as religion. All along the shores of the venerable stream lay great fleets of vessels laden with rich merchandise. From the looms of Benares went forth the most delicate silks that adorned the balls of St James's and of the Petit Trianon; and in the bazaars the muslins of Bengal and the sabres of Oude were mingled with the jewels of Golconda and the shawls of Cashmere.

There is thus no lack of pictorial matter in Macaulay. The peculiarity is, that so much of it has a direct connection with human beings, and that though of a strongly objective turn of mind, he had no natural bent for the description of still life. It was vigorous, stirring movement-"the rush and the roar of practical life”—that chiefly engaged his interest. He is nowhere more in his element than in describing a gorgeous pageant, or the demonstrations of an excited mob. He enters with great zest into the reception of Charles I. at Norwich, the "Progress" of James II., the procession of William and Mary along the Strand, the ceremony of the coronation, and suchlike. He describes the accompanying festivities with gusto; the illuminations, the bells ringing, the "conduits spouting wine," the "gutters running with ale." There is probably no prose passage that has been oftener committed to memory than his account of the trial of Hastings. One of his most vivid pictures is his detail of the prolonged excitement of London during the persecution and trial of the seven Bishops, and the burst of joy upon their acquittal :

"Sir Roger Langley answered 'Not guilty!' As the words passed his lips, Halifax sprang up and waved his hat. At that signal, benches and galleries raised a shout. In a moment ten thousand persons, who crowded the great hall, replied with a still louder shout, which made the old oaken roof crack; and in another moment the innumerable throng without set up a third huzza, which was heard at Temple Bar. The boats which covered the Thames gave an answering cheer. A peal of gunpowder was heard on the water, and another, and another; and so, in a few moments the glad tidings were flying past the Savoy and the Friars to London Bridge, and to the forest of masts below. As the news spread, streets and squares, marketplaces and coffee houses, broke forth into acclamations. Yet were the

acclamations less strange than the weeping. For the feelings of men had been wound up to such a point, that at length the stern English nature, so little used to outward signs of emotion, gave way, and thousands sobbed aloud for very joy. Meanwhile, from the outskirts of the multitude, horsemen were spurring off to bear along all the great roads intelligence of the victory of our Church and nation.'

As regards the method of such descriptions. They follow very much the same rules as the description of scenery. The describer should begin with a comprehensive view of his subject. In this respect Macaulay is, as a rule, exemplary. In his description of Benares, for instance, the first sentence is a summary introduction to what follows. Further, the describer should observe a method in the details; he should place together all that are connected, and should give them either in the direct or in the inverse order of

importance he should, at least, consider what is the most luminous methd in the particular case. This Macaulay is not sufficiently careful to do: we saw (p. 94) that his order of statement is sometimes confused. The description of the London rejoicings is of the nature of a description from the traveller's point of view.

After all, the objective character of our author's style consists more in the pictorial touches brought in by a side wind than in the direct description of objects. We have already seen, that instead of making a plain statement of fact, he states some suggestive circumstance. Instead of saying that nobles and even princes were proud of a University degree, he says that they "were proud to receive from a University the privilege of wearing the doctoral scarlet." Instead of saying that the Dutch would never incur the risk of an invasion, he says that "they would never incur the risk of seeing an invading army encamped between Utrecht and Amsterdam." Such concrete circumstances are very instrumental in keeping up the pictorial air of his pages-imparting all the more splendour that, as a rule, they are loud and glaring, rather than quiet and significant.

In the important process of describing the feelings, he displays his usual objectivity. He tells what people said, what they did, how they looked, what visions passed through their imaginations, and leaves the particularities of their state of feeling to be inferred from these material indications. Carlyle represents Johnson "with his great greedy heart and unspeakable chaos of thoughts; stalking mournful on this earth, eagerly devouring what spiritual thing he could come at." Macaulay represents him with more of concrete circumstances: "ransacking his father's shelves," "devouring hundreds of pages," treating the academical authorities with gross disrespect," standing "under the gate of Pembroke, haranguing a circle of lads, over whom, in spite of his tattered gown and dirty linen, his wit and audacity gave him an undisputed ascendancy."

77 66

Narrative.

Whatever be the ultimate judgment of able critics regarding the merits of Macaulay's History of England,' viewed as a philosophical history or as a solid narrative of public events, there can be no doubt that it was and is an eminently popular work. It gained the popular favour not by slow degrees, but at a leap; five editions, numbering in all about 18,000 copies, were sold in six months. In the following remarks, we cannot profess to anaylse all the ingredients of his extraordinary charm for English readers, but only to observe how far he fulfils certain conditions of perspicuous, instructive, and interesting narrative.

The affairs of England during the reigns of James and William were considerably involved, and without skilful arrangement a history of that period could hardly fail to be confused. Macaulay's exhibition of the movements of different parties, the different aspects of things in the three parts of the kingdom, the complicated relations between James and William, and the intrigues of different individuals, is managed with great perspicuity.

He is exemplary in keeping prominent the main action and the main actor. After the death of Charles, our interest centres in James. We are eager to know how the change of monarch was received in London and through the country, and how James stood in his relations with France and Rome, with Scotland, and with the English clergy and the Dissenters. Macaulay follows the lead of this natural interest, and does not leave James until he is fairly settled on the throne. James once established, our interest in him is for the time satisfied, and we desire to know the proceedings of his baffled opponents. Accordingly, the historian transports us to the asylum of the Whig refugees on the Continent, describes them, and keeps their machinations in Holland, and their successive invasions of Britain, prominent on the stage until the final collapse of their designs and the execution of their leaders. That chapter of the History ends with an account of the cruelties perpetrated on the aiders and abettors of the western insurrection under Monmouth. Then the scene changes to Ireland, the next interesting theatre of events. And so on: there were various critical junctures in the history of the Government, and the events leading to each are traced separately.

The arrangement is so easy and natural, that one almost wonders to see it alleged as a merit. But when we compare it with Hume's arrangement of the events of the same period, we see that even a historian of eminence may pursue a less luminous method. Hume relates, first, all that in his time was known of James's relations with France; then the various particulars of his administration in England, down to the insurrection of Monmouth; then the state of affairs in Scotland, including Argyle's invasion and the conduct of the Parliament. He goes upon the plan of taking up events in local departments, violating both the order of time and the order of dependence. Macaulay makes the government of James the connecting rod or trunk, taking up, one after another, the difficulties that successively besiege it, and, when necessary, stepping back to trace the particular difficulty on hand to its original, without regard to locality. By grappling thus boldly with the complicacy of events, he renders his narrative more continuous, and avoids the error of making a wide separation between events that were closely connected or interdependent. He does not, like Hume, give the descent of Monmouth in one section, and the

descent of Argyle upon Scotland, an event prior in point of time, in another and subsequent section. James, after his accession, put off the meeting of the English Parliament till the more obsequious Parliament of Scotland should set a good example. Macaulay tells us at once James's motive for delaying the meeting of the English Parliament, and details what happened in Scotland during the fortnight of delay. In Hume's History, we do not hear of the proceedings instituted by the Scottish Parliament till after the execution of Argyle, by which time we are interested in another chain of events, and do not catch the influence of the proceedings in Scotland upon the proceedings in England.

In the explanation of events, Macaulay is simple, perspicuous, and plausible, but does not strike us as being precisely correct. When he can produce a broad and obvious motive, he does not refine upon the proportionate influence of minor motives. Upon this tendency we remarked in treating of the intellectual qualities of his style. If it does not add to his scientific value, it adds at least to his popularity.

As compared with the historians of last century-Hume, Gibbon, Robertson-Macaulay is superior in the use of summaries, prospective and retrospective, to help our comprehension of details. As compared with Carlyle, he is inferior in this respect. Before entering into the detail of an incident, he usually favours us with a general sketch of its nature, and its bearing on what has been or what is about to be related; but he is not so exemplary in prefiguring the course of events on the larger scale. You can usually tell from the beginning of a paragraph the general substance of what is to follow; you cannot always tell from the beginning of a chapter what may be the nature of its contents.

The interest excited by the History of England' on its first appearance was doubtless due partly to its controversial tone, and its able support of a popular side. With his hatred of abstract principles of government, it was not to be supposed that he would shape his narrative with a view to drawing from the facts any general political lessons, such as a caution against the evils of arbitrary government. What he wished to enforce was not an abstract lesson, but a strongly cherished opinion amounting briefly to this, that the government of the Stuarts was a curse to the country, and that the Revolution was a blessing.

The History has been wittily called "The Whig Evangel," and we have seen it described as "An Epic Poem, of which King William is the Hero." To the one title it may be objected that our author shows the Whig statesmen of the Revolution to have been quite as discreditable as the Tory statesmen; and to the other, that the work is more rhetorical and polemic than poetical.

If we must have a caricature secondary title for the book, it would perhaps be more accurately described as "A Plea for the Glorious Memory," or "A short and easy Method with the Stuarts."

One of Macaulay's pet theories, advocated with his usual enthusiasm, was his view as to the proper method of writing history. He was eager for the admission of greater scenical interest. He loses no opportunity of striking at "the dignity of history," which would confine the historian to "a detail of public occurrences-the operations of sieges-the changes of administrations-the treaties -the conspiracies the rebellions." He would "intersperse the details which are the charm of historical romances." "The perfect historian is he in whose work the character and spirit of an age is exhibited in miniature." "We should not have to look for

·

the wars and votes of the Puritans in Clarendon, and for their phraseology in Old Mortality;' for one half of King James in Hume, and for the other half in the 'Fortunes of Nigel.'"

Following out this theory, he gives to his work a strong tincture of personal interest. Even in the introductory summary, when briefly sketching the Commonwealth and the Restoration, he does not forget his ideal; he brings up the "great characteristics of the age, the loyal enthusiasm of the brave English gentry, the fierce licentiousness of the swearing, dicing, drunken reprobates, whose excesses disgraced the royal cause-the austerity of the Presbyterian Sabbaths in the city, the extravagance of the Independent preachers in the camp, the precise garb, the severe countenance, the petty scruples, the affected accent, the absurd names and phrases which marked the Puritans," and so on. When he enters on the reign of James II. he turns aside much more from public transactions to the details of private life. He resuscitates all the Court gossip of the period. He draws the character of every courtier of any note-rakes up their foibles, repeats their choicest strokes of wit. He read thousands of forgotten tracts, sermons, and satires in order to revive for us the personalities of the age. He devotes fifteen pages to the last illness and death of Charles II., and forty to the persecution and trial of the Seven Bishops.

age.

It may well be asked whether with all this infusion of personal interest he comes near his ideal of presenting a miniature of the If any one had objected to him that he shows us the life of the courtiers and the clergy rather than the life of the people, he would probably have pointed to the passage in his History where he despatches all that he has to say about the people in six pages, with the remark that so little is known concerning "those who held the ploughs, who tended the oxen, who toiled at the looms of Norwich, and squared the Portland stone for St Paul's."

The interest of personality is not the only interest in his nar