The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-06-25

litiCal economy he detcsted. and called IL
the dismal science, though without II pro-
lection would have been immortal. Golden
and Bright he would have treated much as
Dr.. johnson would have treated Rousseau
and Noltaire. 1t was not Peel the econ
omist but Peel the strong man that he
welcomed. The party of physical force de-
rived much encourag cement from the writ
ings Of Carlyle. Their great enemy was
the great Minister. They we're vanquished
by cheap bread"
We come now more definitely TO the
conception OF historical composition which
is embodied in these volumes. We are
reminded that Sir John Seeley. who was
Lord Actons predecessor in the chair Of
modern history at Cambridge. held in
| his Expansion OF England" that the his
tOrian ia only concerned with man as a
I citizen, as belonging to a state. This
doctrine is. Of course. the exact opposite
| Of Lord Acton's. and every historian must
begin by choosing between them, Mr..
Paul pronounces for Lord Acton. To
Seeley's argument that Thucydides tells
us a great deal about Cleon and nothing
at all about Socrates, though he must have
known that Socrates was an infinitely
| greater man than Cleon. our author answers
that Thucydides wrote a history, not of
Athens. but of the Peloponnesian War. in
which he was himself engaged. "He dis.
carded everything not relevant to his sub
! ject. and his digressons are scarcely
wider than Kinglakos. The illustration is,
therefore, immaterial and would he 50 even
| IL it were possible for a sane historian TO
attempt a rivalry with Thucyddes. What
/ Saeley meant was that history should be
purely political. and in this cannot agree
with him. Indeed. he himself with doubt.
full consistency, complained that historians
of the eighteenth century have followed
too closely the proceedings of Parliament
In the eighteenth century Parliament re-
| fected much less adequately than it does
row, or than il did fifty years ago the life
and thought of the nation" Our author goes
on to show that even now there are many
vital elements of national progress and Of
national decadence which do not find their
way into Parliamentary debates. and which
cannot be called political Modern Eng
land was not erected by act of Parliament.
Free trade was essential to her commercial
supremacy, and the establishment Of free
trade was a piece Of practical politics.
But free trade would have been compare
lively useless without steam. and no Parlia-
ment ever yet made a scientific discovery.
Telegra ply, especially submarine teleg
raphy, owes more to a single Scotsman,
William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, than to all
the Parliaments of the world. strictly
political history would, presume, take no
pptirsl Of To mil ba voted for V
franchise in the House of Lords, and would
ignore Browning altogether"
There remains the question OF method
Should a historical narrative follow the
chronological order or should it discuss
subjects separately without interfering
references to contemporary events not
bearing Upon them directly? Mr. Paul adopts
the former method, and vindicates his
choice as follows; lord marlborough
Uhe Chief Justice) laid down true princi
pie when he said, with characteristic irony,
that chronological order is the best There
Is sting as we'll as point in Sterne's remark
that he will now bring up the affairs of the
kitchen, as Rapin brings up the affairs of
the Church. The essence Of history is
narrative, not disQuisition. and narrative
must be continuous | propose to divide
this book into periods, not into subjects.
Sequences, as David Hume says we know;
CAUSES We can only conjecture. The silent
working Of the human mind. which in the
long run determines the policy Of nations
and their fate, can only be traced in its out
ward consequences. These are infinitely
various. Literature, science. politics, art.
have as their one common source the mind
of man, and it is paradoxical to maintain that
they are not related with each other. The
poet, like the statesman, is the creature
Of his a e as well as the creator of his works
In our authors judgment there ia reason,
though we may not know it, for the date Of
a theory, as there is for the date of bill.
The hest clue a historian can furnish,
because the lest he can follow, is the simple
order OF events. No doubt this statement
must te qualified. Mr. Paul does not mean
that a historian should let events speak for
themselves He would then sink into an
annalist. He must be i'll prepared for the
performance of his task II his st dies have
not suggested to him some differences from
the past which may be used as guides for the
future. ~. indeed. he lie the mere
advocate of party, as Macaulay was ac-
cused Of Icing, he may get no attentive
hearing from the other side This our au-
thor recognizes, yet he insists that histo-
rian must have his opinions. like other poo
pie, and it is not, think, his duty, even if it
we're in his power, to conceal them. Per-
feet impartiality implies omniscience, and
Is not human. BIT divine. To extenuate
nothing. to ret down naught in malice,
to consider always the actions c! MS. fron,
their own point Of view before passing
Judgment upon them, and not to expect
from fallible mortals a foreknowedge of
things, is the elementary duty Of the his
torian. Above all. he must not lose himself
in the satisfied contemplation of material
progress. For the things which are seen
are temporal; the things which are not seen
are eternal.
Such are the principles upon which this
history ia written. We purpose to show
how we'll they are applied, and thus exem-
plify the value of the work. by marking
some of the comments on our civil war
which will be found scattered through
the second volume Of the narrative. We
H.. tko, - .