The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1879-05-25
The Limits of Literary Controversy.

A long and unseemly quarrel between two
conspicuous authors has eliminated In
personal explanation published by Mr. J. A.
FRoUDE in the April number of the Nine
teenh C.nt'ry and In reioinder by Prof.
L. A. FREEMAN, printed IN the May number
Of the Contemporary Rerier The dispute
has naturally attracted much attention,
owing to the position OF the writer's. and be-
cause their reputation for accuracy and, in
one case at least, for good breeding, or even
common decency, was distinctly involved.
The whole affair, too, has raised broader
and more important question as h. the right
scope and spirit OF literary criticism. From
the first volume to the last of Mr.. FRoUDE's
History OF England" he has been per-
sistently accused by Prof FREEMAN OF the
worst Offences chargeable ON historian.
Inadequate preparation for the portrayal OF
the epochs which the narrative assumed TO
depict, almost total ignorance regarding
the preceding times, n reckless neglect OF
obvious evidence, and a wlful distortion OF
known facts, these were some OF the trans
gressions imputed 10 the eloquent advocate
OF HENnY VIII. by one whose competence at
all events could not be impeached. But the
opinion had gained ground that It was not
so much in the present case question OF
competence as OF anmus. The good faith
OF the assailant had been doubted, and 1t
cannot be denied that the majority OF the
London press are now disposed TO regard
him less as n transgressor than as a victim
1t is, indeed, scarcely fair 10 hold Mr.
FRoUDE responsible as a party to this con-
troversy since he has VIGOROUSLY been the
object Of repeatedTattacks on the part Of
Prof, FREEMAN and has waited many years
before entering the lists and striking back
once for all. Nor can II be denied that his
article in the NiRoteenh Century, while It
evlnced a good deal off, indignation was
manly and dgnifed In tone, and well calcu-
lated TO persuade, conciliate and even touch
the impartial reader. He put forth no claim
to irreproachable accuracy; he frankly ac-
knowledged the errors of which his oppo-
nent had succeeded in giving proof, and
made no effort to detract from his critics
reputation as an historian and as man. But
he resented. as entirely unwarranted by the
evidence, the imputation inadequate indus
| try, Of habitual dishonesty, and OF deliberate
malevolcnce. He affirmed that for twenty
| years In his own name, or through the
anonymous columns OF the Saturday Re
riec, Prof FREEMAN had exposed him not
only TO fair structures, but to Wholesale i'm
parchment OF his professional qualifications
as we'll as covert slurs upon his private
character. He quoted chapter and line for
these assertions, he showed out OF his ad-
vorsary's mouth that he was accused OF
garbllng and distorting his authorities. and
that even tho fabrication OF some OF them
out Of the whole cloth had been more or
| less artfully ascribed 10 him; and that re-
Gently he had been charged with privly
assailing HURRELL FRoUDE: or to use his
| opponents phrase, with stabbing his own
| brother in the dark. II was this last vicious
stroke, we are told. levclled at the victim of
| reiterated thrustS, that prevailed on Mr.
| FRoUDE to answer his antagonist and to
force his grievance upon the public notice.
There is no doubt that his reply made a
very favorable impression. It seems to have
been accepted by the great preponderance
Of opinion in the London press as vndica-
ton of the author on all points other than
that OF occasional inaccuracy, and at the
same tlmo rs n grave indictment Of his as
salant's motive and temper, So strong
indeed, was the tide of feeling on behalf OF
Mr., FRoUDE, that Prof. FREEMAN finds him.
| bcll ConSlldlucu W lulclJcCJ bOlHc WOIuS Ol
sury apology into his elaborate rciolndor
He contrives TO tingo, however, his whole
article with detractlon and dstrust; to re-
iterate his former charges of imperfect
research and wild assertion, as vel
as of intentional deceit not only IN
tho use of printed matter accessible
to everybody, but in tho transcript
tion Of manuscripts purporting to be
authentic copies. Now it is obvious that
such allegations are grossly malignant un
less they are true; and of their truth Prof
FREEMAN has adduced scarcely any evi
dence in the Contemporary Review. In his
citations from tho object OF his attack, hC
has confined himself almost exclusively t
tho passages discussed by Mr.. FRoUDE him
self in tho Nineteenth Century. He has tried
on these heads alone, to7convict the latte
ofmsquotation and dlsingenuous qubbllng
| but In our judgment he has wholly failed II