CHAPTER XXV LITERARY STYLE IN HISTORY SIR George Lewis remarks that history lies under a peculiar disadvantage in that it is in itself "amusing." The statistics and observations in a natural science are not very interesting in their fragmentary state, however startling the final result. In history, on the other hand, the minor incidents, owing to human curiosity about the fellowman, are entertaining in themselves. It is this peculiarity that tempts the author to put in more incidents than the true perspective admits and leads to other critical troubles already discussed. The situation draws out the question of literary style for history. Shall history be written for the entertainment of Object of Histhe public, or, whatever the object, is there a literary tory. form peculiar to the needs of the historical writer? The question comes up with every monograph as well as with every extended work, whether it ought to be written in an interesting manner, or whether the author shall put it down as he thinks he finds it and let the public take the consequences. By a certain school of investigators, not confined to any one country, it has been regarded as a sign of weakness to show any regard for literary form. To be artistic with them is to be unscientific, and the readers take the consequences. This conviction is Is History an due to the unfortunate fact that for so many ages history was regarded as but one branch of literature, and literary arts were employed to make it more palatable. The modern scientific revolt against superficial investigation went to the other extreme, and there are persons yet who look upon Gibbon and Macaulay with more or less of disdain. Perhaps the German historians as a class have less regard for style than others, yet the fact that the highest types of research come from that country makes one pause before giving an answer to the problem of form. Taine says: "History is an art, it is true, but it is also a science; it demands of the writer inspiration, but it also demands of him reflection; if it has the imagination for a hand maid, it has for its instrument prudent criticism and circumspect generalization. Its pictures must be as vivid as those of poetry, but its style must also be as exact, its divisions as well marked, its laws as well proved, its inductions as precise as those of natural history."1 This is a definition made in the course of an essay upon an historian whose work belongs particularly in the realm of literature, and the critic shows a more modern conception of the duties of the historical writer than the subject of his criticism. At the same time, one can hardly conceive of a German admitting that history is an art. In fact, the rôle of art in the presentation of history holds a secondary place and must be distinctly set apart, for the object of history is to set forth the truth, not to produce an æsthetic effect. The object of art is to produce 1 Taine, Essais de Critique et d'Histoire, p. 3, on "Michelet.” a consistent whole. A piece of sculpture presents an ideal figure, or perhaps an historical personage, at a given moment in a way to produce upon the mind an effect which is complete in itself. A painting depicts a scene, either imaginary or historical, which, like a painted sunset, stands still, a finished act. A musical work endeavors to impress upon the hearer a rounded and complete effect. The literary artist sets for himself the task of unrolling a plot, or developing a character, and endeavors to bring the - complicated situations to a consistent end. These are simple standards which the public every day unconsciously applies to pictures or to fiction. In the writing of history it is not always possible No Picture to make complete pictures. However devoted to Complete. art one may desire to be, the materials of history are often inconveniently defective. The course of human society is more or less prosaic, and things proceed with very brutal disregard for the dramatic proprieties. Consequently, if the aim of the writer is simply to make a good piece of literature, measured by the canons of art rather than science, he will - find himself very often strongly tempted to bring his facts up to fit the composition. In creative works of art the materials may be drawn from anywhere, but in history they must be related as they happened. The scientific imagination will find itself fully occupied in supplying the missing facts which logically must have occurred, rather than in the invention of things which will best fill out an - artistic plot or a moving description. On the other hand, if there is any object in his- Effect Sought. torical work beyond the collection of documents it must be to exert an effect upon the readers. The monograph may be written for the select few and the general history for the many, but in either case the matter must be adapted to its auditory and some attention must be given to the form of presentation. It goes without saying that the historical essay, written to set forth a new discovery or propound a new view, must devote itself to the logic of its arguments. This is best secured by the marshalling of facts, rather than by figures of speech, but it need not be forgotten that a well-ordered argument can give pleasure like a work of art. In France the standards of literary art demand above all that the essay shall be convincing, but it must be put together in its most logical order and with the most appropriate words. The reader is under no obligation to pick out an argument from a confused jumble of materials. It may be that the readers of this book will in the immediate future be more often engaged in short studies in history than in extensive general works, but in almost all brief essays there are portions which partake of the same nature as the extended narrative, hence a discussion of the larger problem is not out of place. Briefly stated, the style of the most effective historians has conformed to the age in which they lived. The stately periods and the finished phraseology of Gibbon were products of the literary art of the eighteenth century. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire remains a classic because it both conformed to, and confirmed, the literary canons of a period of refined taste. It is the English of the Spectator and of Gibbon's contemporary, Hume. Perhaps we may agree with Frederic Harrison that the subject was of such paramount importance that Gibbon could do no less than relate it in a style of equal dignity and magnificence. However this may be, it is certain that the author had in view the cultivated portion of the English public and upheld the highest traditions of the language. There is, moreover, such a clarity of expression that the narrative is comprehensible to the simplest reader. As to his scientific accuracy, we must recognize a master mind. Since Gibbon's day much more evidence has come to light, but if one examines the latest revision of the Decline and Fall, edited by a scholar who knows the field, it will be found that very few essential views had to be changed. The amount of actual correction is astonishingly small.1 In English history Hume has passed out of sight Macaulay. because of his inadequate method of investigation. No amount of fine language will take the place of careful research. Macaulay came next in succession as a popular favorite in historical reading, and he also kept up the tradition for carefulness in the use of language. His phraseology is polished, his periods well rounded, and his paragraphs complete. There is a smoothness in the work which makes his pages easy to read. In fact, it was this smoothness that 1 See Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, edited by J. B. Bury. The modern changes are mentioned in separate footnotes. |