The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1901-03-10
Movements of Forces
Preferred to the Individual.

In the end Of the century we have his
tory which Is not "as interesting as q
novel; Qike that Of Prescott. Motley,
Froude and Macaulay). but very far from
gay. Novelty of research is, quite justly,
insisted upon Though research is as old as
Hemingburgh. n was much advanced by
Gibbon, Carter. Rymer, Walpole. Tyler,
and SO on, till. by a natural error, every
scrap won from a wilderness Of charters is
valued beyond its deserts. The human in
terest is .frowned upon; movements Of
forces, political and social, are treated in
preference to personal character and adj
venture. Meticulous accuracy Is insisted
upon. till nervous students are greatly
afraid to publish. Even Mommsen, greatest
Of original students. is regarded as frivo-
lous, even Curtius as popular" by the mod
ern school. 1t is natural to man to run
into these excuses of reaction. Froude Is
not often accurate, Macaulay has pretu-
dices, even Mr.. Freeman was not sound
about knights Fees and about a certain
palisade. Now the public does not care
about knights fees or about the manor,
much; nor even about the obscure early
history Of civic Institutions. In fact, even
references to authorities brighten away part
of the public. whose timidity I do not ap-
plaud. The results Of our frivolity and OF
the portentous gravity Of some modern his
toeiang is that. since Mr.. Green, scarcely
w. VI hhSSoAy 40 eau SASSpG ~ "A"
aminations. AS long as historians declare
(often with perfect TRUTH that their own
works are not literature, but something lar
more awful and solemn. namely. science.
history must be unpopular. But we are
only waiting for a man of genius as &c
curate as the most meticulous. and as In
teresting as the %agreeably irresponsible
Froude. OF science l am not to treat. so
I am dispensed from remarks on our scien-
tifc modern historians. It is certain that
in collecting n printing and calendaring
documents the age in all countries has
shown praiseworthy industry, while Mr..
Parkman In America, like our m~id-century
historians. was not too scientific to be read
able.
The unassuming and decried art Of criti-
cism remains. Essays are OF no one age.
there are similar excellencies In every good
essayist since Montafgne. We have no Haz-
lit, Lamb or Leigh Hunt. but we had Mr..
and Mr.. Pater. so unlike in all
but conscious interest in style. and remi-
niscence of the best models. Indeed. essay
writing is almost an Impractical art. as
the public has no use for It," any more
than for the letter H on the Sandwich
boards. A fairly bad novelist can live: to an
appallingly bad novelist the workhouse un-
folds its awful valves. In literary criticism
Mr.. Arnold stood alone in his age, and
Arnoid's literary income, 1t is known. |
surprised, when stated, the Commissioners
of Income Tax; not by its affiuence. OF
living critics it would be in the highest
degree dangerous to say a word. though
many words. both Of praise and dispraise,
might be said of a person Of reckless char
acter. That with obvious exceptions) most
critics are men Intimately familiar with
what Is best, from Homer to Mr.. Stephen
ffw students would venture to
ayer. Thk.s We Qor am ] not tho least Of