. Hemade a distinct move toward a reduction of the tariff, and while thisfailed, leaving us with the reactionary result of higher duties thanever before, it is not impossible that the words, actions, andsacrifices of Cleveland will be the foundation of a new tariff-reformparty. Allusion has been made to his soundness on finance. His course inthis respect was unvarying. Capitalists and financiers can take care ofthemselves, no matter what are the changes in the currency; but men andwomen of fixed incomes, professors of colleges, teachers in schools, clergymen and ministers, accountants and clerks in receipt of salaries, and farmers and laborers have had their comfort increased and theiranxieties lessened by the adoption of the gold standard; and toCleveland, as one of the pioneers in this movement for stability, theirthanks are due. 

In the railroad riots of 1894 Cleveland, under the advice of his ableAttorney-General, made a precedent in the way of interference for thesupremacy of law and the maintenance of order. The Governor of Illinoiswould not preserve order, and the President determined that at allhazards riotous acts must be suppressed and law must resume its sway. Inordering United States troops to the scene of the disturbance without anapplication of the Legislature or Governor of Illinois he accomplished afresh extension of executive power without an infraction of theConstitution. 

In his most important diplomatic action Cleveland was not so happy as inhis domestic policy. There are able men experienced in diplomacy whodefend his message of December 17, 1895, to Congress in regard toVenezuela, and the wisdom of that action is still a mooted question. Yettwo facts placed in juxtaposition would seem to indicate that themessage was a mistake. It contained a veiled threat of war if Englandwould not arbitrate her difference with Venezuela, the implication beingthat the stronger power was trying to browbeat the weaker one. Later anarbitration took place, the award of which was a compromise, Englandgaining more than Venezuela, and the award demonstrated that Englandhad not been as extreme and unjust in her claim as had been Venezuela. It is even probable that England might have accepted, as the result ofnegotiation, the line decided on by the arbitrators. But, to the creditof Mr. Cleveland and his Secretary of State, Mr. Olney, it must beremembered that they later negotiated a treaty "for the arbitration ofall matters in difference between the United States and Great Britain, "which unfortunately failed of ratification by the Senate. 

It is a fair charge against Cleveland as a partisan leader that, whilehe led a strong following to victory in 1892, he left his partydisorganized in 1897. But it fell to him to decide between principle andparty, and he chose principle. He served his country at the expense ofhis party. From the point of view of Democrats it was grievous that theonly man under whom they had secured victory since the Civil War shouldleave them in a shattered condition, and it may be a question whether aruler of more tact could not have secured his ends without so great aschism. Those, however, to whom this party consideration does not appealhave no difficulty in approving Cleveland's course. It is undeniablethat his character is stamped on the presidential office, and hisoccupancy of it is a distinct mark in the history of executive power. 

Harrison occupied the presidential office between the two terms ofCleveland, and although a positive man, left no particular impress uponthe office. He was noted for his excellent judicial appointments, and hehad undoubtedly a high standard of official conduct which he endeavoredto live up to. Cold in his personal bearing he did not attract friends, and he was not popular with the prominent men in his own party. WhileCleveland and McKinley were denounced by their opponents, Harrison wasridiculed; but the universal respect in which he was held after heretired to private life is evidence that the great office lost nodignity while he held it. During his term Congress overshadowed theexecutive and the House was more conspicuous than the Senate. Thomas B. Reed was speaker and developed the power of that office to anextraordinary extent. McKinley was the leader of the House and from longservice in that body had become an efficient leader. The election ofHarrison was interpreted to mean that the country needed a highertariff, and McKinley carried through the House the bill which is knownby his name. Among the other Representatives Mr. Lodge was prominent. Itwas not an uncommon saying at that time that the House was a betterarena for the rising politician than the Senate. In addition to thehigher tariff the country apparently wanted more silver and a determinedstruggle was made for the free coinage of silver which nearly won inCongress. In the end, however, a compromise was effected by SenatorSherman which averted free silver but committed the country to thepurchase annually of an enormous amount of silver bullion against whichTreasury notes redeemable in coin were issued. This was the Act of 1890which, as I have mentioned, was repealed under Cleveland in 1893. It isentirely clear from the sequence of events that the Republican party asa party should have opposed the purchase of more silver. It could nothave been beaten worse than it was in 1892, but it could have preserveda consistency in principle which, when the tide turned, would have beenof political value. The party which has stuck to the right principle hasin the long run generally been rewarded with power, and as theRepublicans, in spite of certain defections, had been the party of soundmoney since the Civil War, they should now have fought cheap money underthe guise of unlimited silver as they had before under the guise ofunlimited greenbacks. But the leaders thought differently, and fromtheir own point of view their course was natural. The country desiredmore silver. Business was largely extended, overtrading was the rule. Farmers and business men were straitened for money. Economists, statesmen, and politicians had told them that, as their trouble had comelargely from the demonetization of silver, their relief lay inbimetallism. It was easy to argue that the best form of bimetallism wasthe free coinage of gold and silver, and after the panic of 1893 thisdelusion grew, but the strength of it was hardly appreciated byoptimistic men in the East until the Democrats made it the chief plankin the platform on which they fought the presidential campaign of 1896. Nominating an orator who had an effective manner of presenting hisarguments to hard-working farmers whose farms were mortgaged, tobusiness men who were under a continued strain to meet theirobligations, and to laborers out of employment, it seemed for two orthree months as if the party of silver and discontent might carry theday. After some hesitation the Republicans grappled with the questionboldly, took ground against free silver, and with some modificationdeclared their approval of the gold standard. On this issue they foughtthe campaign. Their able and adroit manager was quick to see, after theissue was joined, the force of the principle of sound money and starteda remarkable campaign of education by issuing speeches and articles bythe millions in a number of different languages, in providing excellentarguments for the country press, and in convincing those who wouldlisten only to arguments of sententious brevity by a well-devisedcirculation of "nuggets" of financial wisdom. McKinley had also thesupport of the greater part of the Independent and Democratic press. While financial magnates and the bankers of the country were alarmed atthe strength of the Bryan party, and felt that its defeat was necessaryto financial surety, the strength of the Republican canvass lay in thefact that the speakers and writers who made it believed sincerely thatthe gold standard would conduce to the greatest good of the greatestnumber. It was an inspiring canvass. The honest advocacy of soundprinciple won. 

Under McKinley the Democratic tariff bill was superseded by the Dingleyact, which on dutiable articles is, I believe, the highest tariff thecountry has known. The Republican party believes sincerely in the policyof protection, and the country undoubtedly has faith in it. It isattractive to those who allow immediate returns to obscure prospectiveadvantage, and if a majority decides whether or not a political andeconomic doctrine is sound, it has a powerful backing, for every largecountry in the civilized world, I think, except England, adheres toprotection; and some of them have returned to it after trying a measureof commercial freedom. McKinley and the majority of Congress were infull sympathy, and the Dingley act had the approval of theadministration. But the change in business conditions which, though longin operation, became signally apparent after 1893, wrought in McKinley, during his four and a half years of office, a change of opinion. Underimproved processes and economies in all branches of manufactures theUnited States began to make many articles cheaper than any othercountry, and sought foreign markets for its surplus, disputingsuccessfully certain open marts with England and Germany. In McKinley'searlier utterances the home market is the dominating feature; in hislater ones, trade with foreign countries. In his last speech at Buffalohe gave mature expression to his views, which for one who had been aleader of protectionists showed him to have taken advanced ground. "Wefind our long-time principles echoed, " declared the _Nation_. McKinley'smanner of developing foreign trade was not that of the tariff reformers, for he proposed to bring this about by a variety of reciprocitytreaties; but it was important that he recognized the sound economicprinciple that if we are to sell to foreign countries we must buy fromthem also. That McKinley had a strong hold on the country isindisputable from the unanimous renomination by his party and histriumphant reëlection, and it was a step toward commercial freedom thathe who more than all other men had the ear of the country and who hadbeen an arch-protectionist should advocate the exchange of commoditieswith foreign lands. Economists do not educate the mass of voters, butmen like McKinley do, and these sentences of his were read and ponderedby millions: "A system which provides a mutual exchange of commoditiesis manifestly essential to the continued and healthful growth of ourexport trade. We must not repose in fancied security that we can foreversell everything and buy little or nothing. If such a thing were possibleit would not be best for us or for those with whom we deal. " It isuseless to speculate on what would have been the result had McKinleylived. Those who considered him a weak President aver that when heencountered opposition in Congress from interests which were seeminglymenaced, he would have yielded and abandoned reciprocity. Others believethat he understood the question thoroughly and that his arguments wouldin the end have prevailed with Congress; yielding, perhaps, in points ofdetail he would have secured the adoption of the essential part of hispolicy. 

After his election McKinley became a believer in the gold standard andurged proper legislation upon Congress. It is to his credit and to thatof Congress that on March 14, 1900, a bill became a law whichestablishes the gold standard and puts it out of the power of anyPresident to place the country upon a silver basis by a simple directionto his Secretary of the Treasury, which could have been done in 1897. Asit has turned out, it was fortunate that there was no undue haste inthis financial legislation. A better act was obtained than would havebeen possible in the first two years of McKinley's administration. Thereaction from the crisis following the panic of 1893 had arrived, madesure by the result of the election of 1896; and the prosperity hadbecome a telling argument in favor of the gold standard with the peopleand with Congress. 

McKinley was essentially adapted for a peace minister, but under himcame war. Opinions of him will differ, not only according to one'ssentiments on war and imperialism, but according to one's ideal of whata President should be. Let us make a comparison which shall not includeWashington, for the reason that under him the country had not become thepure democracy it is at the present day. Of such a democracy it seems tome that Lincoln is the ideal President, in that he led public sentiment, represented it, and followed it. "I claim not to have controlledevents, " he said, "but confess plainly that events have controlled me. "During his term of office he was one day called "very weak, " and thenext "a tyrant"; but when his whole work was done, a careful survey ofit could bring one only to the conclusion that he knew when to followand when to lead. He was in complete touch with popular sentiment, anddivined with nicety when he could take a step in advance. He made aneffort to keep on good terms with Congress, and he differed with thatbody reluctantly, although, when the necessity came, decisively. Whilehe had consideration for those who did not agree with him, and while heacted always with a regard to proportion, he was nevertheless a strongand self-confident executive. Now Cleveland did not comprehend popularopinion as did Lincoln. In him the desire to lead was paramount, to theexclusion at times of a proper consideration for Congress and thepeople. It has been said by one of his political friends that he usedthe same energy and force in deciding a small matter as a great one, andhe alienated senators, congressmen, and other supporters by anunyielding disposition when no principle was involved. He did notpossess the gracious quality of Lincoln, who yielded in small thingsthat he might prevail in great ones. Yet for this quality of sturdyinsistence on his own idea Cleveland has won admiration from a vastnumber of independent thinkers. Temperaments such as these are not insympathy with McKinley, who represents another phase of Lincoln'sgenius. The controlling idea of McKinley probably was that as he waselected by the people he should represent them. He did not believe that, if a matter were fully and fairly presented, the people would go wrong. At times he felt he should wait for their sober, second thought, but if, after due consideration, the people spoke, it was his duty to carry outtheir will. Unquestionably if the Cleveland and McKinley qualities canbe happily combined as they were in Lincoln, the nearest possibleapproach to the ideal ruler is the result. One Lincoln, though, in acentury, is all that any country can expect: and there is a place in ourpolity for either the Cleveland or the McKinley type of executive. So itseemed to the makers of the Constitution. "The republican principle, "wrote Hamilton in the _Federalist_, "demands that the deliberate senseof the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they intrustthe management of their affairs. " "But, " he said in the same essay, "however inclined we might be to insist upon an unbounded complaisancein the executive to the inclinations of the people, we can with nopropriety contend for a like complaisance to the humors of thelegislature. .. . The executive should be in a situation to dare to acthis own opinion with vigor and decision. " It is frequently remarked thatno President since Lincoln had so thorough a comprehension of publicsentiment as McKinley. This knowledge and his theory of action, if Ihave divined it aright, are an explanation of his course in regard tothe Spanish War and the taking of the Philippines. It does not fall tome to discuss in this article these two questions, nor do I feel certainthat all the documents necessary to a fair judgment are accessible tothe public, but I can show what was McKinley's attitude toward them byreporting a confidential conversation he had on May 2, 1899, with Mr. Henry S. Pritchett, president of the Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology, who made a record of it the day afterward. The President, Mr. Pritchett relates, spoke of the "war and of his own responsibility, and the way in which he has gradually come to have his present positionwith respect to the Philippines. The talk was started by my remindinghim of the fact that just a year ago that morning, on May 2, 1898, I hadcome into his room with a map of Manila and Cavité on a large scale--thefirst time he had seen such a map--and from this he drifted into a mostserious and interesting talk of his own place in the history of the pasttwelve months. He described his efforts to avert the war, how he hadcarried the effort to the point of rupture with his party, then came theMaine incident, and, finally, a declaration of war over all efforts tostem the tide. Then he spoke of Cuba and Porto Rico and the Philippines, related at some length the correspondence he had had with the ParisCommission, how he had been gradually made to feel in his struggling forthe right ground that first Luzon and finally all the Philippines mustbe kept. He then went on to indicate his belief that Providence had ledin all this matter, that to him the march of events had been soirresistible that nothing could turn them aside. Nobody, he said, couldhave tried harder than he to be rid of the burden of the Philippines, and yet the trend of events had been such that it seemed impossible toescape this duty. He finally came to speak with more emotion than I haveever seen him exhibit, and no one could doubt the sincerity of the man. "

Of McKinley's achievements in the field of diplomacy Secretary Hay inhis memorial address spoke with knowledge and in words of high praise. Sometimes the expression of a careful foreign observer anticipates thejudgment of posterity, and with that view the words of the_Spectator_, [168] in an article on the presidential election of 1900, are worth quoting: "We believe that Mr. McKinley and the wise statesmanwho is his Secretary of State, Colonel Hay, are administrators of a highorder. They have learnt their business thoroughly, hold all the stringsof policy in their hands. "

Opinions will differ as to the impress McKinley has left on thepresidential office. It is the judgment of two men of large knowledge ofAmerican history and present affairs that no President since Jeffersonhas been so successful in getting Congress to adopt the positivemeasures he desired. 

Of the administration of Theodore Roosevelt it would be neither propernor wise for me to speak in other terms than those of expectation andprophecy. But of Mr. Roosevelt himself something may be said. His birth, breeding, education, and social advantages have been of the best. Hehas led an industrious and useful life. As an American citizen we areall proud of him, and when he reached the presidential office by atragedy that nobody deplored more than he, every one wished him success. His transparent honesty and sincerity are winning qualities, and in theopinion of Burke especially important in him who is the ruler of anation. "Plain good intention, " he wrote, "which is as easily discoveredat the first view as fraud is surely detected at last, is, let me say, of no mean force in the government of mankind. " To these qualities, andto a physical and moral courage that can never be questioned, Mr. Roosevelt adds a large intelligence and, as his books show, a power ofcombination of ideas and cohesive thought. Moreover, he has had a goodpolitical training, and he has the faculty of writing his politicalpapers in a pregnant and forcible literary style. He is fit for what Mr. Bryce calls "the greatest office in the world, unless we except thePapacy. " His ideals are Washington and Lincoln. "I like to see in mymind's eye, " he said, "the gaunt form of Lincoln stalking through thesehalls. " "To gratify the hopes, secure the reverence, and sustain thedignity of the nation, " said Justice Story, "the presidential officeshould always be occupied by a man of elevated talents, of ripe virtues, of incorruptible integrity, and of tried patriotism; one who shallforget his own interests and remember that he represents not a party butthe whole nation. " These qualities Theodore Roosevelt has. Whether heshall in action carry out the other requirements of Justice Story mayonly be judged after he shall have retired to private life. 

Mr. Roosevelt merits the encouragement and sympathy of all lovers ofgood government, and he is entitled, as indeed is every President, toconsiderate and forbearing criticism. For, ardently desired as theoffice is, it is a hard place to fill. Through the kindness of PresidentRoosevelt, I have been enabled to observe the daily routine of his work, and I am free to say that from the business point of view, no man betterearns his pay than does he. Mr. Bryce remarks that a good deal of thePresident's work is like that of the manager of a railway. So far asconcerns the consultation with heads of departments, prompt decisions, and the disposition of daily matters, the comparison is apt, if a greatAmerican railway and a manager like Thomas A. Scott are borne in mind. But the railway manager's labor is done in comparative privacy, he canbe free from interruption and dispose of his own time in a systematicmanner. That is impossible for the President during the session ofCongress. Office-seekers themselves do not trouble the President so muchas in former days; they may be referred to the heads of the departments;and, moreover, the introduction of competitive examinations and themerit system has operated as a relief to the President and his Cabinetofficers. But hearing the recommendations by senators and congressmen oftheir friends for offices consumes a large amount of time. There are, asSenator Lodge has kindly informed me, 4818 presidential officesexclusive of 4000 presidential post offices; in addition there are armyand naval officers to be appointed. The proper selection in four yearsof the number of men these figures imply is in itself no small labor; itwould by a railway manager be considered an onerous and exactingbusiness. But the railway manager may hear the claims of applicants inhis own proper way, and to prevent encroachments on his time may givethe candidates or their friends a curt dismissal. The President may nottreat senators and representatives in that manner, nor would he desireto do so, for the intercourse between them and the executive is of greatvalue. "The President, " wrote John Sherman, "should 'touch elbows' withCongress. " There are important legislative measures to be discussed in afrank interchange of opinion. Senators and representatives are a guideto the President in their estimates of public sentiment; often theyexert an influence over him, and he is dependent on them for thecarrying out of any policy he may have at heart. While the encroachmentson the President's time are great, I am convinced that no plan should beadopted which should curtail the unconventional and frank interchange ofviews between the President and members of the National Legislature. Therelief lies with the public. Much of the President's time is taken upwith receptions of the friends of senators and representatives, ofmembers of conventions and learned bodies meeting in Washington, ofdeputations of school-teachers and the like who have gone to the capitalfor a holiday: all desire to pay their respects to the Chief Magistrate. Undoubtedly, if he could have a quiet talk with most of these people, itwould be of value, but the conventional shaking of hands and the "I amglad to see you" is not a satisfaction great enough to the recipients topay for what it costs the President in time and the expenditure ofnervous force. He should have time for deliberation. The railway managercan closet himself when he likes: that should be the privilege of thePresident; yet on a certain day last April, when he wished to have along confidential talk with his Secretary of War, this was only to becontrived by the two taking a long horseback ride in the country. It isdifficult for the President to refuse to see these good, patriotic, andlearned people; and senators and representatives like to gratify theirconstituents. The remedy lies with the public in denying themselves thispleasant feature of a visit to Washington. One does not call on thepresident of the Pennsylvania Railroad or the president of the New YorkCentral Railroad in business hours unless for business purposes; andthis should be the rule observed by citizens of the United States towardthe President. The weekly public receptions are no longer held. Allthese other receptions and calls simply for shaking hands and wishinghim God-speed should no longer be asked for. For the President haslarger and more serious work than the railway manager and should have atleast as much time for thought and deliberation. 

Moreover, the work of the railway manager is done in secret. Fiercer byfar than the light which beats upon the throne is that which beats uponthe White House. The people are eager to know the President's thoughtsand plans, and an insistent press endeavors to satisfy them. Consideringthe conditions under which the President does his work, the wonder isnot that he makes so many mistakes, but that he makes so few. There isno railway or business manager or college president who has not moretime to himself for the reflection necessary to the maturing of largeand correct policies. I chanced to be in the President's room when hedictated the rough draft of his famous dispatch to General Chaffeerespecting torture in the Philippines. While he was dictating, two orthree cards were brought in, also some books with a request for thePresident's autograph, and there were some other interruptions. Whilethe dispatch as it went out in its revised form could not be improved, aPresident cannot expect to be always so happy in dictating dispatches inthe midst of distractions. Office work of far-reaching importance shouldbe done in the closet. Certainly no monarch or minister in Europe doesadministrative work under such unfavorable conditions; indeed, thispublic which exacts so much of the President's time should in allfairness be considerate in its criticism. 

No one, I think, would care to have abated the fearless politicalcriticism which has in this country and in England attained to thehighest point ever reached. From the nature of things the press mustcomment promptly and without the full knowledge of conditions that mightalter its judgments. But on account of the necessary haste of itsexpressions, the writers should avoid extravagant language and the tooready imputation of bad motives to the public servants. "It is strangethat men cannot allow others to differ with them without chargingcorruption as the cause of the difference, " are the plaintive words ofGrant during a confidential conversation with his Secretary of State. 

The contrast between the savage criticism of Cleveland and Harrisonwhile each occupied the presidential chair and the respect each enjoyedfrom political opponents after retiring to private life is an effectiveillustration of the lesson I should like to teach. At the time ofHarrison's death people spoke from their hearts and said, "Well done, good and faithful servant. " A fine example of political criticism in atime of great excitement were two articles by Mr. Carl Schurz in_Harper's Weekly_ during the Venezuela crisis. Mr. Schurz was asupporter and political friend of Cleveland, but condemned his Venezuelamessage. In the articles to which I refer he was charitable in feelingand moderate in tone, and though at the time I heard the term"wishy-washy" applied to one of them, I suspect that Mr. Schurz nowlooks back with satisfaction to his reserve; and those of us who usedmore forcible language in regard to the same incident may well wish thatwe had emulated his moderation. 

The presidential office differs from all other political offices in theworld, and has justified the hopes of its creators. It has not realizedtheir fears, one of which was expressed by Hamilton in the _Federalist_. "A man raised from the station of a private citizen to the rank of ChiefMagistrate, " he wrote, "possessed of a moderate or slender fortune, andlooking forward to a period not very remote, when he may probably beobliged to return to the station from which he was taken, mightsometimes be under temptations to sacrifice his duty to his interest, which it would require superlative virtue to withstand. An avariciousman might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to theacquisition of wealth. An ambitious man might make his ownaggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of histreachery to his constituents. "[169] From dangers of this sort thepolitical virtue which we inherited from our English ancestors haspreserved us. We may fairly maintain that the creation andadministration of our presidential office have added something topolitical history, and when we contrast in character and ability the menwho have filled it with the monarchs of England and of France, we mayhave a feeling of just pride. Mr. Bryce makes a suggestive comparison inability of our Presidents to the prime ministers of England, awardingthe palm to the Englishmen, [170] and from his large knowledge of bothcountries and impartial judgment we may readily accept his conclusion. It is, however, a merit of our Constitution that as great ability is notrequired for its chief executive office as is demanded in England. Theprime minister must have a talent for both administration and debate, which is a rare combination of powers, and if he be chosen from theHouse of Commons, it may happen that too much stress will be laid uponoratory, or the power of making ready replies to the attacks of theopposition. It is impossible to conceive of Washington defending hispolicy in the House or the Senate from a fire of questions andcross-questions. Lincoln might have developed this quality of a primeminister, but his replies and sallies of wit to put to confusion hisopponents would have lacked the dignity his state papers andconfidential letters possess. Hayes and Cleveland were excellentadministrators, but neither could have reached his high position had thedebating ability of a prime minister been required. On the other hand, Garfield, Harrison, and McKinley would have been effective speakers ineither the House or the Senate. 

An American may judge his own country best from European soil, impregnated as he there is with European ideas. Twice have I been inEurope during Cleveland's administration, twice during McKinley's, onceduring Roosevelt's. During the natural process of comparison, when onemust recognize in many things the distinct superiority of England, Germany, and France, I have never had a feeling other than high respectfor each one of these Presidents; and taking it by and large, in theendeavor to consider fairly the hits and misses of all, I have never hadany reason to feel that the conduct of our national government has beeninferior to that of any one of these highly civilized powers. 

 [164] Henry Adams, II, 113. 

 [165] _Ibid. _, 130. 

 [166] Sumner's Jackson, 138. 

 [167] Twenty Years of Congress, II, 185. 

 [168] July 14, 1900. 

 [169] See also the _Federalist_ (Lodge's edition), 452. Bryce, Studies in History and Jurisprudence, 308. 

 [170] American Commonwealth, I, 80. 

A REVIEW OF PRESIDENT HAYES'S ADMINISTRATION

Address delivered at the annual meeting of the Graduate School of Artsand Sciences, and the Graduate Schools of Applied Science and BusinessAdministration, Harvard University, on October 8, 1908; printed in the_Century Magazine_ for October, 1909. 

A REVIEW OF PRESIDENT HAYES'S ADMINISTRATION

Many of our Presidents have been inaugurated under curious and tryingcircumstances, but no one of them except Hayes has taken the oath ofoffice when there was a cloud on his title. Every man who had voted forTilden, --whose popular vote exceeded that of Hayes by 264, 000, --believedthat Hayes had reached his high place by means of fraud. Indeed, some ofthe Hayes voters shared this belief, and stigmatized as monstrous theaction of the Louisiana returning board in awarding the electoral voteof Louisiana to Hayes. The four men, three of them dishonest and thefourth incompetent, who constituted this returning board, rejected, onthe ground of intimidation of negro voters, eleven thousand votes thathad been cast in due form for Tilden. In the seventh volume of myhistory I have told the story of the compromise in the form of theElectoral Commission which passed on the conflicting claims and adjudgedthe votes of the disputed states, notably Florida and Louisiana, toHayes, giving him a majority of one in the electoral college, thusmaking him President. When the count was completed and the usualdeclaration made, Hayes had no choice but to abide by the decision. Dutyto his country and to his party, the Republican, required his acceptanceof the office, and there is no reason for thinking that he had anydoubts regarding his proper course. His legal title was perfect, but hismoral title was unsound, and it added to the difficulty of his situationthat the opposition, the Democrats, had a majority in the House ofRepresentatives. None but a determined optimist could have predictedanything but failure for an administration beginning under suchconditions. 

Hayes was an Ohio man, and we in Ohio now watched his successive stepswith keen interest. We knew him as a man of high character, with a finesense of honor, but we placed no great faith in his ability. He hadadded to his reputation by the political campaign that he had made forgovernor, in 1875, against the Democrats under William Allen, whodemanded an inflation of the greenback currency. He took anuncompromising stand for sound money, although that cause was unpopularin Ohio, and he spoke from the stump unremittingly and fearlessly, although overshadowed by the greater ability and power of expression ofSenator Sherman and of Carl Schurz, who did yeoman's service for theRepublicans in this campaign. Senator Sherman had suggested Hayes ascandidate for President, and the nomination by the Republican nationalconvention had come to him in June, 1876. While his letter of acceptancemay not have surprised his intimate friends, it was a revelation to mostof us from its outspoken and common-sense advocacy of civil servicereform, and it gave us the first glimmering that in Rutherford B. Hayesthe Republicans had for standard bearer a man of more than respectableability. 

His inaugural address confirmed this impression. He spoke with dignityand sympathy of the disputed Presidency, promised a liberal policytoward the Southern states, and declared that a reform in our civilservice was a "paramount necessity. " He chose for his Cabinet men insympathy with his high ideals. William M. Evarts, the Secretary ofState, was one of the ablest lawyers in the country. He had been one ofthe leading counsel in the defense of President Johnson in theimpeachment trial, and had managed the Republican cause before theElectoral Commission with adroitness and zeal. John Sherman, theSecretary of the Treasury, was the most capable financier in publiclife. Carl Schurz, the Secretary of the Interior, was an aggressive anduncompromising reformer, who had served the Republican party well in thecampaigns of 1875 and 1876. If these three men could work together underHayes, the United States need envy the governors of no other country. They were in the brilliant but solid class, were abreast of the bestthought of their time, had a solemn sense of duty, and believed inrighteous government. Devens, the Attorney-General, had served withcredit in the army and had held the honorable position of Justice of theSupreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Thompson of Indiana, Secretaryof the Navy, was a political appointment due to the influence of SenatorMorton, but, all things considered, it was not a bad choice. McCrary ofIowa, as Secretary of War, had been a useful member of the House ofRepresentatives. The Postmaster-General was Key of Tennessee, who hadserved in the Confederate army and voted for Tilden. This appointmentwas not so genuine a recognition of the South as would have been made ifHayes could have carried out his first intention, which was theappointment of General Joseph E. Johnston as Secretary of War. Considering that Johnston had surrendered the second great army of theConfederacy only twelve years before, the thought was possible only to amagnanimous nature, and in the inner circle of Hayes's counselorsobvious and grave objections were urged. General Sherman doubted thewisdom of the proposed appointment, although he said that as General ofthe army he would be entirely content to receive the President's ordersthrough his old antagonist. Although the appointment of Johnston wouldhave added strength, the Cabinet as finally made up was strong, and theselection of such advisers created a favorable impression upon theintelligent sentiment of the country; it was spoken of as the ablestCabinet since Washington's. 

A wise inaugural address and an able Cabinet made a good beginning, butbefore the harmonious coöperation of these extraordinary men could bedeveloped a weighty question, which brooked no delay, had to be settled. The Stevens-Sumner plan of the reconstruction of the South on the basisof universal negro suffrage and military support of the governments thusconstituted had failed. One by one in various ways the Southern stateshad recovered home rule until, on the inauguration of Hayes, carpet-bagnegro governments existed in only two states, South Carolina andLouisiana. In both of these the Democrats maintained that theircandidates for governor had been lawfully elected. The case of SouthCarolina presented no serious difficulty. Hayes electors had beenrightfully chosen, and so had the Democratic governor, Hampton. ButChamberlain, the Republican candidate, had a claim based on theexclusion of the votes of two counties by the board of state canvassers. After conferences between each of the claimants and the President, thequestion was settled in favor of the Democrat, which was the meaning ofthe withdrawal of the United States troops from the State House inColumbia. 

The case of Louisiana was much more troublesome. Packard, the Republicancandidate for governor, had received as many votes as Hayes, and logicseemed to require that, if Hayes be President, Packard should begovernor. While the question was pending, Blaine said in the Senate:"You discredit Packard, and you discredit Hayes. You hold that Packardis not the legal governor of Louisiana, and President Hayes has notitle. " And the other leaders of the Republican party, for the mostpart, held this view. To these and their followers Blaine applied thename "Stalwarts, " stiff partisans, who did not believe in surrenderingthe hold of the Republicans on the Southern states. 

Between the policies of a continuance of the support of the Republicanparty in Louisiana or its withdrawal, a weak man would have allowedthings to drift, while a strong man of the Conkling and Chandler typewould have sustained the Packard government with the whole force at hiscommand. Hayes acted slowly and cautiously, asked for and received muchgood counsel, and in the end determined to withdraw the United Statestroops from the immediate vicinity of the State House in Louisiana. ThePackard government fell, and the Democrats took possession. The lawyerscould furnish cogent reasons why Packard was not entitled to thegovernorship, although the electoral vote of Louisiana had been countedfor Hayes; but the Stalwarts maintained that no legal quibble couldvarnish over so glaring an inconsistency. Indeed, it was one of thoseillogical acts, so numerous in English and American history, thatresolve difficulties, when a rigid adherence to logic would tend tofoment trouble. 

The inaugural address and the distinctively reform Cabinet did not suitthe party workers, and when the President declined to sustain thePackard government in Louisiana, disapproval was succeeded by rage. Insix weeks after his inauguration Hayes was without a party; that is tosay, the men who carried on the organization were bitterly opposed tohis policy, and they made much more noise than the independent thinkingvoters who believed that a man had arisen after their own hearts. Exceptfrom the Southern wing, he received little sympathy from the Democraticparty. In their parlance, fraud was written on his brow. He had thehonor and perquisites of office which were rightfully theirs. 

Once the troops were withdrawn from South Carolina and Louisiana, nobackward step was possible, and although Hayes would have likedcongressional support and sympathy for his act, this was not necessary. The next most important question of his administration related tofinance. He and his Secretary of the Treasury would have been gratifiedby an obedient majority in Congress at their back. Presidents before andafter Hayes have made a greater or less employment of their patronage tosecure the passage of their favorite measures, but Hayes immediatelyrelinquished that power by taking a decided position for a civil servicebased on merit. In a little over a month after the withdrawal of thetroops from the immediate vicinity of the State House in Louisiana, heannounced his policy in a letter to his Secretary of the Treasury. "Itis my wish, " he wrote, "that the collection of the revenues should befree from partisan control, and organized on a strictly business basis, with the same guaranties for efficiency and fidelity in the selection ofthe chief and subordinate officers that would be required by a prudentmerchant. Party leaders should have no more influence in appointmentsthan other equally respectable citizens. No assessments for politicalpurposes on officers or subordinates should be allowed. No uselessofficer or employee should be retained. No officer should be required orpermitted to take part in the management of political organizations, caucuses, conventions, or election campaigns. " The mandatory parts ofthis letter he incorporated in an order to Federal office-holders, adding: "This rule is applicable to every department of the civilservice. It should be understood by every officer of the generalgovernment that he is expected to conform his conduct to itsrequirements. "

It must be a source of gratification to the alumni and faculty ofHarvard College that its president and governing boards were, in June, 1877, in the judicious minority, and recognized their appreciation ofHayes by conferring upon him its highest honorary degree. Schurz, whohad received his LL. D. The year before, accompanied Hayes to Cambridge, and, in his Harvard speech at Commencement, gave his forcible andsympathetic approval of the "famous order of the President, " as it hadnow come to be called. 

A liberal and just Southern policy, the beginning of a genuine reform inthe civil service and the resumption of specie payments, are measureswhich distinguish and glorify President Hayes's administration, but inJuly, 1877, public attention was diverted from all these by a movementwhich partook of the nature of a social uprising. The depressionfollowing the panic of 1873 had been widespread and severe. The slightrevival of business resulting from the Centennial Exposition of 1876 andthe consequent large passenger traffic had been succeeded by a reactionin 1877 that brought business men to the verge of despair. Failures ofmerchants and manufacturers, stoppage of factories, diminished trafficon the railroads, railroad bankruptcies and receiverships, threw amultitude of laborers out of employment; and those fortunate enough toretain their jobs were less steadily employed, and were subject toreductions in wages. 

The state of railroad transportation was deplorable. The competition ofthe trunk lines, as the railroads running from Chicago to the seaboardwere called, was sharp, and, as there was not business enough for all, the cutting of through freight rates caused such business to be done atan actual loss, while the through passenger transportation affordedlittle profit. Any freight agent knew the remedy: an increase of freightrates by agreement or through a system of pooling earnings. Agreementswere made, but not honestly kept, and, after a breach of faith, thefight was renewed with increased fury. As the railroad managers thoughtthat they could not increase their gross earnings, they resolved ondecreasing their expenses, and somewhat hastily and jauntily theyannounced a reduction of ten per cent in the wages of their employees. 

This was resisted. Trouble first began on the Baltimore and OhioRailroad, where the men not only struck against the reduction, butprevented other men from taking their places, and stopped by force therunning of trains. The militia of West Virginia was inadequate to copewith the situation, and the governor of that state called on thePresident for troops, which were sent with a beneficial effect. But thetrouble spread to Maryland, and a conflict in Baltimore between themilitia and rioters in sympathy with the strikers resulted in a numberof killed and wounded. The next day, Saturday, July 21, a riot inPittsburg caused the most profound sensation in the country since thedraft riots of the Civil War. The men on the Pennsylvania and thePittsburg, Fort Wayne and Chicago railroads, had struck, and all freighttraffic was arrested. On this day six hundred and fifty men of the firstdivision of the Pennsylvania national guard at Philadelphia arrived inPittsburg, and, in the attempt to clear the Twenty-eighth Streetcrossing, they replied to the missiles thrown at them by the mob withvolleys of musketry, killing instantly sixteen of the rioters andwounding many. 

Here was cause for exasperation, and a furious mob, composed ofstrikers, idle factory hands, and miners, tramps, communists, andoutcasts, began its work of vengeance and plunder. Possessed offirearms, through breaking into a number of gun shops, they attacked thePhiladelphia soldiers, who had withdrawn to the railroad roundhouse, anda fierce battle ensued. Unable to dislodge the soldiers by assault, therioters attempted to roast them out by setting fire to cars of cokesaturated with petroleum and pushing these down the track against theroundhouse. This eventually forced the soldiers to leave the building, but, though pursued by the rioters, they made a good retreat across theAllegheny River. The mob, completely beyond control, began thedestruction of railroad property. The torch was applied to tworoundhouses, to railroad sheds, shops and offices, cars and locomotives. Barrels of spirits, taken from the freight cars, and opened and drunk, made demons of the men, and the work of plunder and destruction of goodsin transit went on with renewed fury. 

That Saturday night Pittsburg witnessed a reign of terror. On Sunday therioting and pillage were continued, and in the afternoon the Union Depotand Railroad Hotel and an elevator near by were burned. Then as therioters were satiated and too drunk to be longer dangerous, the riotdied out: it was not checked. On Monday, through the action of theauthorities, armed companies of law-abiding citizens, and some faithfulcompanies of the militia, order was restored. But meanwhile the strikehad spread to a large number of other railroads between the seaboard andChicago and St. Louis. Freight traffic was entirely suspended, andpassenger trains were run only on sufferance of the strikers. Businesswas paralyzed, and the condition of disorganization and unrest continuedthroughout the month of July. The governors of West Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Illinois called upon the President for United Statestroops, which were promptly sent, and in Indiana and Missouri they wereemployed on the demand of the United States marshals. Where the regularsoldiers appeared order was at once restored without bloodshed, and itwas said that the rioters feared one Federal bayonet more than a wholecompany of militia. The gravity of the situation is attested by threeproclamations of warning from President Hayes. 

Strikes had been common in our country, and, while serious enough incertain localities, had aroused no general concern, but the action ofthe mob in Baltimore, Pittsburg, and Chicago seemed like an attack onsociety itself, and it came like a thunderbolt out of a clear sky, startling Americans, who had hugged the delusion that such socialuprisings belonged to Europe, and had no reason of being in a great, free republic where all men had an equal chance. The railroad managershad no idea that they were letting loose a slumbering giant when theiredict of a ten per cent reduction went forth. It was due to the promptand efficient action of the President that order was ultimatelyrestored. In the profound and earnest thinking and discussion that wenton during the rest of the year, whenever thoughtful men gatheredtogether, many a grateful word was said of the quiet, unassuming man inthe White House who saw clearly his duty and never faltered in pursuingit. It was seen that the Federal government, with a resolute Presidentat its head, was a tower of strength in the event of a social uprising. 

In the reform of the civil service Hayes proceeded from words to action. He reappointed Thomas L. James as postmaster of New York City, who hadconducted his office on a thorough business basis, and gave himsympathetic support. The New York Custom-house had long been a politicalmachine in which the interests of politicians had been more consideredthan those of the public it was supposed to serve. The President beganan investigation of it through an impartial commission, and he andSherman came to the conclusion that the renovation desired, in line withhis letter to the Secretary of the Treasury and his order to theFederal officers, could not be effected so long as the presentcollector, Chester A. Arthur, and the naval officer, A. B. Cornell, remained in office. Courteous intimations were sent to them that theirresignations were desired on the ground that new officers could bettercarry out the reform which the President had at heart. Arthur andCornell, under the influence of Senator Conkling, refused to resign, anda plain issue was made between the President and the New York senator. At the special session of Congress, in October, 1877, he sent to theSenate nominations of new men for these places, but the power ofConkling, working through the "courtesy of the Senate, " was sufficientto procure their rejection; and this was also the result when the samenominations were made in December. 

In July, 1878, after the adjournment of Congress, Hayes removed Arthurand Cornell, and appointed Merritt and Burt in their places. During thefollowing December these appointments came before the Senate forconfirmation. Sherman decided to resign if they were rejected, and hemade a strong personal appeal to Senators Allison, Windom, and Morrillthat they should not permit "the insane hate of Conkling" to overridethe good of the service and the party. A seven hours' struggle ensued inthe Senate, but Merritt and Burt were confirmed by a decisive majority. After the confirmation, Hayes wrote to Merritt: "My desire is that theoffice be conducted on strictly business principles and according to therules for the civil service which were recommended by the Civil ServiceCommission in the administration of General Grant. "

In three of his annual messages, Hayes presented strong arguments for areform in the civil service, and he begged Congress, without avail, tomake appropriations to sustain the Civil Service Commission. Hesympathized with and supported Schurz in his introduction into theInterior Department of competitive examinations for appointments andpromotions, and he himself extended that system to the custom-houses andpost-offices of the larger cities. 

All that was accomplished in this direction was due to his efforts andthose of his Cabinet. He received neither sympathy nor help fromCongress; indeed, he met with great opposition from his own party. Apicture not without humor is Hayes reading, as his justification, to theRepublican remonstrants against his policy of appointments the strongdeclaration for a civil service based on merit in the Republicanplatform, on which he had stood as candidate for President. Though hispreaching did not secure the needed legislation from Congress, itproduced a marked effect on public sentiment. 

The organization of civil service reform associations began under Hayes. The New York association was begun in 1877, reorganized three yearslater, and soon had a large national membership, which induced theformation of other state associations; and although the national civilservice reform league was not formed until after his term of officeexpired, the origin of the society may be safely referred to hisinfluence. In the melioration of the public service which has been soconspicuously in operation since 1877, Hayes must be rated the pioneerPresident. Some of Grant's efforts in this direction were well meant, but he had no fundamental appreciation of the importance of the questionor enthusiasm for the work, and, in a general way, it may be said thathe left the civil service in a demoralized condition. How pregnant wasHayes's remark in his last annual message, and what a text it has beenfor many homilies! "My views, " he wrote, "concerning the dangers ofpatronage or appointments for personal or partisan considerations havebeen strengthened by my observation and experience in the executiveoffice, and I believe these dangers threaten the stability of thegovernment. "

The brightest page in the history of the Republican party since theCivil War tells of its work in the cause of sound finance, and noadministration is more noteworthy than that of Hayes. Here again thework was done by the President and his Cabinet in the face of adetermined opposition in Congress. During the first two years of hisadministration, the Democrats had a majority in the House, and duringthe last two a majority in both the House and the Senate. The Republicanparty was sounder than the Democratic on the resumption of speciepayments and in the advocacy of a correct money standard, but Hayes hadby no means all of his own party at his back. Enough Republicans, however, were of his way of thinking to prevent an irremediableinflation of either greenbacks or silver. 

The credit for what was accomplished in finance belongs in the main toJohn Sherman, a great financier and consummate statesman; but he had theconstant sympathy and support of the President. It was their custom totake long drives together every Sunday afternoon and discusssystematically and thoroughly the affairs of the Treasury and theofficial functions of the President. No President ever had a bettercounselor than Sherman, no Secretary of the Treasury more sympatheticand earnest support than was given by Hayes. Sherman refunded 845millions of the public debt at a lower rate of interest, showing in hisnegotiations with bankers a remarkable combination of business andpolitical ability. Cool, watchful, and confident, he grasped the pointof view of New York and London financial syndicates, and to thatinterested and somewhat narrow vision he joined the intelligence andforesight of a statesman. Sherman brought about the resumption ofspecie payments on the 1st of January, 1879, the date fixed in the billof which he was the chief author and which, four years before, he hadcarried through the Senate. It was once the fashion of his opponents todiscredit his work, and, emphasizing the large crop of 1878 and theEuropean demand for our breadstuffs, to declare that resumption wasbrought about by Providence and not by John Sherman. No historian ofAmerican finance can fail to see how important is the part often playedby bountiful nature, but it is to the lasting merit of Sherman and Hayesthat, in the dark years of 1877 and 1878, with cool heads and unshakenfaith, they kept the country in the path of financial safety and honordespite bitter opposition and clamorous abuse. 

These two years formed a part of my own business career, and I can addmy vivid recollection to my present study of the period. As valuessteadily declined and losses rather than profits in business became therule, the depression and even despair of business men and manufacturerscan hardly be exaggerated. The daily list of failures and bankruptcieswas appalling. How often one heard that iron and coal and land wereworth too little and money too much, that only the bondholder could behappy, for his interest was sure and the purchasing power of his moneygreat! In August, 1878, when John Sherman went to Toledo to speak to agathering three thousand strong, he was greeted with such cries as, "Youare responsible for all the failures in the country"; "You work to theinterest of the capitalist"; "Capitalists own you, John Sherman, and yourob the poor widows and orphans to make them rich. "

By many the resumption of specie payments was deemed impossible. Themost charitable of Sherman's opponents looked upon him as an honest butvisionary enthusiast who would fail in his policy and be "the deadestman politically" in the country. Others deemed resumption possible onlyby driving to the wall a majority of active business men. It was thissentiment which gave strength to the majority in the House ofRepresentatives, which was opposed to any contraction of the greenbackcurrency and in favor of the free coinage of silver, and of making itlikewise a full legal tender. Most of these members of Congress weresincere, and thought that they were asking no more than justice for thetrader, the manufacturer, and the laborer. The "Ohio idea" wasoriginally associated with an inflation of the paper currency, but byextension it came to mean an abundance of cheap money, whether paper orsilver. Proposed legislation, with this as its aim, was very popular inOhio, but, despite the intense feeling against the President's andSecretary's policy in their own state and generally throughout the West, Hayes and Sherman maintained it consistently, and finally brought aboutthe resumption of specie payments. 

In their way of meeting the insistent demand for the remonetization ofsilver Hayes and Sherman differed. In November, 1877, the House ofRepresentatives, under a suspension of the rules, passed by a vote of163 to 34 a bill for the free coinage of the 412½ grain silver dollar, making that dollar likewise a legal tender for all debts and dues. TheSenate was still Republican, but the Republican senators were by nomeans unanimous for the gold standard. Sherman became convinced that, although the free-silver bill could not pass the Senate, something mustnevertheless be done for silver, and, in coöperation with SenatorAllison, he was instrumental in the adoption of the compromise whichfinally became law. This remonetized silver, providing for the purchaseof not less than two million dollars' worth of silver bullion per month, nor more than four millions, and for its coinage into 412½ grain silverdollars. Hayes vetoed this bill, sending a sound and manly message tothe House of Representatives; but Congress passed it over his veto by adecided majority. 

The regard for John Sherman's ability in Ohio was unbounded, and it wasgenerally supposed that in all financial affairs, as well as in manyothers, he dominated Hayes. I shared that opinion until I learnedindirectly from John Hay, who was first assistant Secretary of State andintimate in inner administration circles, that this was not true; thatHayes had decided opinions of his own and did not hesitate to differwith his Secretary of the Treasury. Nevertheless, not until JohnSherman's "Recollections" were published was it generally known, Ibelieve, that Sherman had a share in the Allison compromise, and did notapprove of the President's veto of the bill remonetizing silver. 

The Federal control of congressional and presidential elections, being apart of the Reconstruction legislation, was obnoxious to the Democrats, and they attempted to abrogate it by "riders" attached to severalappropriation bills, especially that providing for the army. While theSenate remained Republican, there was chance for an accommodationbetween the President and the Senate on one side and the House on theother. Two useful compromises were made, the Democrats yielding in onecase, the Republicans in the other. But in 1879, when both the House andthe Senate were Democratic, a sharp contest began between Congress andthe executive, the history of which is written in seven veto messages. For lack of appropriations to carry on the government, the Presidentcalled an extra session of Congress in the first year of hisadministration and another in 1879, which was a remarkable record ofextra sessions in a time of peace. The Democratic House passed aresolution for the appointment of a committee to investigate Hayes'stitle and aroused some alarm lest an effort might be made "to oustPresident Hayes and inaugurate Tilden. " Although this alarm was stilledless than a month later by a decisive vote of the House, the action andinvestigation were somewhat disquieting. 

Thus Hayes encountered sharp opposition from the Democrats, whofrequently pointed their arguments by declaring that he held his placeby means of fraud. He received sympathy from hardly any of the leadersof his own party in Congress, and met with open condemnation from theStalwarts; yet he pursued his course with steadiness and equanimity, andwas happy in his office. His serene amiability and hopefulness, especially in regard to affairs in the Southern states, were a source ofirritation to the Stalwarts; but it was the serenity of a man who felthimself fully equal to his responsibilities. 

In his inaugural address, Hayes contributed an addition to our politicalidiom, "He serves his party best who serves the country best. " Hisadministration was a striking illustration of this maxim. When he becamePresident, the Republican party was in a demoralized condition, but, despite the factional criticism to which he was subject, he gained inthe first few months of his Presidency the approval of men ofintelligence and independent thought, and, as success attended hisdifferent policies, he received the support of the masses. The signalRepublican triumph in the presidential election of 1880 was due to theimprovement in business conditions and to the clean and efficientadministration of Hayes. 

In recalling his predecessor in office, we think more gladly of theGrant of Donelson, Vicksburg, and Appomattox than of Grant thePresident, for during his two administrations corruption was rife andbad government to the fore. Financial scandals were so frequent thatdespairing patriots cried out, "Is there no longer honesty in publiclife?" Our country then reached the high-water mark of corruption innational affairs. A striking improvement began under Hayes, who infusedinto the public service his own high ideals of honesty and efficiency. Hayes was much assisted in his social duties by his wife, a woman ofcharacter and intelligence, who carried herself with grace and dignity. One sometimes heard the remark that as Hayes was ruled in politicalmatters by John Sherman, so in social affairs he was ruled by his wife. The sole foundation for this lay in his deference to her totalabstinence principles, which she held so strongly as to exclude winefrom the White House table except, I believe, at one official dinner, that to the Russian Grand Dukes. 

Hayes's able Cabinet was likewise a harmonious one. Its members wereaccustomed to dine together at regular intervals (fortnightly, I think), when affairs of state and other subjects were discussed, and thegeniality of these occasions was enhanced by a temperate circulation ofthe wine bottle. There must have been very good talk at these socialmeetings. Evarts and Schurz were citizens of the world. Evarts was a manof keen intelligence and wide information, and possessed a genial aswell as a caustic wit. Schurz could discuss present politics and pasthistory. He was well versed in European history of the eighteenthcentury and the Napoleonic wars, and could talk about the power ofVoltaire in literature and the influence of Lessing on Goethe. Fromappreciative discourse on the Wagner opera and the French drama, hecould, if the conversation turned to the Civil War, give a livelyaccount of the battles of Chancellorsville or Gettysburg, in both ofwhich he had borne an honorable part. Sherman was not a cosmopolitanlike his two colleagues, but he loved dining out. His manners were thoseof the old-school gentleman; he could listen with genial appreciation, and he could talk of events in American history of which he had been acontemporaneous observer; as, for example, of the impressive oratory ofDaniel Webster at a dinner in Plymouth; or the difference between thenational conventions of his early political life and the huge ones ofthe present, illustrating his comparison with an account of the Whigconvention of 1852, to which he went as a delegate. 

Differing in many respects, Hayes and Grover Cleveland were alike in thepossession of executive ability and the lack of oratorical. We all knowthat it is a purely academic question which is the better form ofgovernment, the English or our own, as both have grown up to adaptthemselves to peculiar conditions. But when I hear an enthusiast forCabinet government and ministerial responsibility, I like to point outthat men like Hayes and Cleveland, who made excellent Presidents, couldnever have been prime ministers. One cannot conceive of either in anoffice equivalent to that of First Lord of the Treasury, being heckledby members on the front opposition bench and holding his own or gettingthe better of his opponents. 

I have brought Hayes and Cleveland into juxtaposition, as each had ahigh personal regard for the other. Hayes died on January 17, 1893. Cleveland, the President-elect, was to be inaugurated on the followingfourth of March. Despite remonstrance and criticism from bitterpartisans of his own party, who deprecated any honor paid to one whomall good Democrats deemed a fraudulent President, Cleveland traveledfrom New York to Fremont, Ohio, to attend the funeral. He could onlythink of Hayes as an ex-President and a man whom he highly esteemed. 

EDWIN LAWRENCE GODKIN

Lecture read at Harvard University, April 13, 1908; printed in the_Atlantic Monthly_ for September, 1908. 

EDWIN LAWRENCE GODKIN

Our two great journalists of the nineteenth century were Greeley andGodkin. Though differing in very many respects, they were alike inpossessing a definite moral purpose. The most glorious and influentialportion of Greeley's career lay between the passage of theKansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 and the election of Lincoln in 1860, whenthe press played an important part in the upbuilding of a politicalparty which formulated in a practical manner the antislavery sentimentof the country. Foremost among newspapers was the _New York Tribune_;foremost among editors was Horace Greeley. Of Greeley in his best daysGodkin wrote: "He has an enthusiasm which never flags, and a faith inprinciples which nothing can shake, and an English style which, forvigor, terseness, clearness, and simplicity, has never been surpassed, except perhaps by Cobbett. "[171]

Greeley and Godkin were alike in furnishing their readers with tellingarguments. In northern New York and the Western Reserve of Ohio the_Weekly Tribune_ was a political Bible. "Why do you look so gloomy?"said a traveler, riding along the highway in the Western Reserve duringthe old antislavery days, to a farmer who was sitting moodily on afence. "Because, " replied the farmer, "my Democratic friend next doorgot the best of me in an argument last night. But when I get my _WeeklyTribune_ to-morrow I'll knock the foundations all out from underhim. "[172]

Premising that Godkin is as closely identified with _The Nation_ and the_Evening Post_ as Greeley with the _Tribune_, I shall refer to apersonal experience. Passing a part of the winter of 1886 in a hotel atThomasville, Georgia, it chanced that among the hundred or more gueststhere were eight or ten of us who regularly received _The Nation_ bypost. Ordinarily it arrived on the Friday noon train from Savannah, andwhen we came from our mid-day dinner into the hotel office, there, inour respective boxes, easily seen, and from their peculiar formrecognized by every one, were our copies of _The Nation_. Occasionallythe papers missed connection at Savannah, and our _Nations_ did notarrive until after supper. It used to be said by certain scoffers thatif a discussion of political questions came up in the afternoon of oneof those days of disappointment, we readers were mum; but in the lateevening, after having digested our political pabulum, we were ready tojoin issue with any antagonist. Indeed, each of us might have used thewords of James Russell Lowell, written while he was traveling on theContinent and visiting many places where _The Nation_ could not bebought: "All the time I was without it, my mind was chaos and I didn'tfeel that I had a safe opinion to swear by. "[173]

While the farmer of the Western Reserve and Lowell are extreme types ofclientèle, each represents fairly well the peculiar following of Greeleyand of Godkin, which differed as much as did the personal traits of thetwo journalists. Godkin speaks of Greeley's "odd attire, shambling gait, simple, good-natured and hopelessly peaceable face, and long yellowlocks. "[174] His "old white hat and white coat, " which in New York wereregarded as an affectation, counted with his following west of theHudson River as a winning eccentricity. When he came out upon thelecture platform with crumpled shirt, cravat awry, and wrinkled coatlooking as if he had traveled for a number of nights and days, suchdisorder appeared to many of his Western audiences as nothing worse thanthe mark of a very busy man, who had paid them the compliment ofleaving his editorial rooms to speak to them in person, and who hadtheir full sympathy as he thus opened his discourse, "You mustn't, myfriends, expect fine words from a rough busy man like me. "[175]

The people who read the _Tribune_ did not expect fine words; they wereused to the coarse, abusive language in which Greeley repelled attacks, and to his giving the lie with heartiness and vehemence. They enjoyedreading that "another lie was nailed to the counter, " and that anantagonist "was a liar, knowing himself to be a liar, and lying withnaked intent to deceive. "[176]

On the contrary, the dress, the face, and the personal bearing of Godkinproclaimed at once the gentleman and cultivated man of the world. Youfelt that he was a man whom you would like to meet at dinner, accompanyon a long walk, or cross the Atlantic with, were you an acquaintance orfriend. 

An incident related by Godkin himself shows that at least onedistinguished gentleman did not enjoy sitting at meat with Greeley. During the spring of 1864 Godkin met Greeley at breakfast at the houseof Mr. John A. C. Gray. William Cullen Bryant, at that time editor ofthe New York _Evening Post_, was one of the guests, and, when Greeleyentered the room, was standing near the fireplace conversing with hishost. On observing that Bryant did not speak to Greeley, Gray asked himin a whisper, "Don't you know Mr. Greeley?" In a loud whisper Bryantreplied, "No, I don't; he's a blackguard--he's a blackguard. "[177]

In the numbers of people whom he influenced, Greeley had the advantageover Godkin. In February, 1855, the circulation of the _Tribune_ was172, 000, and its own estimate of its readers half a million, which wascertainly not excessive. It is not a consideration beyond bounds toinfer that the readers of the _Tribune_ in 1860 furnished a goodly partof the 1, 866, 000 votes which were received by Lincoln. 

At different times, while Godkin was editor, _The Nation_ stated itsexact circulation, which, as I remember it, was about 10, 000, and itprobably had 50, 000 readers. As many of its readers were in the class ofLowell, its indirect influence was immense. Emerson said that _TheNation_ had "breadth, variety, self-sustainment, and an admirable styleof thought and expression. "--"I owe much to _The Nation_, " wrote FrancisParkman. "I regard it as the most valuable of American journals, andfeel that the best interests of the country are doubly involved in itssuccess. "--"What an influence you have!" said George William Curtis toGodkin. "What a sanitary element in our affairs _The Nation_ is!"--"Tomy generation, " wrote William James, "Godkin's was certainly thetowering influence in all thought concerning public affairs, andindirectly his influence has certainly been more pervasive than that ofany other writer of the generation, for he influenced other writers whonever quoted him, and determined the whole current ofdiscussion. "--"When the work of this century is summed up, " wroteCharles Eliot Norton to Godkin, "what you have done for the good oldcause of civilization, the cause which is always defeated, but alwaysafter defeat taking more advanced position than before--what you havedone for this cause will count for much. "--"I am conscious, " wrotePresident Eliot to Godkin, "that _The Nation_ has had a decided effecton my opinions and my action for nearly forty years; and I believe ithas had like effect on thousands of educated Americans. "[178]

A string of quotations, as is well known, becomes wearisome; but theimportance of the point that I am trying to make will probably justifyone more. "I find myself so thoroughly agreeing with _The Nation_always, " wrote Lowell, "that I am half persuaded that I edit itmyself!"[179] Truly Lowell had a good company: Emerson, Parkman, Curtis, Norton, James, Eliot, --all teachers in various ways. Through theirlectures, books, and speeches, they influenced college students at animpressible age; they appealed to young and to middle-aged men; and theyfurnished comfort and entertainment for the old. It would have beendifficult to find anywhere in the country an educated man whose thoughtwas not affected by some one of these seven; and their influence oneditorial writers for newspapers was remarkable. These seven were alltaught by Godkin. 

"Every Friday morning when _The Nation_ comes, " wrote Lowell to Godkin, "I fill my pipe, and read it from beginning to end. Do you do it allyourself? Or are there really so many clever men in the country?"[180]Lowell's experience, with or without tobacco, was undoubtedly that ofhundreds, perhaps of thousands, of educated men, and the query he raisedwas not an uncommon one. At one time, Godkin, I believe, wrote most of"The Week, " which was made up of brief and pungent comments on events, as well as the principal editorial articles. The power of iteration, which the journalist possesses, is great, and, when that power iswielded by a man of keen intelligence and wide information, possessing aknowledge of the world, a sense of humor, and an effective literarystyle, it becomes tremendous. The only escape from Godkin's iterationwas one frequently tried, and that was, to stop _The Nation_. 

Although Godkin published three volumes of Essays, the honors hereceived during his lifetime were due to his work as editor of _TheNation_ and the _Evening Post_; and this is his chief title of fame. Theeducation, early experience, and aspiration of such a journalist arenaturally matter of interest. Born in 1831, in the County of Wicklow inthe southeastern part of Ireland, the son of a Presbyterian minister, hewas able to say when referring to Goldwin Smith, "I am an Irishman, butI am as English in blood as he is. "[181] Receiving his higher educationat Queen's College, Belfast, he took a lively interest in presentpolitics, his college friends being Liberals. John Stuart Mill was theirprophet, Grote and Bentham their daily companions, and America was theirpromised land. "To the scoffs of the Tories that our schemes wereimpracticable, " he has written of these days, "our answer was that inAmerica, barring slavery, they were actually at work. There, the chiefof the state and the legislators were freely elected by the people. There, the offices were open to everybody who had the capacity to fillthem. There was no army or navy, two great curses of humanity in allages. There was to be no war except war in self-defense. .. . In fact, wedid not doubt that in America at last the triumph of humanity over itsown weaknesses and superstitions was being achieved, and the dream ofChristendom was at last being realized. "[182]

As a correspondent of the London _Daily News_ he went to the Crimea. Thescenes at Malakoff gave him a disgust for war which thenceforth he neverfailed to express upon every opportunity. When a man of sixty-eight, reckoning its cost in blood and treasure, he deemed the Crimean Warentirely unnecessary and very deplorable. [183] Godkin arrived in Americain November, 1856, and soon afterwards, with Olmsted's "Journey in theSeaboard Slave States, " the "Back Country, " and "Texas, " as guidebooks, took a horseback journey through the South. Following closely Olmsted'strail, and speaking therefore with knowledge, he has paid him one of thehighest compliments one traveler ever paid another. "Olmsted's work, " hewrote, "in vividness of description and in photographic minuteness farsurpasses Arthur Young's. "[184] During this journey he wrote letters tothe London _Daily News_, and these were continued after his return toNew York City. For the last three years of our Civil War, he was itsregular correspondent, and, as no one denies that he was a powerfuladvocate when his heart was enlisted, he rendered efficient service tothe cause of the North. The _News_ was strongly pro-Northern, and Godkinfurnished the facts which rendered its leaders sound and instructive aswell as sympathetic. All this while he was seeing socially the bestpeople in New York City, and making useful and desirable acquaintancesin Boston and Cambridge. 

The interesting story of the foundation of _The Nation_ has been told anumber of times, and it will suffice for our purpose to say that therewere forty stockholders who contributed a capital of one hundredthousand dollars, one half of which was raised in Boston, and onequarter each in Philadelphia and New York. Godkin was the editor, andnext to him the chief promoters were James M. McKim of Philadelphia andCharles Eliot Norton. The first number of this "weekly journal ofpolitics, literature, science, and art" appeared on July 6, 1865. Financial embarrassment and disagreements among the stockholders markedthe first year of its existence, at the end of which Godkin, McKim, andFrederick Law Olmsted took over the property, and continued thepublication under the proprietorship of E. L. Godkin & Co. "_The Nation_owed its continued existence to Charles Eliot Norton, " wrote Godkin in1899. "It was his calm and confidence amid the shrieks of combatants . .. Which enabled me to do my work even with decency. "[185]

Sixteen years after _The Nation_ was started, in 1881, Godkin sold itout to the _Evening Post_, becoming associate editor of that journal, with Carl Schurz as his chief. _The Nation_ was thereafter published asthe weekly edition of the _Evening Post_. In 1883 Schurz retired andGodkin was made editor-in-chief, having the aid and support of one ofthe owners, Horace White. On January 1, 1900, on account of ill health, he withdrew from the editorship of the _Evening Post_, [186] thusretiring from active journalism. 

For thirty-five years he had devoted himself to his work withextraordinary ability and singleness of purpose. Marked appreciationcame to him: invitations to deliver courses of lectures from bothHarvard and Yale, the degree of A. M. From Harvard, and the degree ofD. C. L. From Oxford. What might have been a turning point in his careerwas the offer in 1870 of the professorship of history at Harvard. He wasstrongly tempted to accept it, but, before coming to a decision, he tookcounsel of a number of friends; and few men, I think, have ever receivedsuch wise and disinterested advice as did Godkin when he was thushesitating in what way he should apply his teaching. The burden of theadvice was not to take the professorship, if he had to give up _TheNation_. 

Frederick Law Olmsted wrote to him: "If you can't write fully half of'The Week' and half the leaders, and control the drift and tone of thewhole while living at Cambridge, give up the professorship, for _TheNation_ is worth many professorships. It is a question of loyalty over aquestion of comfort. " Lowell wrote to him in the same strain: "_Stay_ ifthe two things are incompatible. We may find another professor by and by. .. But we can't find another editor for _The Nation_. " From Germany, John Bigelow sent a characteristic message: "Tell the University torequire each student to take a copy of _The Nation_. Do not professhistory for them in any other way. I dare say your lectures would begood, but why limit your pupils to hundreds which are now counted bythousands?"[187]

As is well known, Godkin relinquished the idea of the college connectionand stuck to his job, although the quiet and serenity of a professor'slife in Cambridge contrasted with his own turbulent days appealed to himpowerfully. "Ten years hence, " he wrote to Norton, "if things go on asthey are now I shall be the most odious man in America. Not that I shallnot have plenty of friends, but my enemies will be far more numerous andactive. " Six years after he had founded _The Nation_, and one year afterhe had declined the Harvard professorship, when he was yet but fortyyears old, he gave this humorously exaggerated account of his physicalfailings due to his nervous strain: "I began _The Nation_ young, handsome, and fascinating, and am now withered and somewhat broken, rheumatism gaining on me rapidly, my complexion ruined, as also myfigure, for I am growing stout. "[188]

But his choice between the Harvard professorship and _The Nation_ was awise one. He was a born writer of paragraphs and editorials. The filesof _The Nation_ are his monument. A crown of his laborious days is thetribute of James Bryce: "_The Nation_ was the best weekly not only inAmerica but in the world. "[189]

Thirty-five years of journalism, in which Godkin was accustomed to givehard blows, did not, as he himself foreshadowed, call forth a unanimouschorus of praise; and the objections of intelligent and high-minded menare well worth taking into account. The most common one is that hiscriticism was always destructive; that he had an eye for the weak sideof causes and men that he did not favor, and these he set forth withunremitting vigor without regard for palliating circumstances; that heerected a high and impossible ideal and judged all men by it; hence, ifa public man was right eight times out of ten, he would seize upon thetwo failures and so parade them with his withering sarcasm that thereader could get no other idea than that the man was either weak orwicked. An editor of very positive opinions, he was apt to convey theidea that if any one differed from him on a vital question, like thetariff or finance or civil service reform, he was necessarily a bad man. He made no allowances for the weaknesses of human nature, and had noidea that he himself ever could be mistaken. Though a powerful critic, he did not realize the highest criticism, which discerns and brings outthe good as well as the evil. He won his reputation by dealing outcensure, which has a rare attraction for a certain class of minds, asTacitus observed in his "History. " "People, " he wrote, "lend a ready earto detraction and spite, " for "malignity wears the imposing appearanceof independence. "[190]

The influence of _The Nation_, therefore, --so these objectors to Godkinaver, --was especially unfortunate on the intelligent youth of thecountry. It was in 1870 that John Bigelow, whom I have just quoted, advised Harvard University to include _The Nation_ among itsrequirements; and it is true that at that time, and for a good whileafterwards, _The Nation_ was favorite reading for serious Harvardstudents. The same practice undoubtedly prevailed at most othercolleges. Now I have been told that the effect of reading _The Nation_was to prevent these young men from understanding their own country;that, as Godkin himself did not comprehend America, he was an unsoundteacher and made his youthful readers see her through a false medium. And I am further informed that in mature life it cost an effort, amental wrench, so to speak, to get rid of this influence and see thingsas they really were, which was necessary for usefulness in lives cast inAmerica. The United States was our country; she was entitled to our loveand service; and yet such a frame of mind was impossible, so thisobjection runs, if we read and believed the writing of _The Nation_. Aman of character and ability, who had filled a number of public officeswith credit, told me that the influence of _The Nation_ had been potentin keeping college graduates out of public life; that things in theUnited States were painted so black both relatively and absolutely thatthe young men naturally reasoned, "Why shall we concern ourselves abouta country which is surely going to destruction?" Far better, they mayhave said, to pattern after Plato's philosopher who kept out ofpolitics, being "like one who retires under the shelter of a wall in thestorm of dust and sleet which the driving wind hurries along. "[191]

Such considerations undoubtedly lost _The Nation_ valuable subscribers. I have been struck with three circumstances in juxtaposition. At thetime of Judge Hoar's forced resignation from Grant's Cabinet in 1870, _The Nation_ said, "In peace as in war 'that is best blood which hathmost iron in't;' and much is to be excused to the man [that is, JudgeHoar] who has for the first time in many years of Washington historygiven a back-handed blow to many an impudent and arrogant dispenser ofpatronage. He may well be proud of most of the enmity that he won whilein office, and may go back contented to Massachusetts to be her mosthonored citizen. "[192] Two months later Lowell wrote to Godkin, "Thebound volumes of _The Nation_ standing on Judge Hoar's library table, asI saw them the other day, were a sign of the estimation in which it isheld by solid people and it is they who in the long run decide thefortunes of such a journal. "[193] But _The Nation_ lost Judge Hoar'ssupport. When I called upon him in 1893 he was no longer taking orreading it. 

It is the sum of individual experiences that makes up the influence of ajournal like _The Nation_, and one may therefore be pardoned the egotismnecessarily arising from a relation of one's own contact with it. In1866, while a student at the University of Chicago, I remember wellthat, in a desultory talk in the English Literature class, ProfessorWilliam Matthews spoke of _The Nation_ and advised the students to readit each week as a political education of high value. This was the firstknowledge I had of it, but I was at that time, along with many otheryoung men, devoted to the _Round Table_, an "Independent weekly reviewof Politics, Finance, Literature, Society, and Art, " which flourishedbetween the years 1864 and 1868. We asked the professor, "Do youconsider _The Nation_ superior to the _Round Table_?"--"Decidedly, " washis reply. "The editors of the _Round Table_ seem to write for the sakeof writing, while the men who are expressing themselves in _The Nation_do so because their hearts and minds are full of their matter. " This wasa just estimate of the difference between the two journals. The _RoundTable_, modeled after the _Saturday Review_, was a feeble imitation ofthe London weekly, then in its palmy days, while _The Nation_, which waspatterned after the _Spectator_, did not suffer by the side of itsmodel. On this hint from Professor Matthews, I began taking and reading_The Nation_, and with the exception of one year in Europe during mystudent days, I have read it ever since. 

Before I touch on certain specifications I must premise that theinfluence of this journal on a Westerner, who read it in a receptivespirit, was probably more potent than on one living in the East. Thearrogance of a higher civilization in New York, Boston, and Philadelphiathan elsewhere in the United States, the term "wild and woolly West, "applied to the region west of the Alleghany Mountains, is somewhatirritating to a Westerner. Yet it remains none the less true that, otherthings being equal, a man living in the environment of Boston or NewYork would have arrived more easily and more quickly at certain soundpolitical views I shall proceed to specify than he would while living inCleveland or Chicago. The gospel which Godkin preached was needed muchmore in the West than in the East; and his disciples in the westerncountry had for him a high degree of reverence. In the biography ofGodkin, allusion is made to the small pecuniary return for his work, butin thinking of him we never considered the money question. We supposedthat he made a living; we knew from his articles that he was agentleman, and saw much of good society, and there was not one of us whowould not rather have been in his shoes than in those of the richest manin New York. We placed such trust in him--which his life shows to havebeen abundantly justified--that we should have lost all confidence inhuman nature had he ever been tempted by place or profit. And hisinfluence was abiding. Presidents, statesmen, senators, congressmen roseand fell; political administrations changed; good, bad, and weak publicmen passed away; but Godkin preached to us every week a timely andcogent sermon. 

To return now to my personal experience. I owe wholly to _The Nation_ myconviction in favor of civil service reform; in fact, it was from thesecolumns that I first came to understand the question. The argumentsadvanced were sane and strong, and especially intelligible to men inbusiness, who, in the main, chose their employees on the ground offitness, and who made it a rule to retain and advance competent andhonest men in their employ. I think that on this subject the indirectinfluence of _The Nation_ was very great, in furnishing arguments to menlike myself, who never lost an opportunity to restate them, and toeditorial writers for the Western newspapers, who generally read _TheNation_ and who were apt to reproduce its line of reasoning. When I lookback to 1869, the year in which I became a voter, and recall thestrenuous opposition to civil service reform on the part of thepoliticians of both parties, and the indifference of the public, Iconfess that I am amazed at the progress which has been made. Such areform is of course effected only by a number of contributing causes andsome favoring circumstances, but I feel certain that it was acceleratedby the constant and vigorous support of _The Nation_. 

I owe to _The Nation_ more than to any other agency my correct ideas onfinance in two crises. The first was the "greenback craze" from 1869 to1875. It was easy to be a hard-money man in Boston or New York, whereone might imbibe the correct doctrine as one everywhere takes in thefundamental principles of civilization and morality. But it was not soin Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, where the severe money stringencybefore and during the panic of 1873, and the depression after it, causedmany good and representative men to join in the cry for a larger issueof greenbacks by the government. It required no moral courage for theaverage citizen to resist what in 1875 seemed to be the popular move, but it did require the correct knowledge and the forcible arguments putforward weekly by _The Nation_. I do not forget my indebtedness to JohnSherman, Carl Schurz, and Senator Thurman, but Sherman and Thurman werenot always consistent on this question, and Schurz's voice was onlyoccasionally heard; but every seven days came _The Nation_ with itsunremitting iteration, and it was an iteration varied enough to bealways interesting and worthy of study. As one looks back over nearlyforty years of politics one likes to recall the occasions when one hasdone the thing one's mature judgment fully approves; and I like to thinkthat in 1875 I refused to vote for my party's candidate for governor, the Democratic William Allen, whose platform was "that the volume ofcurrency be made and kept equal to the wants of trade. "

A severer ordeal was the silver question of 1878, because the argumentfor silver was more weighty than that for irredeemable paper, and wasbelieved to be sound by business men of both parties. I remember thatmany representative business men of Cleveland used to assemble aroundthe large luncheon table of the Union Club and discuss the pendingsilver-coinage bill, which received the votes of both of the senatorsfrom Ohio and of all her representatives except Garfield. The gold menwere in a minority also at the luncheon table, but, fortified by _TheNation_, we thought that we held our own in this daily discussion. 

In my conversion from a belief in a protective tariff to the advocacyof one for revenue only, I recognize an obligation to Godkin, but hiswas only one of many influences. I owe _The Nation_ much for itsaccurate knowledge of foreign affairs, especially of English politics, in which its readers were enlightened by one of the most capable ofliving men, Albert V. Dicey. I am indebted to it for sound ideas onmunicipal government, and for its advocacy of many minor measures, suchfor instance as the International Copyright Bill. I owe it something forits later attitude on Reconstruction, and its condemnation of the negrocarpet-bag governments in the South. In a word, _The Nation_ was on theside of civilization and good political morals. 

Confessing thus my great political indebtedness to Godkin, it is withsome reluctance that I present a certain phase of his thought which wasregretted by many of his best friends, and which undoubtedly limited hisinfluence in the later years of his life. A knowledge of thisshortcoming is, however, essential to a thorough comprehension of theman. It is frequently said that Godkin rarely, if ever, made aretraction or a rectification of personal charges shown to be incorrect. A thorough search of _The Nation's_ columns would be necessary fully tosubstantiate this statement, but my own impression, covering as it doesthirty-three years' reading of the paper under Godkin's control, inclines me to believe in its truth, as I do not remember an instance ofthe kind. 

A grave fault of omission occurs to me as showing a regrettable bias ina leader of intelligent opinion. On January 5, 1897, General Francis A. Walker died. He had served with credit as an officer during our CivilWar, and in two thoughtful books had made a valuable contribution to itsmilitary history. He was superintendent of the United States Census of1870, and did work that statisticians and historians refer to withgratitude and praise. For sixteen years he served with honor theMassachusetts Institute of Technology as its president. He was acelebrated political economist, his books being (I think) as well knownin England as in this country. Yale, Amherst, Harvard, Columbia, St. Andrews, and Dublin conferred upon him the degree of LL. D. Withal heserved his city with public spirit. Trinity Church, "crowded and silent"in celebrating its last service over the dead body of Walker, witnessedone of the three most impressive funerals which Boston has seen for atleast sixteen years--a funeral conspicuous for the attendance of a largenumber of delegates from colleges and learned societies. 

Walker was distinctly of the intellectual élite of the country. But _TheNation_ made not the slightest reference to his death. In the issue ofJanuary 7, appearing two days later, I looked for an allusion in "TheWeek, " and subsequently for one of those remarkable and discriminatingeulogies, which in smaller type follow the editorials, and for which_The Nation_ is justly celebrated; but there was not one word. You mightsearch the 1897 volume of _The Nation_ and, but for a brief reference inthe April "Notes" to Walker's annual report posthumously published, youwould not learn that a great intellectual leader had passed away. Iwrote to a valued contributor of _The Nation_, a friend of Walker, ofGodkin, and of Wendell P. Garrison (the literary editor), inquiring ifhe knew the reason for the omission, and in answer he could only tell methat his amazement had been as great as mine. He at first lookedeagerly, and, when the last number came in which a eulogy could possiblyappear, he turned over the pages of _The Nation_ with sorrowful regret, hardly believing his eyes that the article he sought was not there. 

Now I suspect that the reason of this extraordinary omission was due tothe irreconcilable opinions of Walker and Godkin on a question offinance. It was a period when the contest between the advocates of asingle gold standard and the bimetallists raged fiercely, and thecontest had not been fully settled by the election of McKinley in 1896. Godkin was emphatically for gold, Walker equally emphatic for a doublestandard. And they clashed. It is a notable example of the peculiarityof Godkin, to allow at the portal of death the one point of politicalpolicy on which he and Walker disagreed to overweigh the nine points inwhich they were at one. 

Most readers of _The Nation_ noticed distinctly that, from 1895 on, itstone became more pessimistic and its criticism was marked by greateracerbity. Mr. Rollo Ogden in his biography shows that Godkin's feelingof disappointment over the progress of the democratic experiment inAmerica, and his hopelessness of our future, began at an earlier date. 

During his first years in the United States, he had no desire to returnto his mother country. When the financial fortune of _The Nation_ wasdoubtful, he wrote to Norton that he should not go back to Englandexcept as a "last extremity. It would be going back into an atmospherethat I detest, and a social system that I have hated since I wasfourteen years old. "[194] In 1889, after an absence of twenty-sevenyears, he went to England. The best intellectual society of London andOxford opened its doors to him and he fell under its charm as would anyAmerican who was the recipient of marked attentions from people of suchdistinction. He began to draw contrasts which were not favorable to hisadopted country. "I took a walk along the wonderful Thames embankment, "he wrote, "a splendid work, and I sighed to think how impossible itwould be to get such a thing done in New York. The differences ingovernment and political manners are in fact awful, and for me verydepressing. Henry James [with whom he stopped in London] and I talk overthem sometimes 'des larmes dans la voix. '" In 1894, however, Godkinwrote in the _Forum_: "There is probably no government in the worldto-day as stable as that of the United States. The chief advantage ofdemocratic government is, in a country like this, the enormous force itcan command in an emergency. "[195] But next year his pessimism isclearly apparent. On January 12, 1895, he wrote to Norton: "You see I amnot sanguine about the future of democracy. I think we shall have a longperiod of decline like that which followed (?) the fall of the RomanEmpire, and then a recrudescence under some other form of society. "[196]

A number of things had combined to affect him profoundly. An admirer ofGrover Cleveland and three times a warm supporter of his candidacy forthe Presidency, he saw with regret the loss of his hold on his party, which was drifting into the hands of the advocates of free silver. Thenin December, 1895, Godkin lost faith in his idol. "I was thunderstruckby Cleveland's message" on the Venezuela question, he wrote to Norton. His submission to the Jingoes "is a terrible shock. "[197] Later, in acalm review of passing events, he called the message a "suddendeclaration of war without notice against Great Britain. "[198] Thedanger of such a proceeding he had pointed out to Norton: Our "immensedemocracy, mostly ignorant . .. Is constantly on the brink of somefrightful catastrophe like that which overtook France in 1870. "[199] In1896 he was deeply distressed at the country having to choose forPresident between the arch-protectionist McKinley and the free-silveradvocate Bryan, for he had spent a good part of his life combating aprotective tariff and advocating sound money. Though the _Evening Post_contributed powerfully to the election of McKinley, from the fact thatits catechism, teaching financial truths in a popular form, wasdistributed throughout the West in immense quantities by the chairman ofthe Republican National Committee, Godkin himself refused to vote forMcKinley and put in his ballot for Palmer, the gold Democrat. [200]

The Spanish-American war seems to have destroyed any lingering hope thathe had left for the future of American democracy. He spoke of it as "aperfectly avoidable war forced on by a band of unscrupulous politicians"who had behind them "a roaring mob. "[201] The taking of the Philippinesand the subsequent war in these islands confirmed him in his despair. Ina private letter written from Paris, he said, "American ideals were theintellectual food of my youth, and to see America converted into asenseless, Old-World conqueror, embitters my age. "[202] To another hewrote that his former "high and fond ideals about America were now allshattered. "[203] "Sometimes he seemed to feel, " said his intimatefriend, James Bryce, "as though he had labored in vain for fortyyears. "[204]

Such regrets expressed by an honest and sincere man with a high idealmust command our respectful attention. Though due in part to old age andenfeebled health, they are still more attributable to hisdisappointment that the country had not developed in the way that hehad marked out for her. For with men of Godkin's positive convictions, there is only one way to salvation. Sometimes such men are trueprophets; at other times, while they see clearly certain aspects of acase, their narrowness of vision prevents them from taking in the wholerange of possibilities, especially when the enthusiasm of manhood isgone. 

Godkin took a broader view in 1868, which he forcibly expressed in aletter to the London _Daily News_. "There is no careful and intelligentobserver, " he wrote, "whether he be a friend to democracy or not, whocan help admiring the unbroken power with which the popular commonsense--that shrewdness, or intelligence, or instinct ofself-preservation, I care not what you call it, which so often makes theAmerican farmer a far better politician than nine tenths of the bestread European political philosophers--works under all this tumult andconfusion of tongues. The newspapers and politicians fret and fume andshout and denounce; but the great mass, the nineteen or twenty millions, work away in the fields and workshops, saying little, thinking much, hardy, earnest, self-reliant, very tolerant, very indulgent, veryshrewd, but ready whenever the government needs it, with musket, orpurse, or vote, as the case may be, laughing and cheering occasionallyat public meetings, but when you meet them individually on the highroador in their own houses, very cool, then, sensible men, filled with nodelusions, carried away by no frenzies, believing firmly in the futuregreatness and glory of the republic, but holding to no other article offaith as essential to political salvation. "

Before continuing the quotation I wish to call attention to the factthat Godkin's illustration was more effective in 1868 than now: thenthere was a solemn and vital meaning to the prayers offered up forpersons going to sea that they might be preserved from the dangers ofthe deep. "Every now and then, " he went on to say, "as one watches thepolitical storms in the United States, one is reminded of one's feelingsas one lies in bed on a stormy night in an ocean steamer in a head wind. Each blow of the sea shakes the ship from stem to stern, and every nowand then a tremendous one seems to paralyze her. The machinery seems tostop work; there is a dead pause, and you think for a moment the end hascome; but the throbbing begins once more, and if you go up on deck andlook down in the hold, you see the firemen and engineers at their posts, apparently unconscious of anything but their work, and as sure ofgetting into port as if there was not a ripple on the water. "

This letter of Godkin's was written on January 8, 1868, when Congresswas engaged in the reconstruction of the South on the basis of negrosuffrage, when the quarrel between Congress and President Johnson wasacute and his impeachment not two months off. At about this time Godkinset down Evarts's opinion that "we are witnessing the decline of publicmorality which usually presages revolution, " and reported that Howellswas talking "despondently like everybody else about the condition ofmorals and manners. "[205] Of like tenor was the opinion of anarch-conservative, George Ticknor, written in 1869, which bears aresemblance to the lamentation of Godkin's later years. "The civil warof '61, " wrote Ticknor, "has made a great gulf between what happenedbefore it in our century and what has happened since, or what is likelyto happen hereafter. It does not seem to me as if I were living in thecountry in which I was born, or in which I received whatever I ever gotof political education or principles. Webster seems to have been thelast of the Romans. "[206]

In 1868 Godkin was an optimist, having a cogent answer to all gloomypredictions; from 1895 to 1902 he was a pessimist; yet reasons just asstrong may be adduced for considering the future of the country securein the later as were urged in the earlier period. But as Godkin grewolder, he became a moral censor, and it is characteristic of censors toexaggerate both the evil of the present and the good of the past. Thusin 1899 he wrote of the years 1857-1860: "The air was full of the realAmericanism. The American gospel was on people's lips and was growingwith fervor. Force was worshiped, but it was moral force: it was theforce of reason, of humanity, of human equality, of a good example. Theabolitionist gospel seemed to be permeating the views of the Americanpeople, and overturning and destroying the last remaining traditions ofthe old-world public morality. It was really what might be called thegolden age of America. "[207] These were the days of slavery. JamesBuchanan was President. The internal policy of the party in power wasexpressed in the Dred Scott decision and the attempt to force slavery onKansas; the foreign policy, in the Ostend Manifesto, which declared thatif Spain would not sell Cuba, the United States would take it by force. The rule in the civil service was, "to the victors belong the spoils. "And New York City, where Godkin resided, had for its mayor FernandoWood. 

In this somewhat rambling paper I have subjected Godkin to a severe testby a contrast of his public and private utterances covering many years, not however with the intention of accusing him of inconsistency. Ferrerowrites that historians of our day find it easy to expose thecontradictions of Cicero, but they forget that probably as much couldbe said of his contemporaries, if we possessed also their privatecorrespondence. Similarly, it is a pertinent question how manyjournalists and how many public men would stand as well as Godkin inthis matter of consistency if we possessed the same abundant records oftheir activity?

The more careful the study of Godkin's utterances, the less will be theirritation felt by men who love and believe in their country. It isevident that he was a born critic, and his private correspondence isfull of expressions showing that if he had been conducting a journal inEngland, his criticism of certain phases of English policy would havebeen as severe as those which he indulged in weekly at the expense ofthis country. "How Ireland sits heavy on your soul!" he wrote to JamesBryce. "Salisbury was an utterly discredited Foreign Secretary when youbrought up Home Rule. Now he is one of the wisest of men. Balfour andChamberlain have all been lifted into eminence by opposition to HomeRule simply. " To Professor Norton: "Chamberlain is a capital specimen ofthe rise of an unscrupulous politician. " Again: "The fall of Englandinto the hands of a creature like Chamberlain recalls the capture ofRome by Alaric. " To another friend: "I do not like to talk about theBoer War, it is too painful. .. . When I do speak of the war my languagebecomes unfit for publication. " On seeing the Queen and the Prince ofWales driving through the gardens at Windsor, his comment was "Fat, useless royalty;" and in 1897 he wrote from England to Arthur Sedgwick, "There are many things here which reconcile me to America. "[208]

In truth, much of his criticism of America is only an elaboration of hiscriticism of democracy. In common with many Europeans born at about thesame time, who began their political life as radicals, he shows his keendisappointment that democracy has not regenerated mankind. "There is nota country in the world, living under parliamentary government, " hewrote, "which has not begun to complain of the decline in the quality ofits legislators. More and more, it is said, the work of government isfalling into the hands of men to whom even small pay is important, andwho are suspected of adding to their income by corruption. Thewithdrawal of the more intelligent class from legislative duties is moreand more lamented, and the complaint is somewhat justified by the massof crude, hasty, incoherent, and unnecessary laws which are poured onthe world at every session. "[209]

I have thus far spoken only of the political influence of _The Nation_, but its literary department was equally important. Associated withGodkin from the beginning was Wendell P. Garrison, who became literaryeditor of the journal, and, who, Godkin wrote in 1871, "has reallytoiled for six years with the fidelity of a Christian martyr and uponthe pay of an oysterman. "[210] I have often heard the literary criticismof _The Nation_ called destructive like the political, but, it appearsto me, with less reason. Books for review were sent to experts indifferent parts of the country, and the list of contributors includedmany professors from various colleges. While the editor, I believe, retained, and sometimes exercised, the right to omit parts of the reviewand make some additions, yet writers drawn from so many sources musthave preserved their own individuality. I have heard it said that _TheNation_ gave you the impression of having been entirely written by oneman; but whatever there is more than fanciful in that impression musthave arisen from the general agreement between the editor and thecontributors. Paul Leicester Ford once told me that, when he wrote acriticism for _The Nation_, he unconsciously took on _The Nation's_style, but he could write in that way for no other journal, nor did heever fall into it in his books. Garrison was much more tolerant than issometimes supposed. I know of his sending many books to two men, one ofwhom differed from him radically on the negro question and the other onsocialism. 

It is only after hearing much detraction of the literary department of_The Nation_, and after considerable reflection, that I have arrived atthe conviction that it came somewhat near to realizing criticism asdefined by Matthew Arnold, thus: "A disinterested endeavor to learn andpropagate the best that is known and thought in the world. "[211] I amwell aware that it was not always equal, and I remember two harshreviews which ought not to have been printed; but this simply provesthat the editor was human and _The Nation_ was not perfect. I feel safe, however, in saying that if the best critical reviews of _The Nation_were collected and printed in book form, they would show an aspirationafter the standard erected by Sainte-Beuve and Matthew Arnold. 

Again I must appeal to my individual experience. The man who lived inthe middle West for the twenty-five years between 1865 and 1890 neededthe literary department of _The Nation_ more than one who lived inBoston or New York. Most of the books written in America were by NewEngland, New York, and Philadelphia authors, and in those communitiesliterary criticism was evolved by social contact in clubs and othergatherings. We had nothing of the sort in Cleveland, where a writer ofbooks walking down Euclid Avenue would have been stared at as asomewhat remarkable personage. The literary columns of _The Nation_ weretherefore our most important link between our practical life and theliterary world. I used to copy into my _Index Rerum_ long extracts fromimportant reviews, in which the writers appeared to have a thoroughgrasp of their subjects; and these I read and re-read as I would asignificant passage in a favorite book. In the days when many of us wereprofoundly influenced by Herbert Spencer's "Sociology, " I was somewhatastonished to read one week in _The Nation_, in a review of Pollock's"Introduction to the Science of Politics, " these words: "HerbertSpencer's contributions to political and historical science seem to usmere commonplaces, sometimes false, sometimes true, but in both casestrying to disguise their essential flatness and commonness in a garb ofdogmatic formalism. "[212] Such an opinion, evidencing a conflict betweentwo intellectual guides, staggered me, and it was with some curiositythat I looked subsequently, when the _Index to Periodicals_ came out, tosee who had the temerity thus to belittle Spencer--the greatestpolitical philosopher, so some of his disciples thought, sinceAristotle. I ascertained that the writer of the review was James Bryce, and whatever else might be thought, it could not be denied that thecontroversy was one between giants. I can, I think, date the beginningof my emancipation from Spencer from that review in 1891. 

In the same year I read a discriminating eulogy of George Bancroft, ending with an intelligent criticism of his history, which produced onme a marked impression. The reviewer wrote: Bancroft falls into "thaterror so common with the graphic school of historians--the exaggeratedestimate of manuscripts or fragmentary material at the expense of whatis printed and permanent. .. . But a fault far more serious than this isone which Mr. Bancroft shared with his historical contemporaries, but inwhich he far exceeded any of them--an utter ignoring of the very meaningand significance of a quotation mark. "[213] Sound and scientificdoctrine is this; and the whole article exhibited a thorough knowledgeof our colonial and revolutionary history which inspired confidence inthe conclusions of the writer, who, I later ascertained, was ThomasWentworth Higginson. 

These two examples could be multiplied at length. There were manyreviewers from Harvard and Yale; and undoubtedly other Eastern collegeswere well represented. The University of Wisconsin furnished at leastone contributor, as probably did the University of Michigan and otherWestern colleges. Men in Washington, New York, and Boston, not inacademic life, were drawn upon; a soldier of the Civil War, living inCincinnati, a man of affairs, sent many reviews. James Bryce was anoccasional contributor, and at least three notable reviews came from thepen of Albert V. Dicey. In 1885, Godkin, in speaking of _The Nation's_department of Literature and Art, wrote that "the list of those who havecontributed to the columns of the paper from the first issue to thepresent day contains a large number of the most eminent names inAmerican literature, science, art, philosophy, and law. "[214] With menso gifted, and chosen from all parts of the country, uniformlydestructive criticism could not have prevailed. Among them wereoptimists as well as pessimists, and men as independent in thought aswas Godkin himself. 

Believing that Godkin's thirty-five years of critical work was of greatbenefit to this country, I have sometimes asked myself whether the factof his being a foreigner has made it more irritating to many goodpeople, who term his criticism "fault-finding" or "scolding. " Althoughhe married in America and his home life was centered here, he confessedthat in many essential things it was a foreign country. [215] Somereaders who admired _The Nation_ told Mr. Bryce that they did not want"to be taught by a European how to run this republic. " But Bryce, who inthis matter is the most competent of judges, intimates that Godkin'sforeign education, giving him detachment and perspective, was a distinctadvantage. If it will help any one to a better appreciation of the man, let Godkin be regarded as "a chiel amang us takin' notes"; as anobserver not so philosophic as Tocqueville, not so genial andsympathetic as Bryce. Yet, whether we look upon him as an Irishman, anEnglishman, or an American, let us rejoice that he cast his lot with us, and that we have had the benefit of his illuminating pen. He was notalways right; he was sometimes unjust; he often told the truth with"needless asperity, "[216] as Parkman put it; but his merits sooutweighed his defects that he had a marked influence on opinion, andprobably on history, during his thirty-five years of journalistic work, when, according to James Bryce, he showed a courage such as is rareeverywhere. [217] General J. D. Cox, who had not missed a number of _TheNation_ from 1865 to 1899, wrote to Godkin, on hearing of hisprospective retirement from the _Evening Post_, "I really believe thatearnest men, all over the land, whether they agree with you or differ, will unite in the exclamation which Lincoln made as to Grant, 'We can'tspare this man--he _fights_. '"[218]

Our country, wrapped up in no smug complacency, listened to this man, respected him and supported him, and on his death a number of peoplewere glad to unite to endow a lectureship in his honor in HarvardUniversity. 

In closing, I cannot do better than quote what may be called Godkin'sfarewell words, printed forty days before the attack of cerebralhemorrhage which ended his active career. "The election of the chiefofficer of the state by universal suffrage, " he wrote, "by a nationapproaching one hundred millions, is not simply a novelty in the historyof man's efforts to govern himself, but an experiment of which no onecan foresee the result. The mass is yearly becoming more and moredifficult to move. The old arts of persuasion are already ceasing to beemployed on it. Presidential elections are less and less carried byspeeches and articles. The American people is a less instructed peoplethan it used to be. The necessity for drilling, organizing, and guidingit, in order to extract the vote from it is becoming plain; and out ofthis necessity has arisen the boss system, which is now found inexistence everywhere, is growing more powerful, and has thus farresisted all attempts to overthrow it. "

I shall not stop to urge a qualification of some of these statements, but will proceed to the brighter side of our case, which Godkin, even inhis pessimistic mood, could not fail to see distinctly. "On the otherhand, " he continued, "I think the progress made by the collegesthroughout the country, big and little, both in the quality of theinstruction and in the amount of money devoted to books, laboratories, and educational facilities of all kinds, is something unparalleled inthe history of the civilized world. And the progress of the nation inall the arts, except that of government, in science, in literature, incommerce, in invention, is something unprecedented and becomes dailymore astonishing. How it is that this splendid progress does not dragon politics with it I do not profess to know. "[219]

Let us be as hopeful as was Godkin in his earlier days, and rest assuredthat intellectual training will eventually exert its power in politics, as it has done in business and in other domains of active life. 

 [171] R. Ogden's Life and Letters of E. L. Godkin, I, 255. 

 [172] Rhodes's History of the United States, II, 72 (C. M. Depew). 

 [173] Ogden, II, 88. 

 [174] _Ibid. _, I, 257. 

 [175] Parton's Greeley, 331, 576; my own recollections; Ogden, I, 255. 

 [176] Godkin, Random Recollections, _Evening Post_, December 30, 1899. 

 [177] Ogden, I, 168. 

 [178] Ogden, I, 221, 249, 251, 252; II, 222, 231. 

 [179] Letters of J. R. Lowell, II, 76. 

 [180] _Ibid. _, I, 368. 

 [181] Ogden, I, 1. 

 [182] _Evening Post_, December 30, 1899; Ogden, I, 11. 

 [183] _Evening Post_, December 30, 1899. 

 [184] _Ibid. _; Ogden, I, 113. 

 [185] _Evening Post_, December 30, 1899; Ogden, I, _passim_; _The Nation_, June 25, 1885, May 23, 1902. 

 [186] Ogden, II, Chap. XVII. 

 [187] Ogden, II, Chap. XI. 

 [188] _Ibid. _, II, 51. 

 [189] Studies in Contemporary Biography, 372. 

 [190] Tacitus, History, I, 1. 

 [191] Republic. 

 [192] June 23, Rhodes, VI, 382. 

 [193] Ogden, II, 66. 

 [194] Ogden, II, 140. 

 [195] Problems of Modern Democracy, 209. 

 [196] Ogden, II, 199. 

 [197] _Ibid. _, II, 202. 

 [198] Random Recollections, _Evening Post_, December 30, 1899. 

 [199] Ogden, II, 202. 

 [200] _Ibid. _, II, 214. 

 [201] _Ibid. _, II, 238. 

 [202] _Ibid. _, II, 219. 

 [203] _Ibid. _, II, 237. 

 [204] Biographical Studies, 378. 

 [205] Ogden, I, 301, 307. 

 [206] Life and Letters, II, 485. 

 [207] Random Recollections, _Evening Post_, December 30, 1899. 

 [208] Ogden, II, 30, 136, 213, 214, 247, 253. 

 [209] Unforeseen Tendencies of Democracy, 117. 

 [210] Ogden, II, 51. 

 [211] Essays, 38. 

 [212] Vol. 52, p. 267. 

 [213] Vol. 52, p. 66. 

 [214] June 25, 1885. 

 [215] Ogden, II, 116. 

 [216] _Ibid. _, I, 252. 

 [217] Biographical Studies, 370. 

 [218] Ogden, II, 229. 

 [219] _Evening Post_, December 30, 1899. 

WHO BURNED COLUMBIA?

A paper read before the Massachusetts Historical Society at the Novembermeeting of 1901, and printed in the _American Historical Review_ ofApril, 1902. 

WHO BURNED COLUMBIA?

The story goes that when General Sherman lived in New York City, whichwas during the last five years of his life, he attended one night adinner party at which he and an ex-Confederate general who had foughtagainst him in the southwest were the chief guests; and that anEnglishman present asked in perfect innocence the question, Who burnedColumbia? Had bombshells struck the tents of these generals during thewar, they would not have caused half the commotion in their breasts thatdid this question put solely with the desire of information. Theemphatic language of Sherman interlarded with the oaths he utteredspontaneously, the bitter charges of the Confederate, the pounding ofthe table, the dancing of the glasses, told the Englishman that thebloody chasm had not been entirely filled. With a little variation andwith some figurative meaning, he might have used the words of Iago:"Friends all but now, even now in peace; and then but now as if someplanet had outwitted men, tilting at one another's breast in opposition. I cannot speak any beginning to this peevish odds. "

But the question which disturbed the New York dinner party is a delightto the historian. Feeling that history may be known best when there aremost documents, he may derive the greatest pleasure from a perusal ofthe mass of evidence bearing on this disputed point; and if he is ofNorthern birth he ought to approach the subject with absolute candor. Ofa Southerner who had himself lost property or whose parents had lostproperty, through Sherman's campaign of invasion, it would be asking toomuch to expect him to consider this subject in a judicial spirit. EvenTrent, a moderate and impartial Southern writer whose tone is a lessonto us all, when referring, in his life of William Gilmore Simms, to"the much vexed question, Who burned Columbia, " used words of thesternest condemnation. 

Sherman, with his army of 60, 000, left Savannah February 1, 1865, andreached the neighborhood of Columbia February 16. The next day Columbiawas evacuated by the Confederates, occupied by troops of the fifteenthcorps of the Federal army, and by the morning of the 18th either threefifths or two thirds of the town lay in ashes. The facts contained inthese two sentences are almost the only ones undisputed. We shallconsider this episode most curiously if we take first Sherman's account, then Wade Hampton's, ending with what I conceive to be a true relation. 

The city was surrendered by the mayor and three aldermen to ColonelGeorge A. Stone at the head of his brigade. Soon afterwards Sherman andHoward, the commander of the right wing of the army, rode into the city;they observed piles of cotton burning, and Union soldiers and citizensworking to extinguish the fire, which was partially subdued. Let Shermanspeak for himself in the first account that he wrote, which was hisreport of April 4, 1865: "Before one single public building had beenfired by order, the smouldering fires [cotton] set by Hampton's orderwere rekindled by the wind, and communicated to the buildings around. [Wade Hampton commanded the Confederate cavalry. ] About dark they beganto spread, and got beyond the control of the brigade on duty within thecity. The whole of Woods' division was brought in, but it was foundimpossible to check the flames, which, by midnight, had becomeunmanageable, and raged until about 4 A. M. , when the wind subsiding, they were got under control. 

"I was up nearly all night, and saw Generals Howard, Logan, Woods, andothers, laboring to save houses and protect families thus suddenlydeprived of shelter, and even of bedding and wearing apparel. I disclaimon the part of my army any agency in this fire, but, on the contrary, claim that we saved what of Columbia remains unconsumed. And withouthesitation I charge General Wade Hampton with having burned his own cityof Columbia, not with a malicious intent or as the manifestation of asilly 'Roman stoicism, ' but from folly, and want of sense, in filling itwith lint, cotton, and tinder. Our officers and men on duty worked wellto extinguish the flames; but others not on duty, including the officerswho had long been imprisoned there, rescued by us, may have assisted inspreading the fire after it had once begun, and may have indulged inunconcealed joy to see the ruin of the capital of South Carolina. "Howard, in his report, with some modification agrees with his chief, andthe account in "The March to the Sea" of General Cox, whose experienceand training fitted him well to weigh the evidence, gives at least apartial confirmation to Sherman's theory of the origin of the fire. 

I have not, however, discovered sufficient evidence to support theassertion of Sherman that Wade Hampton ordered the cotton in the streetsof Columbia to be burned. Nor do I believe Sherman knew a single fact onwhich he might base so positive a statement. [220] It had generally beenthe custom for the Confederates in their retreat to burn cotton toprevent its falling into the hands of the invading army, and becausesuch was the general rule Sherman assumed that it had been applied inthis particular case. This assumption suited his interest, as he soughta victim to whom he might charge the burning of Columbia. His statementin his "Memoirs, " published in 1875, is a delicious bit of historicalnaïveté. "In my official report of this conflagration, " he wrote, "Idistinctly charged it to General Wade Hampton, and confess I did sopointedly, to shake the faith of his people in him, for he was in myopinion boastful and professed to be the special champion of SouthCarolina. "

Instead of Hampton giving an order to burn the cotton, I am satisfiedthat he urged Beauregard, the general in command, to issue an order thatthis cotton should not be burned, lest the fire might spread to theshops and houses, which for the most part were built of wood, and I amfurther satisfied that such an order was given. Unfortunately theevidence for this is not contemporary. No such order is printed in the"Official Records, " and I am advised from the War Department that nosuch order has been found. The nearest evidence to the time which I havediscovered is a letter of Wade Hampton of April 21, 1866, and one ofBeauregard of May 2, 1866. Since these dates, there is an abundance ofevidence, some of it sworn testimony, and while it is mixed up withinaccurate statements on another point, and all of it is of the natureof recollections, I cannot resist the conclusion that Beauregard andHampton gave such an order. It was unquestionably the wise thing to do. There was absolutely no object in burning the cotton, as the Federaltroops could not carry it with them and could not ship it to any seaportwhich was under Union control. 

An order of Beauregard issued two days after the burning of Columbia andprinted in the "Official Records" shows that the policy of burningcotton to keep it out of the hands of Sherman's army had been abandoned. Sherman's charge, then, that Wade Hampton burned Columbia, falls to theground. The other part of his account, in which he maintained that thefire spread to the buildings from the smoldering cotton rekindled bythe wind, which was blowing a gale, deserves more respect. His reportsaying that he saw cotton afire in the streets was written April 4, 1865, and Howard's in which the same fact is stated was written April 1, very soon after the event, when their recollection would be fresh. Allof the Southern evidence (except one statement, the most important ofall) is to the effect that no cotton was burning until after the Federaltroops entered the city. Many Southerners in their testimony before theBritish and American mixed commission under examination andcross-examination swear to this; and Wade Hampton swears that he was oneof the last Confederates to leave the city, and that, when he left, nocotton was afire, and he knew that it was not fired by his men. But thistestimony was taken in 1872 and 1873, and may be balanced by the sworntestimony of Sherman, Howard, and other Union officers before the samecommission in 1872. 

The weight of the evidence already referred to would seem to me to showthat cotton was afire when the Federal troops entered Columbia, but acontemporary statement of a Confederate officer puts it beyond doubt. Major Chambliss, who was endeavoring to secure the means oftransportation for the Confederate ordnance and ordnance stores, wrote, in a letter of February 20, that at three o'clock on the morning ofFebruary 17, which was a number of hours before the Union soldiersentered Columbia, "the city was illuminated with burning cotton. " But itdoes not follow that the burning cotton in the streets of Columbia wasthe cause of the fire which destroyed the city. When we come to theprobably correct account of the incident, we shall see that thepreponderance of the evidence points to another cause. 

February 27, ten days after the fire, Wade Hampton, in a letter toSherman, charged him with having permitted the burning of Columbia, ifhe did not order it directly; and this has been iterated later by manySouthern writers. The correspondence between Halleck and Sherman iscited to show premeditation on the part of the general. "Should youcapture Charleston, " wrote Halleck, December 18, 1864, "I hope that bysome accident the place may be destroyed, and if a little salt should besown upon the site it may prevent the growth of future crops ofnullification and secession. " Sherman thus replied six days later: "Iwill bear in mind your hint as to Charleston, and don't think salt willbe necessary. When I move, the Fifteenth Corps will be on the right ofthe Right Wing, and their position will bring them naturally intoCharleston first; and if you have watched the history of that corps youwill have remarked that they generally do their work up pretty well. Thetruth is, the whole army is burning with an insatiable desire to wreakvengeance on South Carolina. I almost tremble at her fate, but feel thatshe deserves all that seems in store for her. .. . I look upon Columbia asquite as bad as Charleston. "

The evidence from many points of view corroborating this statement ofthe feeling of the army towards South Carolina is ample. The rank andfile of Sherman's army were men of some education and intelligence; theywere accustomed to discuss public matters, weigh reasons, and drawconclusions. They thought that South Carolina had brought on the CivilWar, was responsible for the cost and bloodshed of it, and no punishmentfor her could be too severe. That was likewise the sentiment of theofficers. A characteristic expression of the feeling may be found in ahome letter of Colonel Charles F. Morse, of the second Massachusetts, who speaks of the "miserable, rebellious State of South Carolina. " "Pityfor these inhabitants, " he further writes, "I have none. In the firstplace, they are rebels, and I am almost prepared to agree with Shermanthat a rebel has no rights, not even the right to live except by ourpermission. "

It is no wonder, then, that Southern writers, smarting at the losscaused by Sherman's campaign of invasion, should believe that Shermanconnived at the destruction of Columbia. But they are wrong in thatbelief. The general's actions were not so bad as his words. Before histroops made their entrance he issued this order: "General Howard will. .. Occupy Columbia, destroy the public buildings, railroad property, manufacturing and machine shops, but will spare libraries and asylumsand private dwellings. " That Sherman was entirely sincere when he gavethis order, and that his general officers endeavored to carry it outcannot be questioned. A statement which he made under oath in 1872indicates that he did not connive at the destruction of Columbia. "If Ihad made up my mind to burn Columbia, " he declared, "I would have burntit with no more feeling than I would a common prairie dog village; but Idid not do it. "

Other words of his exhibit without disguise his feelings in regard tothe occurrence which the South has regarded as a piece of wantonmischief. "The ulterior and strategic advantages of the occupation ofColumbia are seen now clearly by the result, " said Sherman under oath. "The burning of the private dwellings, though never designed by me, wasa trifling matter compared with the manifold results that soon followed. Though I never ordered it and never wished it, I have never shed manytears over the event, because I believe it hastened what we all foughtfor, the end of the war. " It is true that he feared previous to theirentry the burning of Columbia by his soldiers, owing to their"deep-seated feeling of hostility" to the town, but no general of suchan army during such a campaign of invasion would have refused them thepermission to occupy the capital city of South Carolina. "I could havehad them stay in the ranks, " he declared, "but I would not have done itunder the circumstances to save Columbia. "

Historical and legal canons for weighing evidence are not the same. Itis a satisfaction, however, when after the investigation of any casethey lead to the same decision. The members of the British and Americanmixed commission (an Englishman, an American, and the Italian Ministerat Washington), having to adjudicate upon claims for "property allegedto have been destroyed by the burning of Columbia, on the allegationthat that city was wantonly fired by the army of General Sherman, eitherunder his orders or with his consent and permission, " disallowed all theclaims, "all the commissioners agreeing. " While they were not calledupon to deliver a formal opinion in the case, the American agent wasadvised "that the commissioners were unanimous in the conclusion thatthe conflagration which destroyed Columbia was not to be ascribed toeither the intention or default of either the Federal or Confederateofficers. "

To recapitulate, then, what I think I have established: Sherman'saccount and that of the Union writers who follow him cannot be acceptedas history. Neither is the version of Wade Hampton and the Southernwriters worthy of credence. Let me now give what I am convinced is thetrue relation. My authorities are the contemporary accounts of sixFederal officers, whose names will appear when the evidence is presentedin detail; the report of Major Chambliss of the Confederate army; "TheSack and Destruction of Columbia, " a series of articles in the _ColumbiaPhoenix_, written by William Gilmore Simms and printed a little over amonth after the event; and a letter written from Charlotte, February 22, to the _Richmond Whig_, by F. G. De F. , who remained in Columbia untilthe day before the entrance of the Union troops. 

Two days before the entrance of the Federal troops, Columbia was placedunder martial law, but this did not prevent some riotous conduct afternightfall and a number of highway robberies; stores were also brokeninto and robbed. There was great disorder and confusion in thepreparations of the inhabitants for flight; it was a frantic attempt toget themselves and their portable belongings away before the enemyshould enter the city. "A party of Wheeler's Cavalry, " wrote F. G. De F. To the _Richmond Whig_, "accompanied by their officers dashed into town[February 16], tied their horses, and as systematically as if they hadbeen bred to the business, proceeded to break into the stores along MainStreet and rob them of their contents. " Early in the morning of the17th, the South Carolina railroad depot took fire through the recklessoperations of a band of greedy plunderers, who while engaged in robbing"the stores of merchants and planters, trunks of treasure, wares andgoods of fugitives, " sent there awaiting shipment, fired, by thecareless use of their lights, a train leading to a number of kegs ofpowder; the explosion which followed killed many of the thieves and setfire to the building. Major Chambliss, who was endeavoring to secure themeans of transportation for the Confederate ordnance and ordnancestores, wrote: "The straggling cavalry and rabble were stripping thewarehouses and railroad depots. The city was in the wildest terror. "

When the Union soldiers of Colonel Stone's brigade entered the city, they were at once supplied by citizens and negroes with largequantities of intoxicating liquor, brought to them in cups, bottles, demijohns, and buckets. Many had been without supper, and all of themwithout sleep the night before, and none had eaten breakfast thatmorning. They were soon drunk, excited, and unmanageable. The stragglersand "bummers, " who had increased during the march through SouthCarolina, were now attracted by the opportunity for plunder and swelledthe crowd. Union prisoners of war had escaped from their places ofconfinement in the city and suburbs, and joining their comrades wereeager to avenge their real or fancied injuries. Convicts in the jail hadin some manner been released. The pillage of shops and houses and therobbing of men in the streets began soon after the entrance of the army. The officers tried to preserve discipline. Colonel Stone ordered all theliquor to be destroyed, and furnished guards for the private property ofcitizens and for the public buildings; but the extent of the disorderand plundering during the day was probably not appreciated by Shermanand those high in command. Stone was hampered in his efforts to preserveorder by the smallness of his force for patrol duty and by thedrunkenness of his men. In fact, the condition of his men was such thatat eight o'clock in the evening they were relieved from provost duty, and a brigade of the same division, who had been encamped outside of thecity during the day, took their place. But the mob of convicts, escapedUnion prisoners, stragglers and "bummers, " drunken soldiers and negroes, Union soldiers who were eager to take vengeance on South Carolina, couldnot be controlled. The sack of the city went on, and when darkness came, the torch was applied to many houses; the high wind carried the flamesfrom building to building, until the best part of Columbia--a city ofeight thousand inhabitants--was destroyed. 

Colonel Stone wrote, two days afterwards: "About eight o'clock the citywas fired in a number of places by some of our escaped prisoners andcitizens. " "I am satisfied, " said General W. B. Woods, commander of thebrigade that relieved Stone, in his report of March 26, "by statementsmade to me by respectable citizens of the town, that the fire was firstset by the negro inhabitants. " General C. R. Woods, commander of thefirst division, fifteenth corps, wrote, February 21: "The town was firedin several different places by the villains that had that day beenimproperly freed from their confinement in the town prison. The townitself was full of drunken negroes and the vilest vagabond soldiers, theveriest scum of the entire army being collected in the streets. " Thevery night of the conflagration he spoke of the efforts "to arrest thecountless villains of every command that were roaming over the streets. "

General Logan, commander of the fifteenth corps, said, in his report ofMarch 31: "The citizens had so crazed our men with liquor that it wasalmost impossible to control them. The scenes in Columbia that nightwere terrible. Some fiend first applied the torch, and the wild flamesleaped from house to house and street to street, until the lower andbusiness part of the city was wrapped in flames. Frightened citizensrushed in every direction, and the reeling incendiaries dashed, torch inhand, from street to street, spreading dismay wherever they went. "

"Some escaped prisoners, " wrote General Howard, commander of the rightwing, April 1, "convicts from the penitentiary just broken open, armyfollowers, and drunken soldiers ran through house after house, and weredoubtless guilty of all manner of villainies, and it is these men that Ipresume set new fires farther and farther to the windward in thenorthern part of the city. Old men, women, and children, with everythingthey could get, were herded together in the streets. At some places wefound officers and kind-hearted soldiers protecting families from theinsults and roughness of the careless. Meanwhile the flames made fearfulravages, and magnificent residences and churches were consumed in a veryfew minutes. " All these quotations are from Federal officers who werewitnesses of the scene and who wrote their accounts shortly after theevent, without collusion or dictation. They wrote too before they knewthat the question, Who burned Columbia? would be an irritating one inafter years. These accounts are therefore the best of evidence. Nor doesthe acceptance of any one of them imply the exclusion of the others. Allmay be believed, leading us to the conclusion that all the classes namedhad a hand in the sack and destruction of Columbia. 

When the fire was well under way, Sherman appeared on the scene, butgave no orders. Nor was it necessary, for Generals Howard, Logan, Woods, and others were laboring earnestly to prevent the spread of theconflagration. By their efforts and by the change and subsidence ofwind, the fire in the early morning of February 18 was stayed. Columbia, wrote General Howard, was little "except a blackened surface peopledwith numerous chimneys and an occasional house that had been spared asif by a miracle. " Science, history, and art might mourn at the loss theysustained in the destruction of the house of Dr. Gibbes, an antiquaryand naturalist, a scientific acquaintance, if not a friend, of Agassiz. His large library, portfolios of fine engravings, two hundred paintings, a remarkable cabinet of Southern fossils, a collection of sharks' teeth, "pronounced by Agassiz to be the finest in the world, " relics of ouraborigines and others from Mexico, "his collection of historicaldocuments, original correspondence of the Revolution, especially thatof South Carolina, " were all burned. 

The story of quelling the disorder is told by General Oliver: "February18, at 4 A. M. , the Third Brigade was called out to suppress riot; didso, killing 2 men, wounding 30 and arresting 370. " It is worthy of notethat, despite the reign of lawlessness during the night, very few, ifany, outrages were committed on women. 

 [220] In a letter presented to the Senate of the United States (some while before April 21, 1866) Sherman said, "I saw in your Columbia newspaper the printed order of General Wade Hampton that on the approach of the Yankee army all the cotton should be burned" (_South. Hist. Soc. Papers_, VII, 156). 

A NEW ESTIMATE OF CROMWELL

A paper read before the Massachusetts Historical Society at the Januarymeeting of 1898, and printed in the _Atlantic Monthly_ of June, 1898. 

A NEW ESTIMATE OF CROMWELL

The most notable contributions to the historical literature of Englandduring the year 1897 are two volumes by Samuel R. Gardiner: the Oxfordlectures, "Cromwell's Place in History, " published in the spring; andthe second volume of "History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate, "which appeared in the autumn. These present what is probably a new viewof Cromwell. 

If one loves a country or an historic epoch, it is natural for the mindto seek a hero to represent it. We are fortunate in having Washingtonand Lincoln, whose characters and whose lives sum up well the periods inwhich they were our benefactors. But if we look upon our history asbeing the continuation of a branch of that of England, who is thepolitical hero in the nation from which we sprang who represents a greatprinciple or idea that we love to cherish? Hampden might answer if onlywe knew more about him. It occurs to me that Gray, in his poem which isread and conned from boyhood to old age, has done more than any one elseto spread abroad the fame of Hampden. Included in the same stanza withMilton and with Cromwell, he seems to the mere reader of the poem tooccupy the same place in history. In truth, however, as Mr. Gardinerwrites, "it is remarkable how little can be discovered about Hampden. All that is known is to his credit, but his greatness appears from theimpression he created upon others more than from the circumstances ofhis own life as they have been handed down to us. "

The minds of American boys educated under Puritan influences before andduring the war of secession accordingly turned to Cromwell. Had ourPuritan ancestors remained at home till the civil war in England, theywould have fought under the great Oliver, and it is natural that theirdescendants should venerate him. All young men of the period of which Iam speaking, who were interested in history, read Macaulay, the firstvolume of whose history appeared in 1848, and they found in Cromwell ahero to their liking. Carlyle's Cromwell was published three yearsbefore, and those who could digest stronger food found the great mantherein portrayed a chosen one of God to lead his people in the rightpath. Everybody echoed the thought of Carlyle when he averred that tenyears more of Oliver Cromwell's life would have given another history toall the centuries of England. 

In these two volumes Gardiner presents a different conception ofCromwell from that of Carlyle and Macaulay, and in greater detail. Wearrive at Gardiner's notion by degrees, being prepared by the reversalof some of our pretty well established opinions about the Puritans. Macaulay's epigrammatic sentence touching their attitude towardsamusements undoubtedly colored the opinions of men for at least ageneration. "The Puritan hated bear-baiting, " he says, "not because itgave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators. "How coolly Gardiner disposes of this well-turned rhetorical phrase: "Theorder for the complete suppression of bear-baiting and bull-baiting atSouthwark and elsewhere was grounded, not, as has been often repeated, on Puritan aversion to amusements giving 'pleasure to the spectators, 'but upon Puritan disgust at the immorality which these exhibitionsfostered. " Again he writes: "Zealous as were the leaders of theCommonwealth in the suppression of vice, they displayed but little ofthat sour austerity with which they have frequently been credited. Onhis way to Dunbar, Cromwell laughed heartily at the sight of one soldieroverturning a full cream tub and slamming it down on the head ofanother, whilst on his return from Worcester he spent a day hawking inthe fields near Aylesbury. 'Oliver, ' we hear, 'loved an innocent jest. 'Music and song were cultivated in his family. If the graver Puritans didnot admit what has been called 'promiscuous dancing' into theirhouseholds, they made no attempt to prohibit it elsewhere. " In thespring of 1651 appeared the "English Dancing Master, " containing rulesfor country dances, and the tunes by which they were to be accompanied. 

Macaulay's description of Cromwell's army has so pervaded our literatureas to be accepted as historic truth; and J. R. Green, acute as he was, seems, consciously or unconsciously, to have been affected by it, whichis not a matter of wonderment, indeed, for such is its rhetorical forcethat it leaves an impression hard to be obliterated. Macaulay writes:"That which chiefly distinguished the army of Cromwell from other armieswas the austere morality and the fear of God which pervaded all ranks. It is acknowledged by the most zealous Royalists that in that singularcamp no oath was heard, no drunkenness or gambling was seen, and thatduring the long dominion of the soldiery the property of the peaceablecitizen and the honor of woman were held sacred. If outrages werecommitted, they were outrages of a very different kind from those ofwhich a victorious army is generally guilty. No servant girl complainedof the rough gallantry of the redcoats; not an ounce of plate was takenfrom the shops of the goldsmiths; but a Pelagian sermon, or a window onwhich the Virgin and Child were painted, produced in the Puritan ranksan excitement which it required the utmost exertions of the officers toquell. One of Cromwell's chief difficulties was to restrain hismusketeers and dragoons from invading by main force the pulpits ofministers whose discourses, to use the language of that time, were notsavory. "

What a different impression we get from Gardiner! "Much that has beensaid of Cromwell's army has no evidence behind it, " he declares. "Themajority of the soldiers were pressed men, selected because they hadstrong bodies, and not because of their religion. The remainder weretaken out of the armies already in existence. .. . The distinctive featureof the army was its officers. All existing commands having been vacated, men of a distinctly Puritan and for the most part of an Independent typewere appointed to their places. .. . The strictest discipline wasenforced, and the soldiers, whether Puritan or not, were thus broughtfirmly under the control of officers bent upon the one object, ofdefeating the king. "

To those who have regarded the men who governed England, from the timethe Long Parliament became supreme to the death of Cromwell, as saintsin conduct as well as in name, Mr. Gardiner's facts about the members ofthe rump of the Long Parliament will be an awakening. "It wasnotorious, " he records, "that many members who entered the House poorwere now rolling in wealth. " From Gardiner's references and quotations, it is not a strained inference that in subjection to lobbying, inlog-rolling and corruption, this Parliament would hardly be surpassed bya corrupt American legislature. As to personal morality, he byimplication confirms the truth of Cromwell's bitter speech on thememorable day when he forced the dissolution of the Long Parliament. "Some of you, " he said, "are whoremasters. Others, " he continued, pointing to one and another with his hands, "are drunkards, and somecorrupt and unjust men, and scandalous to the profession of the gospel. It is not fit that you should sit as a Parliament any longer. "

While I am well aware that to him, who makes but a casual study of anyhistoric period, matters will appear fresh that to the master of it arewell-worn inferences and generalizations, and while therefore I canpretend to offer only a shallow experience, I confess that on the pointsto which I have referred I received new light, and it prepared me forthe overturning of the view of Cromwell which I had derived from thePuritanical instruction of my early days and from Macaulay. 

In his foreign policy Cromwell was irresolute, vacillating and tricky. "A study of the foreign policy of the Protectorate, " writes Mr. Gardiner, "reveals a distracting maze of fluctuations. Oliver is seenalternately courting France and Spain, constant only in inconstancy. "

Cromwell lacked constructive statesmanship. "The tragedy of his careerlies in the inevitable result that his efforts to establish religion andmorality melted away as the morning mist, whilst his abiding influencewas built upon the vigor with which he promoted the material aims of hiscountrymen. " In another place Mr. Gardiner says: "Cromwell's negativework lasted; his positive work vanished away. His constitutions perishedwith him, his Protectorate descended from the proud position to which hehad raised it, his peace with the Dutch Republic was followed by twowars with the United Provinces, his alliance with the French monarchyonly led to a succession of wars with France lasting into the nineteenthcentury. All that lasted was the support given by him to maritimeenterprise, and in that he followed the tradition of the governmentspreceding him. "

What is Cromwell's place in history? Thus Mr. Gardiner answers thequestion: "He stands forth as the typical Englishman of the modernworld. .. . It is in England that his fame has grown up since thepublication of Carlyle's monumental work, and it is as an Englishmanthat he must be judged. .. . With Cromwell's memory it has fared as withourselves. Royalists painted him as a devil. Carlyle painted him as themasterful saint who suited his peculiar Valhalla. It is time for us toregard him as he really was, with all his physical and moral audacity, with all his tenderness and spiritual yearnings, in the world of actionwhat Shakespeare was in the world of thought, the greatest because themost typical Englishman of all time. This, in the most enduring sense, is Cromwell's place in history. "

The idea most difficult for me to relinquish is that of Cromwell as alink in that historic chain which led to the Revolution of 1688, withits blessed combination of liberty and order. I have loved to think, asCarlyle expressed it: "'Their works follow them, ' as I think this OliverCromwell's works have done and are still doing! We have had our'Revolution of '88' officially called 'glorious, ' and other Revolutionsnot yet called glorious; and somewhat has been gained for poor mankind. Men's ears are not now slit off by rash Officiality. Officiality willfor long henceforth be more cautious about men's ears. The tyrannousstar chambers, branding irons, chimerical kings and surplices atAllhallowtide, they are gone or with immense velocity going. Oliver'sworks do follow him!"

In these two volumes of Gardiner it is not from what is said, but fromwhat is omitted, that one may deduce the author's opinion thatCromwell's career as Protector contributed in no wise to the Revolutionof 1688. But touching this matter he has thus written to me: "I aminclined to question your view that Cromwell paved the way for theRevolution of 1688, except so far as his victories and the King'sexecution frightened off James II. Pym and Hampden did pave the way, but Cromwell's work took other lines. The Instrument of Government wasframed on quite different principles, and the extension of the suffrageand reformed franchise found no place in England until 1832. It was notCromwell's fault that it was so. "

If I relinquish this one of my old historic notions, I feel that I mustdo it for the reason that Lord Auckland agreed with Macaulay afterreading the first volume of his history. "I had also hated Cromwell morethan I now do, " he said; "for I always agree with Tom Macaulay; and itsaves trouble to agree with him at once, because he is sure to make youdo so at last. "

I asked Professor Edward Channing of Harvard College, who teachesEnglish History of the Tudor and Stuart periods, his opinion ofGardiner. "I firmly believe, " he told me, "that Mr. Gardiner is thegreatest English historical writer who has appeared since Gibbon. He hasthe instinct of the truth-seeker as no other English student I know ofhas shown it since the end of the last century. "

General J. D. Cox, a statesman and a lawyer, a student of history and oflaw, writes to me: "In reading Gardiner, I feel that I am sitting at thefeet of an historical chief justice, a sort of John Marshall in hisgenius for putting the final results of learning in the garb of simplecommon sense. "

INDEX

 Adams, C. F. , and E. G. Bourne, 200. 

 Adams, J. Q. , as President, 207, 209. 

 Adams, John, as President, 207. 

 Adelaide, Australia, Froude's description, 42. 

 Alabama claims, arbitration, 218. 

 Alexander Severus, homage to history, 4. 

 Alison, Sir Archibald, present-day reputation, 40. 

 Allison, W. B. , and Hayes's New York Custom-house appointments, 255; and Silver Bill of 1878, 260. 

 American historians, European recognition, 103. 

 American Historical Association, author's addresses before, 1 _n. _, 25, 81; interest of E. G. Bourne, 196. 

 American history, qualities, 4, 20-23; newspapers as sources, 29-32, 85-95; and early English history, 170. _See also_ Elections, History, Presidential, United States, and periods by name. 

 American Revolution, Gibbon on, 113. 

 Amyot, Jacques, on Alexander Severus, 4. 

 Ancient history, monopoly of German historians, 75. _See also_ Ferrero, Gibbon, Herodotus, Tacitus, Thucydides. 

 Annexations, Philippines, 195, 233, 234, 286; constitutional control, Louisiana, 208, 211; and slavery, Texas and California, 212. 

 Arbitrary arrests during Civil War, 214, 215. 

 Arbitration, Alabama claims, 218; Cleveland and Venezuela, 225, 285; English draft general treaty, 226. 

 Army, Federal, and suppression of rioting, 225, 253; character of Cromwell's, 319, 320. 

 Arnold, Matthew, on Americans, 21; on Sainte-Beuve, 73; on criticism, 292. 

 Arthur, C. A. , as President, 222; removal by Hayes, 255. 

 Auckland, Lord, on agreeing with Macaulay, 323. 

 Aulard, F. A. , on Taine, 83. 

 Bagehot, Walter, on presidential office, 204, 217. 

 Baltimore, railroad riot of 1877, 252. 

 Balzac, Honoré de, importance to historians, 50, 73. 

 Bancroft, George, use of footnotes, 33; remuneration, 78; T. W. Higginson on, over-fondness for manuscript sources, inaccuracy of quotations, 294. 

 Beauregard, P. G. T. , and burning of Columbia, 304. 

 Bemis, George, and Lecky, 157. 

 Bigelow, John, as journalist, 90; on importance of Godkin to _The Nation_, 275. 

 Bismarck, Fürst von, on power of press, 89. 

 Blaine, J. G. , value of "Twenty Years, " 33; on power of Congress over President, 216; on Hayes and Packard, 248. 

 Boer War, Godkin on, 290. 

 Boston, H. G. Wells's criticism considered, 138. 

 Boston Athenæum, editions of Gibbon in, 138. 

 Bourne, E. G. , and preparation of author's history, as critic, 85, 86, 197-199; essay on, 191-200; malady, 191, 192; physique, 191; death, 192; education, 192; works, 193-195; professorships, 193; on Marcus Whitman, 193; on Columbus, 194, 195; on Philippines and Monroe Doctrine, 195; unfinished biography of Motley, 196; critical notices, 196, 197; thoroughness, 196; interest in American Historical Association, 196; desultory reading, 199; and editorship of publications of Massachusetts Historical Society, 199. 

 Bowles, Samuel, as journalist, 90. 

 Brown, John, Pottawatomie Massacre and election of 1856, 88. 

 Browning, Oscar, on Carlyle, 41. 

 Brunetière, Ferdinand, on French literary masters, 73. 

 Bryan, W. J. , campaign of 1896, 228, 286. 

 Bryant, W. C. , as journalist, 90; and Greeley, 269. 

 Bryce, James, importance of "Holy Roman Empire, " 60, 61; on Federal Constitution, 203; on presidential office, 204, 205, 235, 240; on Godkin and _The Nation_, 276, 286, 295; on Herbert Spencer, 293. 

 Buchanan, James, as President, 213. 

 Buckle, H. T. , enthusiasm, 38; influence on Lecky, 154. 

 Burt, S. W. , appointment by Hayes, 255. 

 Bury, J. B. , edition of Gibbon, 61; on Gibbon, 109, 110. 

 Butler, Joseph, influence on Lecky, 154. 

 Cabinet, Grant's, 186, 278; character of Jackson's, 210; Pierce and Buchanan controlled by, 213; Hayes's, 221, 246-248, 262. 

 Cabot, Charles, gift to Boston Athenæum, 138. 

 Calhoun, J. C. , and annexation of Texas, 211. 

 Carlyle, Thomas, as historian, 38, 41; and mathematics, 56, 57; importance in training of historians, "French Revolution" and "Frederick, " 62-64; biography, 64; self-education, 65; lack of practical experience, 66; on historical method, 77; on Gibbon, 115; on Cromwell, inaccuracy of quotations, 144, 318, 321; on pecuniary rewards of literary men, 146; Gladstone on, 155. 

 Chamberlain, D. H. , contested election, 248. 

 Chamberlain, Joseph, on newspapers and public opinion, 31; Godkin on, 290. 

 Chambliss, N. R. , on burning of Columbia, 305, 309. 

 Channing, Edward, on Gardiner, 323. 

 Charleston, secession movement, 91; feeling of Union army towards, 306. 

 _Charleston Courier_, and secession movement, 92. 

 _Charleston Mercury_, and secession movement, 92. 

 Chatham, Earl of, on Thucydides, 15. 

 Choate, Rufus, and Whig nominations in 1852, 87. 

 Christianity, Gibbon on early church, 131-133. 

 Cicero, homage to history, 4; importance to historians, 51; Gibbon on, 120; contradictions, 290. 

 Civil service, J. D. Cox and reform, 186; spoils system, 209, 211; need of special training ignored, 210; reform under Hayes, 221, 254-257; Reform Bill, 222; Cleveland and reform, 223, 224; demand on President's time of appointments, number of presidential offices, 236; Godkin and reform, 280. 

 Civil War, newspapers as historical source on, 32, 92-94; value of Official Records, 92; attitude of Lecky, 157; presidential office during, arbitrary actions, 213-216; Godkin as correspondent during, 273; burning of Columbia, 301-313. 

 Cleveland, Grover, as President, 223-226; and civil service reform, 223; soundness on finances, 225; and railroad riots, 225; foreign policy, 225; and disorganization of Democracy, 226; and public opinion, 231; as a prime minister, 241, 263; and Hayes, attends funeral of Hayes, 263; attitude of Godkin, 285. 

 Columbia, S. C. , burning of, 301-313; Sherman's and Hampton's accounts discredited, 301-308; feeling of Union army towards, 306-308; Sherman's orders on occupation, 307; verdict of mixed commission on, 308; mob responsibility, 308-313. 

 Columbia University, lecture by author at, 47. 

 Commonwealth of England. _See_ Cromwell. 

 Comte, Auguste, influence, 73. 

 Conciseness in history, 11, 14, 16, 20, 36. 

 Congress, control of Senate over Pierce and Buchanan, 213; power during Johnson's administration, 216; overshadows President, power of Speaker of House, 227; McKinley's control over, 234; contact with President, 237; and Hayes, 249, 256, 257, 261. 

 Conkling, Roscoe, contest with Hayes over New York Custom-house, 255. 

 Constitution. _See_ Federal Constitution. 

 Copyright, _The Nation_ and international, 282. 

 Cornell, A. B. , removal by Hayes, 255. 

 Corruption, Gibbon on, 127. 

 Cox, J. D. , on Gardiner, 44, 323; essay on, 185-188; varied activities, 185; as general, 185; as governor, 185; and negro suffrage, 186; as cabinet officer, 186; and civil service reform, 186; in Congress, 186; and Spanish Mission, 186; private positions, 187; works, as military historian, 187; and Grant, 187; contributions to _The Nation_, 187; as reader, 187; character, 188; on Godkin, 295; on burning of Columbia, 303. 

 Crimean War, Godkin on, 273. 

 Cromer, Lord, on power of press, 89, 96. 

 Cromwell, Oliver, Carlyle's biography, 144, 150; Gardiner's influence on fame, 150; Gardiner's estimate, 317-323; character, 319; character of army, 319, 320; foreign policy, 321; lack of constructive statesmanship, 321; as typical Englishman, 322; and Revolution of 1688, 322, 323. 

 Curchod, Suzanne, and Gibbon, 136. 

 Curtis, G. W. , on _The Nation_, 270. 

 Curtius, Ernst, as historian, 34, 43. 

 Dana, C. A. , as journalist, historical value of articles, 31, 90. 

 Darwin, C. R. , biography, 59; truthfulness, 145. 

 Dates in historical work, importance of newspapers, 87. 

 Democratic party, and Cleveland's administration, 223, 226. 

 Demosthenes, and Thucydides, 15. 

 Desultory reading in training of historian, 64, 65, 199. 

 Devens, Charles, in Hayes's cabinet, 247. 

 Deyverdun, Georges, collaboration with Gibbon, 124. 

 Dicey, A. V. , as contributor to _The Nation_, 282, 294. 

 Dictionaries, importance of quotations in, 55. 

 Dingley Tariff Act, 229. 

 Duff, Sir M. E. Grant, on Herodotus, 5. 

 Eckermann, J. P. , "Conversations with Goethe, " 70-72. 

 Elections, 1852, Whig nominations, Scott's stumping tour, 86, 87; 1856, Kansas as issue, 88; 1876, controversy, and flexibility of Constitution, 203, 219, 245; 1896, bimetallism as issue, 228; attitude of Godkin, 286. 

 Elizabeth, Froude and Gardiner on, 149; and Anglo-Saxon development, 172. 

 Emerson, R. W. , on originality, 28; on mathematics, 57; on philanthropists, 181; on _The Nation_, 270. 

 England, Macaulay's history, 37, 41, 62; Gardiner's history, 143-150; Lecky's history, 154, 155; Walpole's history, 161, 163, 164; conditions in 1815, 161; Green's history, 171, 172; Alabama claims arbitration, 217; Venezuela-Guiana boundary, 225, 285; draft general arbitration treaty, 226; attitude of Godkin, 272, 284, 290; Cromwell and the Commonwealth, 317-323. 

 Evarts, W. M. , Secretary of State, ability, 246; social character, 262; pessimism, 288. 

 _Evening Post_, acquires _The Nation_, Godkin as editor, 274. 

 Evolution, and history, 4, 36. 

 Executive. _See_ Civil service, Presidential office. 

 Federal Constitution, English model, 203; rigidity and flexibility, 203, 216; as political tradition, 208. _See also_ Presidential office. 

 Ferrero, Guglielmo, as historian, 75; on Cicero's contradictions, 290. 

 Fessenden, W. P. , and Whig nominations in 1852, 87. 

 Fillmore, Martin, as President, 212. 

 Finances, greenback craze, 219, 246, 281; silver agitation of 1878, 221, 259, 260; Silver Act of 1890, 224, 227; Cleveland's soundness, 225; attitude of Republican party on money, 227, 257; issue in campaign of 1896, 228, 286; gold standard, 231; depression (1877-1878), 251, 258; Hayes's administration, 257-260; Sherman's refunding, 257; resumption of specie payments, 258, 259; _The Nation_ and sound, 280-282. 

 Fine arts, and training of historian, 59. 

 Firth, C. H. , to continue Gardiner's history, 148. 

 Fish, Hamilton, and arbitration of Alabama claims, 218. 

 Fiske, John, anecdote of the Websters, 54; as popular scientist, 58; power of concentration, 69. 

 Footnotes, use in histories, 33. 

 Ford, P. L. , on writing criticisms for _The Nation_, 292. 

 Foreign relations, under Washington, 206; under Tyler and Polk, 211; under Grant, 218; under Cleveland, 225, 285; under McKinley, 231-234. _See also_ Monroe Doctrine. 

 Fourth estate, newspaper as, 96. 

 Franklin, battle of, J. D. Cox in, 185. 

 Frederick the Great, Carlyle's biography, 63. 

 Frederick III of Germany, "wise emperor, " 127. 

 Freeman, E. A. , on Gibbon, 109. 

 French, importance to historians, 49-51; Gibbon's knowledge, 119, 123. 

 French Revolution, Carlyle's history, 62; Gibbon and, 113. 

 Froude, J. A. , on Ulysses, 2; inaccuracy, 41; biography of Carlyle, 64; on Elizabeth, 143, 149. 

 Gardiner, S. R. , truthfulness, 7, 145; as historical model, 42, 45; lack of practical experience, 66, 148; method, 76; essay on, 143-150; death, 143; thoroughness of research, 143, 157; as linguist, 143; manuscript material, 143; on Carlyle's "Cromwell, " 144; writings and editorial work, 144; birth, 145; conception of great work, 145; Irvingite, 146; struggles and success, 146, 147; as teacher, 147; honors, 147; day's routine, manner of composition, 147; style, 148; soundness and influence of historical estimates, 149-150; estimate of Cromwell, 150, 317-323; on J. R. Green, 172; on Hampden, 317; on character of Puritans, 318; on Cromwell's army, 320; on character of Rump, 320; rank as historian, 323. 

 Gardner, Percy, on Herodotus, 5, 40. 

 Garfield, J. A. , desire for fame, 3; as President, 222; as speaker, 241. 

 Garrison, W. P. , as literary editor of _The Nation_, 291-295. 

 Generalizations, need of care, 32, 178. 

 German, importance to historians, 52. 

 German historians, and ancient history, 75. 

 Gibbes, R. W. , destruction of collections, 312. 

 Gibbon, Edward, rank and characteristics as historian, 5, 10, 109, 114; on Tacitus, 10, 116; style, 53, 133; and mathematics, 56; importance in training of historian, 60; autobiographies, 64, 134; essay on, 107-140; conception of history, 107; completion of it, 108; progress and success of work, 108; and classic masters, 110; range of work, 110; its endurance, 110; as possible writer of contemporary history, 111, 112; political career, 111; conservatism, 112; and American Revolution, 113; historical subjects considered by, 115; and earlier period of Roman Empire, 116; intellectual training, 117-123; love of reading, 118; at Oxford, 118; conversion and reconversion, 118, 121; at Lausanne, 119; self-training, 119, 122; linguistic knowledge, 119, 120, 122, 123; influence of Pascal, 119; and Voltaire, 121; on Robertson, 122; "Essay on Study of Literature, " 123; service in militia, its influence, 123; manuscript history of Switzerland, 124; begins work on history, 124; fame rests on it, 125; Milman, Guizot, and Mommsen on it, 125; quotations from, 126-128; definitions of history, 126; on religion under Pagan empire, 126; on happiest period of mankind, 127; on corruption, 127; on sea-power, 127; subjection to criticism, 128; correctness, 128; truthfulness, 129, 130; use of conjecture, 129; precision and accuracy, 129; treatment of early Christian church, 131-133; on Julian the Apostate, 132; on Theodora, licentious passages, 133; composition of history, 134; love of books and wine, 135; gout, 135; and women, love affair, 136-138; history in quarto edition, 138; human importance of work, 139; satisfaction with career, 139. 

 Gladstone, W. E. , on Lecky, Carlyle, and Macaulay, 155. 

 Gloucester, William Henry, Duke of, on Gibbon's history, 138. 

 Godkin, E. L. , power as journalist, 95; essay on, 267-297; rank as journalist, 267; on Greeley, 267, 268; illustration of influence, 268; character, 269; indirect influence, character of clientèle, 270, 271; authorship of articles in _The Nation_, 271; Essays, 272; early life, 272; early optimism and later pessimism concerning America, 272, 284-290, 296; as war correspondent, 272; in America, journey in South, 273; correspondent of London _News_, 273; foundation of _The Nation_, 273; editor of _Evening Post_, 274; retirement, 274; lectures, honors, 274; and offer of professorship, 274-276; nervous strain, 275; accused of censorious criticism, 276; of unfortunate influence on intellectual youth, 277; influence on author, 278-282, 292-294; influence in West, 279; disinterestedness, 280; and civil service reform, 280; and sound finances, 280-282; and tariff, 282; and foreign affairs, 282; other phases of influence, 282; never retracted personal charges, 282; implacability, ignores death of F. A. Walker, 282-284; and Cleveland, 285; and election of 1896, 286; and Spanish War and Philippines, 286; moral censor, 289; criticism of England, 290; disappointment in democracy, 291; literary criticism in _The Nation_, 291-295; on W. P. Garrison, 291; influence of foreign birth, 295; fame, 295; lectureship as memorial to, 296; farewell words, on general progress and political decline, 296, 297. 

 Goethe, J. W. Von, on Molière, 50; on linguistic ability, 52; "Faust" and study of human character, 68; "Conversations, " 70, 72; wide outlook, 71. 

 Gold Standard Act, 231. 

 Gordon, C. G. , newspapers and Soudan expedition, 89. 

 Gout, Gibbon on, 135. 

 Grant, U. S. , first cabinet, 186, 278; and Cox, 187; as President, moral tone of administration, 217-219, 262; on criticism, 218, 239. 

 Greek, importance to historians, 51; Gibbon's knowledge, 120, 122, 123. 

 Greek history. _See_ Herodotus, Thucydides. 

 Greeley, Horace, influence as journalist, historical value of articles, 31, 90, 267; partisanship, 91; character, 268-270. 

 Green, J. R. , as historian, 42; address on, 171-173; popularity in America, 171; on Elizabeth, 172; accuracy, 172; character, 172; on Cromwell's army, 319. 

 Greenbacks. _See_ Finances. 

 Grote, George, on Thucydides, 7; on references, 33; business training, 78. 

 Guizot, F. P. G. , on Gibbon's history, 125. 

 Hadrian, "traveling emperor, " 127. 

 Halleck, H. W. , attitude towards Charleston, 306. 

 Hamilton, Alexander, on presidential office, 204, 233, 240; as adviser of Washington, 207. 

 Hampden, John, as possible Anglo-Saxon hero, 317; and Revolution of 1688, 323. 

 Hampton, Wade, and burning of Columbia, 302-305, 308. 

 Harrison, Benjamin, as President, 226; as speaker, 241. 

 Harrison, Frederic, on Gibbon, 10; on Spencer Walpole, 165. 

 Harrison, W. H. , as President, 211. 

 Hart, A. B. , on Herodotus, 6. 

 Harvard University, addresses of author at, 47, 101-103, 105, 243, 265; striving after exact knowledge, 101; honorary degree for Hayes, 251; offers professorship to Godkin, 274, 275; Godkin Lectureship, 296. 

 Hawthorne, Nathaniel, conciseness, 36. 

 Hay, John, anecdote of Grant, 218; as Secretary of State, 234; on Hayes and finances, 260. 

 Hayes, Lucy W. , as wife of President, 221, 262. 

 Hayes, R. B. , election controversy, 203, 219, 245; administration, 219-222, 245-264; as a prime minister, 241, 263; righteousness of acceptance of election, 245; difficulty of situation, 245, 261; as governor, 246; letter of acceptance, 246; inaugural, 246; cabinet, 246-248, 262; withdrawal of troops from South, 248, 249; and Congress, 249, 256, 257, 261; civil service reforms, contest with Conkling, 250, 254-257; honorary degree from Harvard, 251; and railroad riots, 253, 254; and finances, independent thinking, 257-260; vetoes of repeal of Federal election laws, 260; extra sessions of Congress, 261; serenity, 261; popular support, 261; and election of 1880, 261; moral tone of administration, 262; and Cleveland, 263. 

 Herodotus, on purpose of history, 2; rank as historian, 5, 34, 40; as contemporary historian, 17. 

 Higginson, T. W. , on Bancroft, 294. 

 Hildreth, Richard, historical value of newspaper articles, 31. 

 Hill, G. B. , on Gibbon's history and autobiography, 125. 

 Historian, training, 49-79; necessary linguistic knowledge, 49-52; acquisition of style, 52-55; knowledge of mathematics, 55-57; of other sciences, 57-59; of fine arts, 59; general historical reading, 60-70; mastery of Gibbon and Bryce, 60; of Tacitus and Thucydides, 61; of other historians, 62-64; knowledge of lives of historians, 64; desultory reading, 64-65; study of human character, experimental and through books, 66-68; thorough reading of characteristic works, 68; speed and retention of reading, 69; importance of "Conversations of Goethe, " 70-72; of Sainte-Beuve's criticisms, 72; choice of subject, 74; method, originality, 75; note-making, 76; Carlyle on method, 77; remuneration, 77; and teaching of history, 78; and business training, 78. _See also_ next two titles. 

 Historians, Shakespeare and Homer as, 1, 2, 7; advantages and disadvantages of present-day, 4, 20; best, 5, 11; Herodotus, 5, 17, 34, 40; Thucydides, 6-8, 11-15, 17-19, 35, 61, 110, 111, 128; Tacitus, 8-10, 15, 17-20, 61, 110, 111, 116, 128; Gibbon, 10, 60, 107-140; conciseness, 11, 14, 16, 20, 36; source material, 12-16, 20, 22; contemporaneousness, 17-20; necessary qualities, 20; monographs, 22; patriotism, 22; necessity and kinds of originality, 27-29, 75; use of newspapers, 29-32, 83-97; generalizations, 32, 178; use of footnotes, 33; fresh combination of well-known facts, 34; present-day models, 34-43; reflection, 37; enthusiasm, 38; Macaulay, 36-38, 41, 62; Carlyle, 38, 41, 62; old and new schools, ethical judgments, human interest, 39, 43-45; Hume, Robertson, Alison, 40; Froude, 41; Green, 42, 171-173; Stubbs, 42, 157; Gardiner, 42, 143-150, 157, 323; and popularity, 44; growth of candor, 45; Bryce, 60, 61; use of manuscript material, 85, 294; gospel of exact knowledge, 101; Lecky, 153-158; Spencer Walpole, 161-167; E. L. Pierce, 177-181; J. D. Cox, 187; E. G. Bourne, 191-200; Bancroft, 294. _See also_ titles above and below. 

 History, intellectual rank, 1; and poetry, 1, 2; and physical sciences, 2; definitions, 2, 6, 43, 126; homage of politicians, 3; and evolution, 4, 36; newspapers as source, 29-32, 83-97; value of manuscript sources, 85, 294. _See also_ two titles above. 

 Hoar, E. R. , in Grant's cabinet, 186, 278; and _The Nation_, 278. 

 Holm, Adolf, on Thucydides, 39; on scientific history, 43; as historian, 75. 

 Holst, H. E. Von, use of newspapers, 29, 85; on westward expansion and slavery, 212. 

 Home rule, Lecky's attitude, 156. 

 Homer, as historian, 1, 2, 22; and study of human character, 67. 

 House of Representatives. See Congress. 

 Howard, O. O. , at burning of Columbia, 302, 307, 311, 312. 

 Howells, W. D. , pessimism, 288. 

 Hugo, Victor, influence, 73. 

 Hume, David, present-day reputation, 40, 111; on Gibbon's history of Switzerland, 124. 

 Huxley, T. H. , as popular scientist, 58; biography, 59; on things useful, 102; on college training, 102. 

 Income tax decision, Lecky on, 157. 

 Ireland, Lecky's history, 155. 

 Jackson, Andrew, as President, 209-211; as leader of democracy, 209; and spoils system, 209; and training for administrative work, 210; and nullification, 210. 

 James, Henry, on Sainte-Beuve, 73. 

 James, T. L. , as postmaster of New York, 254. 

 James, William, on Godkin, 270. 

 Jay Treaty, as precedent for treaty-making power, 206. 

 Jebb, Sir R. C. , on Herodotus, 6, 17; on Tacitus, 10; on Thucydides, 17. 

 Jefferson, Thomas, as President, 207, 208; Louisiana Purchase, 208. 

 Johnson, Andrew, as President, 216. 

 Johnson, Samuel, on American Revolution, 113. 

 Johnston, J. E. , Hayes desires to offer cabinet position to, 247. 

 Journalists, Godkin, 267-297. _See also_ Newspapers. 

 Jowett, Benjamin, on Thucydides, 6. 

 Julian the Apostate, Gibbon's treatment, 132. 

 Kansas, and election of 1856, 88. 

 Kent, James, on danger in presidential contests, 219. 

 Key, D. M. , in Hayes's cabinet, 247. 

 Kinglake, A. W. , on power of press, 89. 

 Laboulaye, Édouard, on Federal Constitution, 204. 

 Langlois, C. V. , on Froude, 41; on ethical judgments, 43; on note-making, 76. 

 Latin, importance to historians, 49, 51, 54; Gibbon's knowledge, 120, 123. 

 Laud, William, Macaulay and Gardiner on, 149. 

 Lausanne, Gibbon at, 108, 113, 119, 121; Voltaire's theatre, 121. 

 Lea, H. C. , business training, 79; as scientific historian, 103. 

 Lecky, W. E. H. , and Christianity, 131; essay on, 153-158; precocity, 153; value of "Morals, " 153; intellectual training, 153; as philosophic historian, 154; "England, " 154, 155; on French Revolution, 155; on Irish history, 155; in politics, 156; popularity of history, 156; social traits, 156; interest in America, 157; historic divination, 158; "Democracy and Liberty, " 158. 

 Lewis, Sir George Cornewall, on power of press, 96. 

 Lincoln, Abraham, as President, 213-216; theory and action of war power, 213; as a precedent, 214; popular support, 215; and public opinion, 231; as a prime minister, 241. 

 Linguistic ability, importance to historians, 49-52; Gibbon's, 133; Gardiner's, 143. 

 Literary criticism in _The Nation_, 291-295. 

 Literary style, acquisition by historian, 52-55; Macaulay's, 55; Gibbon's, 133; Gardiner's, 148; Spencer Walpole's, 165. 

 Lodge, H. C. , in the House, 227. 

 Logan, J. A. , at burning of Columbia, 303, 311, 312. 

 London _Daily News_, Godkin as American correspondent, 273. 

 Long Parliament, character of rump, 320. 

 Louisiana, purchase as precedent, 208; overthrow of carpet-bag government, 248, 249. 

 Lowell, J. R. , on present-day life, 21; on Carlyle, 39; on college training, 102; on Darwin, 145; on Grant's cabinet, 186; on _The Nation_, 268, 271, 278; on importance of Godkin to it, 275. 

 Macaulay, Lord, on Shakespeare as historian, 2; on Herodotus, 5; prolixity, 11, 16, 36; on Thucydides, 19, 61; lack of reflection and digestion, 37; enthusiasm, 38; as partisan, 41; and popularity, 44; on Greek and Latin, 51; style, 55; on mathematics, 56; importance in training of historian, 62; biography, 64; as reader, 69; on Gibbon, 115; on Wentworth and Laud, 149; Gladstone on, 155; on Cromwell, 318; on character of Puritans, 318; on Cromwell's army, 319; Auckland on agreeing with, 323. 

 McCrary, G. W. , in Hayes's cabinet, 247. 

 McKim, J. M. , and foundation of _The Nation_, 273, 274. 

 McKinley, William, as leader of House, 227; tariff bill, 227; as President, 229-234; change in tariff views, 229-231; and gold standard, 231; and public opinion, Spanish War and Philippines, 231-234; diplomacy, 234; influence on Congress, 234; as speaker, 241; attitude of Godkin, 286. 

 Mackintosh, Sir James, on irreligion of Gibbon's time, 132. 

 Madison, James, as President, 207. 

 Mahaffy, J. P. , on Herodotus, 5; on Thucydides, 8. 

 Mahan, A. T. , anticipation of theory, 127. 

 Maine, Sir Henry, on Federal Constitution, 203, 206. 

 Manuscript sources, value, 85, 91, 294; Gardiner's use, 143, 144. 

 Massachusetts Historical Society, papers by author before, 141, 151, 159, 175, 183, 189, 315; recognition of Gardiner, 147; of Lecky, 156; interest of E. L. Pierce in, 181; E. G. Bourne and editorship of publications, 199. 

 Mathematics, and training of historian, 55-57. 

 Matthews, William, on _The Nation_, 278, 279. 

 Merritt, E. A. , appointment by Hayes, 255. 

 Mexican War, aggression, 212; and slavery, 212. 

 Mill, J. S. , and mathematics, 56; prodigy, 56. 

 Milligan case, and arbitrary government, 215. 

 Milman, H. H. , on Gibbon's history, 125, 139. 

 Milton, John, on books, 60. 

 Molière, importance to historians, 49. 

 Mommsen, Theodor, on Gibbon, 11, 125; as scientific historian, 43. 

 Money. _See_ Finances. 

 Monographs, use by general historians, 22. 

 Monroe, James, as President, 207, 209. 

 Monroe Doctrine, and Philippines, 195; and development of presidential office, 209. 

 Montesquieu, Gibbon on, 119. 

 Morison, J. A. Cotter, on Gibbon, 131. 

 Morley, John, on Macaulay, 16, 38, 55; on Cicero and Voltaire, 51. 

 Morrill, J. S. , and Hayes's New York Custom-house appointments, 255. 

 Morris, Gouverneur, and framing of Constitution, 204. 

 Morse, C. F. , on feeling in Union army towards South Carolina, 307. 

 Motley, J. L. , best work, 68; advice to historians, 74, 75; and manuscript sources, 86, 91; Bourne's unfinished biography, 196. 

 _Nation_, as historical source, 95; J. D. Cox as contributor, 187; circulation, 270; foundation, 273; weekly edition of _Evening Post_, 274. _See also_ Godkin. 

 Necker, Mme. _See_ Curchod. 

 Negro suffrage, opposition of J. D. Cox, 186. 

 Nerva, as "gray emperor, " 127. 

 "New English Dictionary, " importance of quotations in, 55. 

 New York Custom-house, Hayes's reforms and appointments, 254. 

 _New York Weekly Tribune_, influence, 31, 90, 91, 267. _See also_ Greeley. 

 Newspapers, as historical sources, 29-32, 83-97; use by Von Holst, 29; as registers of facts, 30, 86-89; importance for dates, 30, 87; as guide of public opinion, 31, 89-92; power of _New York Weekly Tribune_, 31, 90, 91, 267-269; qualities of evidence, 83, 84; value in American history, for period 1850-1860, 85-92; and correction of logical assumptions, 87-89; as record of speeches and letters, 89; value of partisanship, 91; value of Northern, for Civil War period, 92, 93; of Southern, 93; laboriousness of research, 93; value for Reconstruction, 94; canons of use, 96; as fourth estate, 96; criticisms of Presidents, 239. _See also Nation_. 

 Niebuhr, B. G. , on Gibbon, 10, 109; on training of historian, 29. 

 North, Sir Thomas, translation of Plutarch, 1. 

 Norton, C. E. , on Godkin, 270; and foundation of _The Nation_, 273, 274. 

 Note-making in historical work, 76. 

 Nullification, Jackson's course, 210. 

 "Official Records of Union and Confederate armies, " value as historical source, 92. 

 "Ohio idea, " 259. 

 Oliver, J. M. , at burning of Columbia, 313. 

 Olmsted, F. L. , Godkin on Southern books, 273; interest in _The Nation_, 274; on importance of Godkin to it, 275. 

 Olney, Richard, draft general arbitration treaty, 226. 

 Originality in history, 27-29, 34, 75. 

 Oxford University, address of author at, 169. 

 Pacific Coast, Goethe's prophecy, 71. 

 Packard, S. B. , overthrow of government, 248, 249. 

 Palmerston, Lord, Spencer Walpole's estimate, 164. 

 Panama Canal, Goethe's prophecy, 72. 

 Paper money. _See_ Finances. 

 Parkman, Francis, originality, 28; best work, 68; remuneration, 78; national pride in, 102; and religion, 131; on _The Nation_, 270, 295. 

 Partisanship, historical value of newspaper, 83, 91. 

 Pascal, Blaise, influence on Gibbon, 119. 

 Pasteur, Louis, biography, 59. 

 Patriotism in historians, 22. 

 Pericles, funeral oration, 18, 23. 

 Philippines, annexation and Monroe Doctrine, 195; McKinley's attitude, 233; Godkin's attitude, 286. 

 Physical sciences, and history, 2; and training of historian, 55-59. 

 Pierce, E. L. , essay on, 177-181; biography of Sumner, 177-179; as politician and citizen, 179, 181; historic sense, 179; character, 180; interest in Massachusetts Historical Society, 181. 

 Pierce, Franklin, as President, 213. 

 Pike, J. S. , historical value of newspaper articles, 31. 

 Pittsburg, railroad riot of 1877, 252, 253. 

 Pliny the Younger, on Tacitus, 9. 

 Plutarch, North's translation, 1; on Thucydides, 19. 

 Poetry, and history, 1. 

 Politics, Godkin on decline, 296, 297. _See also_ Civil service, Congress, Elections, Newspapers, Presidential office, and parties by name. 

 Polk, J. K. , as President, 211. 

 Polybius, as historian, 6. 

 Popularity, and historical writing, 44. 

 Presidential office, essay on, 203-241; flexibility of powers and duties, 204; under Washington, control of treaties, 205-207; John Adams to J. Q. Adams, extension of power, 207-209; and annexations, 208; and Monroe Doctrine, 209; under Jackson, era of vulgarity, spoils system, 209-211; Van Buren to Buchanan, annexations and slavery, 211-213; period of weakness, 213; under Lincoln, war power, 213-216; under Johnson, nadir, 216; and cabinet government, 217, 240, 263; under Grant, 217-219, 262; veto power, 219; Kent on dangers in elections, 219; contested election of 1876, 219, 254; under Hayes, 220-222, 245-264; under Garfield, civil service reform, 222; under Arthur, 222; under Cleveland, advance in power, 223-226; under Harrison, 226-228; under McKinley, 229-234; and public opinion, 231-234; character of Roosevelt, 235; business, interruptions and their remedy, 236-239; appointments, number of presidential offices, 236; contact with Congress, 237; criticisms, 238-240; success of system, 240-241. 

 Pritchett, H. S. , on McKinley and Philippines, 233. 

 Public opinion, newspapers as guide, 31, 89-92; backing of Lincoln's extra-legal actions, 215; influence on Presidents, 231-234. 

 Puritans, Macaulay and Gardiner on character, 318. 

 Pym, John, and Revolution of 1688, 323. 

 Railroad riots, 1894, Cleveland and use of Federal troops, 225; 1877, cause, 251; strike and conflicts, 253; use of Federal troops, 253; social alarm, 254; conduct of Hayes, 254. 

 Ranke, Leopold von, "England, " 143. 

 Raymond, H. J. , power as journalist, 90. 

 Reading, desultory, 64, 65, 199; facility and retention, 69; note-making, 76. 

 Reconstruction, newspapers as historical source, 94, 95; J. D. Cox's opposition to negro suffrage, 186; failure, final withdrawal of troops, 248, 249; attitude of _The Nation_, 282. 

 Reed, T. B. , and power of Speaker, 227. 

 Reflection in historical work, 37. 

 Reform act of 1832, Lord John Russell's introduction, 162. 

 Religion, Gibbon on, under Pagan empire, 126; Gibbon's treatment of early Christian church, 131-133. 

 Republican party, newspapers as record of formation, 90; and sound money, 227, 257. 

 Resumption of specie payments, opposition and success, 258, 259. 

 Revolution of 1688, question of Cromwell's influence, 322, 323. 

 Riots. _See_ Railroad. 

 Robertson, William, present-day reputation, 40, 111; Gibbon on, 122. 

 Rome. _See_ Gibbon, Tacitus. 

 Roosevelt, Theodore, character, 235; routine as President, 236, 238. 

 Ropes, J. C. , as military historian, 13. 

 _Round Table_, character, 279. 

 Rousseau, J. J. , on Gibbon as lover, 137. 

 Russell, Lord John, and Reform Act of 1832, 162; Spencer Walpole's biography, 162. 

 Sainte-Beuve, C. A. , style, 53; on desultory reading, 65; on biographies of Goethe, 72; as critic, 72; on Gibbon, 114, 123; on Tacitus, 128. 

 Salisbury, Lord, Godkin on, 290. 

 Santa Maria in Ara Coeli, Bambino, 107; connection with Gibbon, 107. 

 Schofield, J. M. , on J. D. Cox, 185. 

 Schouler, William, power as journalist, 90. 

 Schurz, Carl, on history as profession, 78; criticism of Cleveland's Venezuelan policy, 239; in Ohio campaign of 1875, 246; Secretary of Interior, ability, 247; with Hayes at Harvard commencement, 251; and civil service reform, 256; social character, 262; as editor of _Evening Post_, 274; and greenback inflation, 281. 

 Scott, Winfield, presidential campaign, 86, 87. 

 Sea-power, Gibbon on, 127. 

 Senate. _See_ Congress. 

 Seward, W. H. , and arbitrary arrests, 214. 

 Shakespeare, William, as historian, 1, 7, 22; conciseness, 36; and study of human character, 67. 

 Shaw, Bernard, on reality of Shakespeare's characters, 67. 

 Sheffield, Lord, sends wine to Gibbon, 135. 

 Sherman, John, and Silver Bill of 1878, 221, 259, 260; on contact of President and Congress, 237; in Ohio campaign of 1875, 246; Secretary of Treasury, ability, 247, 258; refunding, 258; abused for depression, specie resumption, 258, 259; social character, 263; and greenback inflation, 281. 

 Sherman, W. T. , and Hayes's suggestion of war portfolio for General Johnston, 247; and burning of Columbia, 301-313. 

 Sicilian expedition, Thucydides's account, 19, 61. 

 Silver. _See_ Finances. 

 Slavery, and westward expansion, 212. 

 Source material, use by Thucydides and Tacitus, 12-16; modern, 20, 22; newspapers, 29-32, 83-97; manuscript, 85, 91, 143, 294. 

 South Carolina, overthrow of carpet-bag government, 248; feeling of Union army towards, 306. 

 Spanish War, newspapers and cause, 89; McKinley's course, 233; attitude of Godkin, 286. 

 Speaker of House of Representatives, power, 227. 

 _Spectator_, on McKinley's diplomacy, 234. 

 Spedding, James, Gardiner on, 145. 

 Spencer, Herbert, on aim of education, 77; on age as factor in evidence, 85; Bryce on, 293. 

 Spoils system. _See_ Civil service. 

 Staël, Madame de, parents, 137; on Gibbon, 137 n. 

 "Stalwarts, " origin of name, 249. 

 Stanton, E. M. , and arbitrary arrests, 214. 

 Stephens, H. M. , on French Revolution, 155. 

 Stone, G. A. , at burning of Columbia, 302, 310, 311. 

 Story, Joseph, on presidential character, 235. 

 Stubbs, William, as historian, 42, 69, 157. 

 Suffrage, Godkin on universal, 296. _See also_ Negro. 

 Sumner, Charles, style, 53. 

 Switzerland, Gibbon's manuscript history, 124. 

 Tacitus, rank as historian, 5; characteristics as historian, 8-10, 128; conciseness, 11, 16; use of source material, 15; as contemporary historian, 17, 19, 111; on history, 43; importance in training of historian, 61; Gibbon on, 116; on censure, 276. 

 Taine, H. A. , use of journals, 83. 

 Tariff, Cleveland's attitude, 225; McKinley Act, 227; Dingley Act, 229; McKinley's change of opinion, 229-231; _The Nation_ and protection, 282. 

 Taylor, Zachary, as President, 212. 

 Texan annexation, 211; and slavery, 212. 

 Thackeray, W. M. , on Macaulay, 38. 

 Theodora, Gibbon's treatment, 133. 

 Thompson, R. W. , in Hayes's cabinet, 247. 

 Thucydides, rank as historian, 5; on history, 6; characteristics as historian, 6-8, 39, 128; conciseness, 11, 14, 16, 36; use of personal sources material, 12-14; as contemporary historian, 17, 111; importance in training of historian, 61. 

 Thurman, A. G. , and greenback inflation, 281. 

 Ticknor, George, pessimism, 288. 

 Tilden, S. J. , election controversy, 203, 219, 245. 

 Tocqueville, Alexis de, style, 65; on presidential office, 210. 

 Trajan, "wise emperor, " 127. 

 Treaty-making power, Jay Treaty as precedent, 206. 

 Trent, W. P. , on burning of Columbia, 302. 

 Trevelyan, Sir G. O. , biography of Macaulay, 64. 

 Tyler, John, as President, 211, 212. 

 Tyndall, John, as popular scientist, 58. 

 Ulysses, and study of human character, 67. 

 United States, Goethe's prophecy of westward extension and Panama Canal, 71; political traditions, 208; Godkin's early optimism and later pessimism concerning, 272, 284-290, 296; Godkin on general progress and political decline, 296. _See also_ American, Finances, Newspapers, Politics. 

 Universities, strife after exact knowledge, 101; advantages and aim of training, 102. 

 Vallandigham case, Lincoln's attitude, 214. 

 Van Buren, Martin, as President, 211. 

 Venezuela-Guiana boundary, Cleveland's action, 225 Godkin's attitude, 285. 

 Veto power, wisdom, 219. 

 Voltaire, importance to historians, 51; theatre at Lausanne, 121; and Gibbon, 121. 

 Walker, F. A. , career, 283; _The Nation_ ignores death of, 283, 284. 

 Walpole, Sir Spencer, essay on, 161-167; "England, " 161, 163, 164; biography of Lord John Russell, 162; knowledge of men, 164; of continental politics, 164; "Studies in Biography, " 164; knowledge of practical politics, 165; as man of affairs, 165; style, 165; visit to, character, 165-167; death, 167. 

 War power, exemplification by Lincoln, 213-216. 

 Warner, C. D. , on originality in style, 27. 

 Washington, George, as President, 205-207; prescience, 206; as political tradition, 208. 

 Webb, J. W. , power as journalist, 90. 

 Webster, Daniel, basis of style, 53, 54; and presidential nomination in 1852, 86. 

 Weed, Thurlow, power as journalist, 90. 

 Wells, H. G. , on Boston, 138. 

 Wentworth, Thomas, Macaulay and Gardiner on, 149. 

 West Virginia, railroad riots of 1877, 252. 

 Western Reserve University, lecture by author at, 47. 

 Wheeler, Joseph, lootings by his cavalry at Columbia, 309. 

 Whig party, nominations in 1852, 86. 

 Whitman, Marcus, Bourne's essay on, 193. 

 William I of Germany, "gray emperor, " 127. 

 William II of Germany, "traveling emperor, " 127. 

 Windom, William, and Hayes's New York Custom-house appointments, 255. 

 Wine, Gibbon's love for, 135. 

 Winthrop, R. C. , on E. L. Pierce, 179. 

 Woods, C. R. , at burning of Columbia, 303, 311, 312. 

 Woods, W. B. , at burning of Columbia, 311. 

 Woolsey, T. D. , on Thucydides, 39. 

 Yale University, lecture by author at, 47. 

This Index was made for me by D. M. Matteson.