in that respect done its office. We do not blame a painter for flattery because he does not write under his picture "this is the portrait of an ugly man;" enough if he paints him as he sees him. Why blame a historian because, content with describing his hero as he is, he abstains from calling him names?

Passing from the particular to the general question, there is no doubt a real and considerable difference between Bacon's conception of the proper office of history and Mackintosh's. According to Bacon, "it is the true office of history to represent the events themselves, together with the counsels; and to leave the observations and conclusions thereupon to the liberty and faculty of every man's judgment." According to Mackintosh, history so written "loses the interest which bestows on it the power of being useful:" it must "maintain its sway" by inspiring feelings of pity, anger, &c.

Now that the reader, in order to derive any benefit from history, must feel as he reads, Bacon I suppose would not have denied; but he would have said that the reader should be able to feel without being told when and how; that when an object of emotion is truly represented to a capable mind, the emotion will follow of itself; that a man who is affected by the sight of good and bad in nature, will be affected in the same way when he sees them in a book; that if he be not, it is for want not of epithets and exclamations and notes of admiration in the history, but of moral sensibility in himself, and he should be referred to the preacher or moralist for his cure before he comes to the secular historian. The duty of the historian, being first of all to set forth the truth of the case upon which judgment is to pass, bears a very close analogy to the duty of the judge in summing up. The summing up of the judge is truly the history of the case; it is meant not only to inform the jury as to the facts, but also to guide their judgment. Now we see that in performing this part of his duty the judge is expected carefully to abstain from all expressions which address themselves to the feelings of the jury as distinguished from their judgment; which are calculated" to inspire pity for the sufferer, anger against the oppressor, or earnest desires for the triumph of right over might." The common sense of Englishmen (guided in this

Adv. of Learn. vol. iii. p. 339.

case more perhaps than in any other by real earnestness and sincerity) has established this as a rule; the clear purposes of justice manifestly requiring that such feelings should not be allowed to mix with the consideration of the case, but be left to follow the judgment; as (if the case be truly judged) they inevitably will. And the historian would do well to remember, whatever his personal feelings may be, that his is the part, not of the counsel on either side, but (as I said) of the judge when he is expounding the case to the jury so that they may be best able to come to a just opinion on it.

Or if this example be objected to as not strictly parallel, (because the purposes of justice are satisfied if the jury come to a correct opinion as to the fact, whereas the purposes of history require that a correct opinion as to the fact should be followed by just feelings as to the right and the wrong,) and if an example be called for of some real history maintaining its proper sway over the reader's feelings without the aid of epithets exclamations or comments to direct and stimulate his sensibility; it is enough to say that in that book which all who profess and call themselves Christians are bound to acknowledge as the highest authority, the most odious of all treasons, the most unjust of all judgments, the most pathetic of all tales of martyred innocence, is related four times over without a single indignant comment or a single vituperative expression.

I have dwelt on these points longer perhaps than I need have done in so plain a case. But the error of supposing that Bacon's history was written to flatter Henry has done much mischief. Almost all our modern historians, in trying to correct the supposed flattery, have in fact spoiled the likeness, and so in effect blotted out of that chapter of our history the very thing which was most memorable in it.

In speaking of the character of Henry as described by the writers who preceded Bacon, it will be seen that I have quoted Stowe, and said nothing of Speed, whose history was published in 1609, some years after Stowe's death. But the truth is, that though Bacon's history of Henry's reign was not written till 1621, he had drawn up a slight sketch of Henry's character many years before, of which Speed had a copy, and knew the value and made the right use. He quotes it at the outset of

his history of this reign; "being fit," as he says, "to be set in front to his actions, as certain lights of the mind by which to discern the fountain of counsels and causes." As far therefore as the character of Henry is concerned, and so much of the interpretation of his actions as depends upon a true insight into his character, Speed is not to be reckoned among the historians who preceded Bacon.

The sketch I speak of concludes a short historical fragment, entitled, The History of the reigns of K. Henry the VIII, K. Edward, Q. Mary, and part of Q. Elizabeth, of which there is a fair MS. in the Harleian collection (532. fo. 45.) The name of the writer is not given; but, even without Speed's authority, who quotes it as "fragm. MS. of Sr. Fr. B." there would be no doubt whatever that it is Bacon's. It was afterwards printed, very inaccurately, in the Cabala, Ed. 1663, p. 254., but without any suspicion as to the author; and it is rather singular that, being extant in so common a book, it has never been claimed or noticed by any of Bacon's numerous editors and commentators. It contains indeed little that may not be found elsewhere in his works, yet like all his other fragments and rudiments it is well worth preserving; and there is no fitter place for it than at the end of this preface. It was written, it will be seen, while Elizabeth was still reigning; and his intention then was to begin with the accession of Henry the Eighth, or rather perhaps with a sketch of the condition in which Henry the Seventh left the kingdom. The idea of beginning with the accession of Henry the Seventh occurred to him afterwards in 1605; as may be seen by comparing his well known letter to Lord Chancellor Egerton, which was written on the 2nd of April in that year, with the passage on the same subject in the Advancement of Learning.

The History of the reign of K. Henry the Eighth, K. Edward, Q. Mary, and part of the reign of Q. Elizabeth.

THE books which are written do in their kinds represent the faculties of the mind of man: Poesy his imagination; Philosophy his reason; and History his memory. Of which three faculties least exception is commonly taken to memory; because imagination is oftentimes idle, and reason litigious. So,

likewise History of all writings deserveth least taxation, as that which holdeth least of the author, and most of the things themselves. Again, the use which it holdeth to man's life, if it be not the greatest, yet assuredly is the freest from any ill accident or quality. For those which are conversant much in poets, as they attain to great variety, so withal they become conceited; and those that are brought up in philosophy and sciences do wax (according as their nature is) some of them too stiff and opinionate, and some others too perplexed and confused. Whereas History possesseth the mind of the conceits which are nearest allied unto action, and imprinteth them so, as it doth not alter the complexion of the mind neither to irresolution nor pertinacity. But this is true, that in no sort of writings there is a greater distance between the good and the bad, no not between the most excellent poet and the vainest rhymer, nor between the deepest philosopher and the most frivolous schoolmen, than there is between good histories and those that bear the same or the like title. In which regard, having purposed to write the History of England from the beginning of the reign of K. Henry the eighth of that name near unto the present time wherein Q. Elizabeth reigneth in good felicity, I am delivered of the excuse wherewith the best writers of history are troubled in their proëms, when they go about without breaking the bounds of modesty to give a reason why they should write that again which others have written well or at least tolerably before. For those which I am to follow are such as I may rather fear the reproach of coming into their number, than the opinion of presumption if I hope to do better than they. But in the mean time it must be considered, that the best of the ancient histories were contrived out of divers particular Commentaries, Relations, and Narrations, which it was not hard to digest with ornament, and thereof to compound one entire Story. And as at the first such writers had the ease of other's labours, so since they have the whole commendation; in regard these former writings are for the most part lost, whereby their borrowings do not appear. But únto me the disadvantage is great, finding no public memories of any consideration or worth, in sort that the supply must be out of the freshness of memory and tradition, and out of the acts, instruments, and negotiations of state themselves, together with the glances of foreign histories; which though I do

acknowledge to be the best originals and instructions out of which to write an history, yet the travel must be much greater than if there had been already digested any tolerable chronicle as a simple narration of the actions themselves, which should only have needed out of the former helps to be enriched with the counsels and the speeches and notable particularities. And this was the reason why I mought not attempt to go higher to more ancient times, because those helps and grounds did more and more fail; although if I be not deceived I may truly affirm that there have no times passed over in this nation which have produced greater actions, nor more worthy to be delivered to the ages hereafter. For they be not the great wars and conquests (which many times are the works of fortune and fall out in barbarous times) the rehearsal whereof maketh the profitable and instructing history; but rather times refined in policies and industries, new and rare variety of accidents and alterations, equal and just encounters of state and state in forces and of prince and prince in sufficiency, that bring upon the stage the best parts for observation. Now if you look into the general natures of the times (which I have undertaken) throughout Europe, whereof the times of this nation must needs participate, you shall find more knowledge in the world than was in the ages before, whereby the wits of men (which are the shops wherein all actions are forged) are more furnished and improved. Then if you shall restrain your consideration to the state of this monarchy, first there will occur unto you changes rare, and altogether unknown to antiquity, in matters of religion and the state ecclesiastical. Then to behold the several reigns, of a king that first, or next the first, became absolute in the sovereignty of a king in minority of a queen married to a foreigner and lastly of a queen that hath governed without the help either of a marriage, or of any mighty man of her blood: is no small variety in the affairs of a monarchy, but such as perhaps in four successions in any state at any time is hardly to be found. Besides there have not wanted examples 1 within the compass of the same times neither of an usurpation, nor of rebellions under heads of greatness, nor of commotions merely popular, nor of sundry desperate conspiracies (an unwonted thing in hereditary monarchies), nor of foreign wars of all

1

This word is omitted in the MS. and supplied from the Cabala.