The sun., 1909-05-05
History In the Newspapers.

and impartial historian, says:
The Impulse of an American writer la Justify.
Ing the use OF newspapers ashistoricsl materials
is to adopt an apologeiG tone. II is somewhat
curious that such should be the case, for news.
papers satisfy so many canons Of historical eyt.
deuce They are contemporary, and. being
written without knowledge of the end. cannot
bolster any cause without making plain showing
OF thelr intent Their object Is the relation Of
daily events and II their relation is coiored By
honest or dishonest partisarship, this is easily
discernlbie by the critic from the internal evidence
and from az easily acquired knowledge Of a few
external facts. As the Journals th hemseives say
their aim is to print the news; and much OF the
news Is present politics. Moreover the news
paper itself It's news and editorial columns. Its
advertise enents. lisa graphic picture OF society"
The anirhus Of a newspaper. il it has
an animus, it's blindness to the faults of
its "own damned rascal, to recall THAD
STEvFNs's phrase. and its nsistence on
the iniquty of the other side can be
allowed for just as the prejudices Of a
diarist or chroncler are allowed for
10 VI ONCHto, optiiiOhe'
the life of to-day, newspapers are ndis-
pensable to the historian. That they
contain many inaccuracies and dis
crepancies is merely to say that to get
the exact true effigy of any happening
from Waterloo to a dog fight is impos-
sible. Official accounts are often open
to suspicion. No two men are likely TO
agree in all details. What JOHN Dor
swears to to-day is different thing from
what he will remember in year. There
is no greater liar than the memory, but
the vital trouble is the inaccuracy Of the
judgment, the unmeant deviation from
the fact.
Nobody who has ever heard testimony
in a justice of the peace's court will
have any Illusions about written his
tory. That is resultant Of guesses,
balances OF errors and prejudices; the
historians judgment Of fthe crediblity
Of witnesses new mistakes on top of
the checked OF unchecked mistakes and
contradictions of the authorities. The
modern way of writing history is to
dump the authorities before you, string
them together IS some sort Of narra-
tive, warn. advise and try to help the
reader, who needs all the help he can
get. Heaven knows Without subscrib-
ing to NO history; that must be a lie."
or however the cynical epigram goes.
we are bound to say that the most
readable history is that OF the brilliant
partisans like FRoUDE. You are on
your guard against them, and vet we
dare say they are as often right as the
soberer men without Their talent.
At any rate every journalist, seeing
bow impossible is it to secure absolute
accuracy in regard TO anything. know
ing that there is no truth, but only some
approximation to and diversity from it.
is tempted to believe, perhaps justified
in believing, that the show OF each days
life of the world given in his paper is
truer than so-called formal history with
its anthology of probabilities and what
is so improbable as truth?
We notice, indeed, that our friends the
hebdomadalists and mensualists per-
mute and combine errors to an extent
for which the daily press has no time.
such as it is, takes refuge
with the daily press. which is now very
largely independent and non-partisan.
1t is therefore very "ourious' that an
American writer should have an i'm
pulse to adopt an apologetic tone
when he uses the newspapers as sources,
though they are IAN ample and con-
record OF the past" There
may be something snobbish and ST.
perior in this impulse, but we are con-
tent to attribute it to the mysterious
influence OF binding. A FOOLS book is
Anewspaper, outside of the
files where it has its modest immor-
tality, is as temporary and evanescent
as plank in political platform. As
the East reveres the written word, the
paper. so the equally ignorant West
reveres the book; and in some houses
the library actually contains books.
But let us hear from Mr.. RHODES:
Why islt then that some American students fall
consciously or unconsciousy into an spolor~tic
tone when they attempt TO Justify the use OF
ne VS. Oh pers as historical sources, suppose It
ID because OF the attitude OF cultivated society
10 the newspapers OF to-day. Society calls the
ordinary newspaper sensational and unreliable:
and, n neither Its accounts are so diruse and
badly proportloned as to weary the seeker after
the facts OF any given Transaction"
The hebdomadalists and mensualists
turn an honest penny by bowling, in
imitation of statesmen like General
CoxEY and Colonel BRYAN, that the
daily press is "subservient" TO the sin
terests," the tool of capital, and so on.
That is the attitude of uncultivated
society. Mr., RHODES assumes to give
us the attitude OF cultivated society.
are sensational and un-
and their accounts diffuse
and badly proportioned, Are we to in
fer that cultivated society" prefers that
sort Of newspapers, and apologies in
order to maintain an air OF moral and
loftiness9 We usually find
that the severest critics Of newspapers
are persons who love the tawdry and
the false, sensation and slobber. But