New-York tribune., 1910-06-22

volume. Mr.. Gibbon, DENNY" To-day
I suspect that few persons find the De
cline and Fair readable; nor do much
doubt that many scientific historians
deem ii terribly unscientific Neverthe
less. Gibbon holds his place. They cam
not say but he has had the CROWN even
| if his high animal spirits did induce him
to make improper Latin jokes in his
footnotes. 1t may be literary to indulge
| in his solemn Sneer" and copious irony,
but scientific historians cannot approve.
His excuse is that without an occa-
sional frolie he could not have lived to
walk into the garden one evening and
! congratulate himself that his task was
done Doubtless we may say OF Glbbon
that, considering how he lived while sci
ence had not reached the solemn seren-
ity of her present self-satisfaction, he
was a very fair historian.
The dilemma in which the historical
Muse finds herself seems as II it should
be no dilemma at all. She has to tell. as
far as human imperfection permits, the
truth about human affairs at a given
time. Surely all true stories of human
affairs are simply bound to be interest
ing; one would think that they cannot
be dull Consider the quotidian news
paper.
men ALL" if we may slightly alter line
of era bhe Yet what is the newspaper
but a large history of the events of
day? The narrative, in a respectable
journal, is as true as the authors and
conductors know how to make it. AS
far as it is true it is scientific history.
But we cannot but remark with pain
that the large public find those news
papers most readable which, to speak
mildly are least scientific; to speak In
| a vulgar style, are 'awfu' leears." NAM
| feStly mankind is, at heart, deplorably
unscientific, and likes diverting and eX-
citing untrustworthy matter far better
than accuracy and moderation OF state
ment and comment
For one man or woman who reads any
work of history there are hundreds of
thousands who revel in the least re-
sDonsible. record of yesterdays events
Then when we come to the small NIL
nority who, now and then, do study
though under no compulsion-the MS
tory of the past we cannot be surprised
that they like it to be livelier than, in
accordance with scientific accuracy, it
possibly can be- This is really their
case If you venture the critical re-
mark that, in such or such modern
quently fables Well educated persons
answer, with fmpatience: What does
that matter? The book is good read
ing" | lately read few pages of such
book and really it seemed to, me to
| contain more fables than is .seemly.
But L was IOlO LUdt lliiS Was WiioiiS
important For the life of me / can
not understand this frame of mind For
Esixpence at any bookstal1, one can get
novel which Is pure unm1Xed ;hctlon
and is much more reada bic than the
most erroneous history that is more or
less founded on facts. Why, then, should
that history be thought pleasing and
praiseworthy and why are its fables
more readable than facts?
There are lengths to which even the
patrons of the readable history dare
not go. But why should they stop any
where? If, for example, they find
narrative of the trouble of Mary Stuart
and Queen Elizabeth very readable, be
cause it contains number of romantic
events which never occurred outside of
the fancy of Mr.. Froude, why not go a
step further? Why not make Mary
perish by the hand of her sister and
her foe in a duel with rapier and dag
ger; or why not accept the truth of
contemporary rumor that she escaped
from Fotheringay by way of the Chin
ney-and somebody else was executed?
These incidents are quite as true as and
more exciting than some tales which
historians are now permitted to publish
without rebuke or correction. because
they are so interesting" TO growl at
them is to be priggiSh and pedantlc,
and the Pigments are said to stimulate
a love of study in the young. BY con-
tinung to act on these principles we
may gradually fill the shelves allotted
to history with novels, and not very
good novels, for. gild the pill of science
as you WILL there is likely to remain
touch. an amari aliquid, distasteful to
the young. person who set out to
write an entirely agreeable history of
England. beginning with the Norman
conquest found himself unable to pro-
ceed. He could not in conscience deny
that the battle OF Hastings was not
victory for the English army; yet the
fact was disagreeable and depressing to
young students, dampening their inter
est. After turning over in his mind
the propriety of making Harold revive
in the arms of Edith Swan neck, recover
health and turn up as HereWard the
Wake the avenger of his country. the
would-be historian renounced his task.
Naturally a conscientious man, he could
not bring himself to be interesting and
6greeable at the expense of truth.
Yet many Neutrality-suspicious. his
torians-do in milder way what this
author could not persuade himself to
undertake. Their only limit in the, way
of fiction is the generally known, the
common memories of the schoolroom.
They must not deny that Charles had
his head cut off but, with Lombroso,
they say that Henry VIII cut off the
heads of his six wives, because at this
point the general memory is rather
hazy In fact, the accurate historian is
(as Mr.. Roosevelt appeared, to this lis
tener, to suggest to accumulate large
masses of facts, materials, to be handled
later by an interesting and readable his
torian who will give US his own lftera-
ture blended with the science of his un-
readable predecessor. More, if his work
be science. it will be popular science, the
mother of mischief. AS Rasselas, Prince
of Abyssinia, was convinced By his tutor
hot asay1 q u n
clined to think that no man can be
hiSfn