The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-08-12

England, but is there one-Whig, rory, EIo-
testant. or Catholio-whioh is not oolored Dy
the views of its writers Hume, Macintosh,
Fox. Observation-Disclosures, learned, and enter
tanning as they are-are also respectively the
advocates of parties and opinions. Gibbon
cared less for the decline of Rome than for the
downfall of Christianity. Annals and memoirs
are no better, and are sometimes tainted by
prejudice, or spoiled by errors of observation,
or full of personal griefs. The infrmities of
human ac tion are complicated by the obliqui-
ties of human vision. 1t is a remarkable
feature of modern letters that few great
historical works have appeared in our day
which have not been made the sub
iect of fierce and prolonged oontro-
versy. Now it is the narrative which is
brought to bar, and now the philosophy. AS
the historian approaches his own time, he is
ambuscaded by the grandchildren of defunct
heroes, watching lest their progentors be de-
posed from their demi-divinity, and proved to
have had their share of erroneous mortality.
MIR. Bancroft is the last victim of this absurd
and childish method of criticism. We have so
long taken it for granted that all the men who
figure in our Revolutionary period were utterly
without fault, and incapable of being inhu-
enced by other than public and patriotic mo-
tives, that it seems like sacrilege to disturb
answer is that human nature is always the
same, and that men were quite as likely to be
selfish or prejudiced, or to have the usual
assortment of faults, in l776 as at the present
time. If celebrated personages are to be
taken upon trust or tradition, and canonized
as soon as they are in their ootins, then what
need have we of history at all II it be worth
while to make up any estimate of character,
of what value, we may ask, is a false and per-
tod 1t,4 4ha nnfr ic 81 H..
of all virtuous actions enhanced by the con-
sciOusness that those to whom they were
attributed sometimes struggled with tempta-
ton and sometimes succumbed Hamilton
was by no means irreproachably moral, and
himselfcOnfessed his fault in pamphlet de-
Tending his public at the expense of his private
character. Franklin, in his autobiography,
admits his many lapses from the path of virtue
with all the candOr of Rousseau. These two
men were among the greatest and most shining
supporters of the Revolution. Does anybody
think the worse of them for their candor OF
course, there is, for certain purposes, a we'll
defined line between History and Biography,
but as Paley justly asks:-"What is public
history but register of the successes and dis
appointments, the vices, the follies, and the
quarrels of those who engage in contentious
for pOwerW So far as great men
may well appear to have been truly
unsel6sh and devoted, so far this somewhat
cynical definition may be modified, but no fur
ther. Moreover, events are continually oc-
curing which it is impossible to elucidate
without the illustration of personal character.
How is the history of the Federal and Demo-
cratic parties to be truthfully written without
any reference to the quarrels of Adams and
Jefferson? of Adams and Hamilton? of Adams
and almost everybody else? The temper of the
second President was generous; but his
warmest admirer never claimed that he could
keep it under control. In this respect he was
the very opposite of Franklin, whose cool,
half-cynical method of managing upon his
own side a conversational controversy, often
drove Mr. Adams into passion which placed
him at a disadvantage. We remember to have
heard this infrmity of a great man candidly
admitted by one of his descendants with
a freedom which showed that he at least
did not fear that statement of such faults
would subs antially damage the fame of his
illustrious ancestor. Other grandsons, it
would seem, are more sensitive. Is this
because other great men of the Revolution
were purer, greater, more single-minded than
the ardent orator, the profound statesman,
and the accomplished scholar of Quincy
Indeed, we do not know how these touches of
nature can fail to bring him nearer to his
kind, and to strengthen their gratitude with
out materially diminishing their reverence
But while we may forgive if there be any
thing to be forgiven, 1t is a virtual abdication
of his office for the historian to forget. White
washing is no part of his business, and yet
lately most historians seem to consider either
that or its opposite to be the sole purpose of
recording the past. There are perpetual mo
tions for the setting aside of verdicts, and for
the reversal of tme-honored decisions Peter
the Great and Catharine have with much ado
been cleaned and rendered presentable. That
old beast, the father of Frederick the Great
under Mr.. Carlyle's manipulations, turns out
a virtuous and venerable character. Henry
| VIII got married exceedingly against his will,
and cut OIL heads merely for the sake of the
/ Protestant succession. Richard III was rather
benevolent and soft hearted than otherwise.
Elizabeth had none of the vices of her family,
and in fact no vices at all. Mary, the Queen
| OF Scots, was a matron of immaculate fame,
and somewhat averse to the society of hand
some men and melodious singers. Napoleon
was the kind truth-telling gentleman ex-
hibited in Mr.. Abbott's "histOry'-not merely
good, but a goody. At this rate historical
reading will have no more interest than the
little biographies of the Juvenile deceased
which are compiled for the Sunday Schools.
We have no desire to engage in the contro-
Versies which Mr.. Bancroft's volume has
awakened, even if we had the requisite space,
ability, and leisure. One thing, however, is
judicially true. If the descendants of Joseph
Reed, or of General Greene, or of any other
Revolutionary character, are to claim any
credit for the services of their ancestors, they
must take whatever discredit may go along
with it. We think none the worse of a man
because his great grandfather was hanged for
horse-stealing we think none the better OF a