New-York tribune., 1906-01-21
Gbe Nep;Iork gribmaas
SUNDAY, JANUARY q, 1906.

writer's are not sufficiently encouraged MI u
X. Shorter prolific contributor to the per-
sonaI side of journalism, comes TO ltS oeieiice
with repetition of the old, speclous argument
eThe impersonaI journalism that was popular
for some thirty years. he says gave no neip
TO n neW career whereas helpful Word spoken
in season concerning i young writer OIL real
talent may make a new asplrant tead OIL ar
for the moment and bring him any amount OF
courage for the fight" He bewails the SAD
case of a novelist who has had hafd tlme 10
get nublished a new story which Mr.. Shorter,
in his sublime WISDOM thinks is full of dalnu-
ness and charm" ETC., and he expresses the
conviction that "some personal recognition IN a
case Of this kind is not to be desplsed It
ought to be deSpised, and by no one more thah
nv the novelist himself. Never was the young
writer more certain of encouragement than be
is to-day-if he will only produce work desefV-
ing to be encouraged. Newspaper edltors re-
ioice when they get hold of a clever beginner,
and Immediately give him his chance. Pub
fishers seize upon promising manuscript with
ayidity, no matter how obscure the author may
he and do all they can to assist it to success
Contemporary criticism errs, if anywhere, on
the side of generosity. The author who needs
coddling is the author who ought to be engaged
in selling ribbons.
Writing on 'The Uses of History in "The
National Review" Mr.. J. St Loe Strachey
throws an interesting sidelight on the difficult
ties of the historian He recalls conversation
he had with the late Secretary Hay on the
value of statements made by frsthand wit
nesseS Mr.. Hay told him that when he and
Mr.. Nicolay undertook to write the life OF LIN
coin they determined to get information in re-
gard to battles and political transactions from
tho men who were engaged in them. Continuing
he said:
We found after three or four months
trial that these first-hand statements as to
events in which the who made them were
chief actors often as not quite useless
and that in almost every case we had to check
and correct them by external evidence. we
could never rely absolutely upon the informa-
tion given by ''men who were there" thougn
the men in question were men OF honor ana
high intelligence and naturally most sincerely
anxious not to mislead US.
He cited the case Of a distinguished soldier
who, in the account that he supplied of his part
in certain battle, mentioned that he was
wounded giving the day and place. "Notwith-
standing this" said Mr. Hay, in the conversa-
ton which Mr. Strachey says he reports with
more certainty as to general accuracy than as
to exact details, eve were able to convince him
that he was not at the battle in question, and
that he was not wounded till several days after
the date which he had specified" There is
lesson here for the writers of sO-called "Scien-
tific'' history. If testimony like that which Mr.
Hay described can so easily be wrong, there is
surely even more ground for ScrutiniZing with
the utmost care that documentary evidence"
concerning events centuries old which the scien-
tific historians are SO prone to accept as some
thing positively sacrosanct