The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-07-02

iuouv NO mutJeT WnhJ Ln6 evidence might DC 10
snow that no such creature as ne was describ-
ing ever could have existed. 1t is pointed out
that even the references he gives as marginal
notes are themselves proofs OF curious and
unconscious Indifference to historical ac-
curaoy. When man writing history makes
certain statement on his page and In proof Of
his accuracy refers us to certain specified
authorities. we may be sure at least that.
Tor the moment. he fully believes the
references will furnish proof OF his correct
ness Assuredly. no human being would de-
liberately refer us to certain distinct authcr:-
ties In proof OF his statements II he we're not
satisfied In his own mind that the authorities
would bear out the truth OF what no had
said. But we find again and again In Froudes
histories that we are referred in confidence TO
certain authorities as II they must settle the
question forever: and behold. when we turn to
the authorities wedscover to our surprise that
they do not even profess to tell us Anything OF
tho kind. We are told W something as IL It
were positive fact. and we are referred to
some authority as affordlng us contemp orary
evidence OF the fact. and we hunt out the au-
thority. and there we find that the whole story
is only mentioned as a rumor coming in
from nobody knows where. and for the truth
OF which thereis nothing that even pretends to
be actual evidence. The result is very often,
that the unintentonally deceptive character Of
these cited authorities only tends to throw n
doubt on passages In the history for which
authority Is cited. and about which no doubt
might otherwise have been entertained" 1t Is.
at the same time, conceded that 1t was impos-
sibe to know Mr.. Froude and still to believe
him capable Of any deliberate perverson OF
facts. He had In a certain sense a wild and
skipping spirit he COMPOUNDED impressions
with certaintes: and. when once he had formed
in his mind picture OF a man or woman. his
| only duty seemed to be to make the work In it's
| completion consistent with its original con-
ception."
Freeman who. as everybody knows. was
! brought into almost incessant controversy with
| Froude. was only known by our author during
the later Year, OF the historians life. Mr.
| Mccarthy had always. he says. been led to
| think OF Freeman as man OF rather over
| bearing temperament filed with intellectual
pride. impatient Of opposing opinions. and apt
to treat his intellectual interiors with the man.
ner OF one accustomed to acknowledged SUI
premacy. Il found him entirely different from
the man had expected to meet. There was
| sort Of genial rouRhness about him-perhaps
l ought rather to call 1t q sort OF rough hearth
ness-faniar to all who have lived in
some OF the midland or northern coun-
ties OF England. and which reminded me a
| good deal occasionally Of the late William
| Edward Forster with whom on could positive
| ly wrangle over politics without ceasng to be
| friendly. In Freeman found nothing OF the
| domineering intellectual dictator On the con-
| trary. found him most pleasant as COM
| panion. considerate in all his ways. patient in
his dealing with difference OF opinion. and
never allowing those with whom he conversed
to become borne down by the consciousness Of
their intellectual inferiority." 1t seems that
| Mr. Mccarthy and his daughter spent a short
| time with Prof. Freeman and his family In his
| house at Oxford they brought away only the
most delightful memories OF his kindness as
host. We had many talks" says the author,
| ON all manner Of subjects. and the more
| I listened the more 1 became impressed
| by the wealth OF varied knowledge which
Freeman was able to bring to bear at will on
any topic. even the most commonplace that
| came up in the course OF conversation. |
| could not help thinking that his stores OF
| knowledge lay out along the table OF his mind
| Just as the hooks he needed for his days work
| lay out along the table OF his study. not piled
| oonfusedly one upon another. nor all slowed
carefully out Of reach on the library shelves OF
| his memory" Our author sums up his re-
mem brances OF Freeman in the remark that he
| never met him without being moro and more
struck by the fact that he was one OF the few
men whose intellectual greatness can exalt In
stead OF humiliating the inferior mortals with
whom they are brought into relation.
1t 10 we'll known that Charles Kingsley was
at one time Professor OF Modern History in the
University OF Cambridge. though he was very
far from attaining to the same rank among con-
temporary historians that belongs to Froude
Freeman. Stubs and Goodwin Smith. When in
deed. he began his course Of historical lectures
at Cambridge. 1t was with the acknowledge
mont that he really knew nothing in particular
about the subjects whereon he had undertaken
to instruct the university and the world. He
expected. apparently. to make up in courage
for anything he may have lack ed in knowledge
He went bravely In for an onslaught on the
positive theory OF history. on Comte Mill
Buckle. Darwin and everybody else He made
1t perfectly clear very soon that he did |
not even know what these authors pro- |
fessed to teach. He fatty denied that |
there Is any such thing as an inexorabe !
law in nature. He essayed to provo that even |
the supposed law OF gravitaton is not by any |
means tho rigid and universal sort OF thing |
that Newton and such like persons have as |
sumed. How. 1t may be asked. would he |
prove this2 In the following words; If | |
choose to catch a stone. can hold it in my |
hands: It has not fallen to the ground. and will
not till let 1t. SO much for the Inevitable |
action OF the laws Of gravity This way of |
dealing with the question may seem to |
many readers nothing better than down.
right buffoonery. But Kingsley was as
grave as q church and as earnest as
an owl. He felt quito certain that he
was refuting the pedants who believe in
the inevitable action OF tho law OF gravita-
ton when he talked Of holding a stone in his
hand There was. indeed. a time when for
our author. as for many other young men.
Charles kingsley was the chosen hero. Now
on the other hand. he would describe him as
about the most perverse and wrong headed |
supporter ot every political abuse. the most
doGmatic champion OF every wrong cause In