New-York tribune., 1886-08-15
THE Study OF HISTORY.
PROFESSOR FREEMAN ON MODERN HIS
TORiANS

THE METRODs OF HISTORICAL STUDY; Efsnt
mas Term 1884; with he intnrurad ne Leetnrs on 'ao
brennan Re gius Professor of Modern Hi-tory. eVo'
PIP. vii. 335. Macmillan d Co.
Mr. Freeman after making an elaborate protest
sgaiust the arbitrary division of history Ipto
Sancient" aud "nOdern.' ard cOntending-H IL
seems to us with convincing force that the science
cannot be rightly studied unless its unity Is clearly
understood. presents review of the dhcult'es ana
the materials of historical investigation which VIII
be found full Of interest and value to the genera
reader as well as the special scholar. his ounce
being that OF Professor of modern history III
might have been expected that bis dscourses "o"i"
have particular reference to what are popular y
known as modern times. But. as he maintains 10
his preliminary dsputation, nobody knows "nero
modern HISTORY begins "A living friend once told
ue that modern history begins with the ffench
Revolution, and | fancy that good many people
At least in France woud gladly agree with his doc
tr,nc. On the othe- hand Baron Bunsen held that
modern history began with the Call OF Abraham
Mr.. Freeman is disposed to extend the boundaries
of hi, provnce pIetty far back. but we believe that
ba ia willing 10 reckon Abraham among the
cients Fortunately it ia unnecessary Tor MIN IN
these lectures to draw any line OF separation be-
tween the two departments of study. which he in
sists ought to be treated as one. Most of his re-
mark, are pertinent to the investigation of anv
period. They relate to the credbity OF testimony.
tho methods which we ought to apply in sitting it.
the difference between original and secondary au-
thOritcs the characteristics OF some of the most
valuable original writer's the limits within which
they TO be trusted aud the nature OF what they
have to teach US. The individual authors OF whom
he,has the most to SAY are those who belong on the
boundary between what We term classical aud
mediaeval literature. good deal of the instruc-
ton offered by Mr. Freeman is rather elementary
h,k1, nit inst ooffl Ina n,p9 9fG
of fundamental principles 10 works Of considerable
pret.nson. especially of the readiness of modern
writers to take the tesimo ~ of secondary author
in preference to that of the original from whom he
has borrowed. There seems to he popular notion
that all the ancients" of equal authority, and
that they all lived about the same time
Ma Freeman has much to say about historians of
our own time, and these critical observations will
be read with particular curiositv. In his inaugural
lecture he pays a splendid tribute to two OF his
predecessors DR.. thomas Arnold. from whom lie
declares that he " learned what history is aud how
it should be studied: and Professor William
Stubs. now Risnop of Chester. whose minute
accuracy never fails and whose impartial Judgment
never swe:ves." OF ArnOlds History of Rome
he SAYS: "Surely never did any man put forth
truths high and deep in words so al tlcssly and
yet so happily chosen. II he weie nothing more
than the teller Of tale In the English tongue. he
would take MS place rs one WIN uaS tou s'iiIiHs
tale as few could tell it. IL something to make
us quiveI at the awful vision of Ham bal. and TO
sbow v us Marc-ilus living dead the nameless hill.
1t was a higher calling to show. as no other has
shown that history Is moral lesson. IN every
page of his story Arnold ,tands forth as the right
eous Judge. who. untaught by the more scientific
historical philosophy OF later days. still looked on
crime as 10 less black because it wos successful aud
who could acknowledge the rights even of the weak
.oh tt,ia
handsome compliment: "After five and thirty
years know ledge of him and his works. can say
wiGhout fear tiiat he is the ono among living
scholars to whom one may most freely GO as To an
oracle, that may feel uore sure with him than
with any other that In his answer we carry away
words Of truth which he must be rash indeed who
calls IN question:" In sprakIpg Of style he remarks
that English historical literature can boast OF tnree
great writers iustrous for the admirable manner
iu which they told their tale. These are Arnold.
Gibbon. aud MacauIay. They differ from one an
other as widely differ except IN this. that
they all tell story 50 that we understand and
remember Now and then correct Gibbon |
by the help Of lights which he had not " bat none
OF us dream OF displacing that vast and won
dcrful aud umrivaIleda whole" IL is perhaps the
fashion to disparagc Macaulay; but Mr
Er.rinan dwells with delight upon his minute ac
curacy III names. phrases. and TITLES. his undehled
other merts by means contemplate Mimans
History Of Latin Christianity" is delightful and
instructive book and valuable guide 10 original
and modern authorities. lie is emphatic, vigorous
and effective. but he is not strong III detail aud his
pages swarm with surface errors which it IN strange
that he himself should not have noticed. Thirwall.
Grute and Curtius arc treated as the three great
historians of Greece who supplement one another
each exccng his own department "The
strength of Jhirlwal as clearly lies IN the history
OF Alexander and his as the strength OF
Groe Iies in the political history of Athenian aud
Syracusan democracy. rs the strength Of Curtius
lie, IN the geography in the al tstc side OF things
in the general picture of that age which was tie
glory OF Athens. but which. as the disciples OF
Tinlay know was an age of decline for iiellas IN
the wi,or SENSE" Moinnscn is called the greatest
scholar Of our times vel nigh the greatest scholar
Of all times y but he lacks political and moral
insight hc is an occumenical Jingo falling down
md worshupping brute force wherever he ran find
it," Kcmblo aud Pagr.vc are the writers on early |
English history for whom Mr. Freeman evnces the |
highest respect Or another distinguished historian
hc expresses the following judgment:
lIallam was not strong on the side of |
imagination a1d imagination, Il kept under |
proper r%Stfant by more sober , eomonn'ons;;
historical research. lie never thoroughly took III
etLer tho Imperial or the ecclesiastical element in
HlStolS III say tHat no tuoIouBuiy 'dhc ~
the 1cutonic element either. IT gnt that
leave him 10 standing ground at all. And whittier
shall he seem to vanish If add that he new or
Shows that same Kind Of thorough know ledge OF
original authorities that mastery of them. that
dcnght in them which stands ont in every line of
Kclnblc and PagIavei italian had nothing OF
the spirt of tn. autiquary; hc had not. SHOULD
saw very much OF the spirit Of The historian proper.
Yet IIalam " as memorable writer whose name
ought to be dccly houorcd. and large part of
whose writings arc rs valuable now as when they
were first written. distinguished in All earlier
lecture two classes of lawyers, one class who are
among the worst foes Of historical learning and
another clas, who are among its best friends We
nav ,afey pat iaam as tho patriarch of the
second class lie did not attain Ia the world wide
grasp of some OF our modern masters Of the study of