these qualities he possessed, and with them that most rare faculty of coming to prompt and sure conclusions on sudden emergencies. This is the certain mark of a master-spirit in war; without it a commander may be distinguished, he may be a great man, he cannot be a great captain: where troops nearly alike in arms and knowledge are opposed, the battle generally turns upon the decision of the moment.-History of the War in the Peninsula.

5. England and France.

ENGLAND and France! I have called them two great nations. The expression is feeble. They are the two greatest nations in the world. Others may hereafter equal, perhaps surpass them; I know not what may be in the womb of time; but in arts, in arms, in learning, in genius, in power, and in renown, they are now unmatched. Their quarrels have heretofore shaken the world, producing great calamity and incalculable evil; their friendship must therefore necessarily produce incalculable good. Sir, we all recollect, and some of us have mingled in the dreadful struggle, the terrible combat, which was so fairly and gallantly fought out on the fields of Spain, between the illustrious Duke of Wellington and the great French captain [Soult] who now sits here your honoured guest. Then all hearts were bent on mischief, all arms nerved for destruction. trumpet blast of war had gone forth, and those two men, by nature kind and compassionate-I speak from experience -I know them both, and from both have I had proof of a benevolent and kindly nature; those two men met stern and wrathful of mood, they met eager to slay or to be slain, and at their backs stood myriads as stern and wrathful as themselves. Yes, the man who now sits before you, so calm, so gentle of demeanour, could and did-I have seen


him do it--the glory of his country called for it—and with a wave of his hand he has sent a hundred thousand armed men rushing with the might of giants to the fight. And oh! it was a dreadful though a glorious sight to a soldier, to see a French army coming down with the terrors of the tempest, darkness, and fire combined, to waste a field of battle. What followed this field of blood, this widespread carnage? Why, tears and wailings from thousands and tens of thousands of widowed mothers and fatherless children; tears and wailing, misery and despair; for these are the fruits of war. But now, what do we behold? The same men, then so fierce and desperate of mood, meeting with fronts serene and hearts purged and cleansed of angry passions, grasping the offered hand in all the warmth of friendship, amidst the glad shoutings of joyful millions which have replaced the cries of bereaved women and children. They are the fruits, the truly glorious fruits of peace. Peace then, I say, profound and lasting peace, between France and England! And what was it that arrayed the two great men of whom I have just spoken in deadly opposition to each other? Why did they direct their mighty energies to the destruction of their species, passing like the destroying angel over prostrate nations? The glory of their country's arms! Well, it is a stirring sound for the brave man's ears; it makes the warrior lift his crest; it is the soldier's boast. But, gentlemen, it makes the fairer and better part of creation moan. It is a cry which carries desolation to the heart of woman; for war is a devouring fire which consumes in its course man and man's works and woman's happiness together; the hour of war is the hour of destruction, of hatred, of every evil passion; but the hour of peace is that of general joy, the hour of production and of blessed regeneration.-Speech at Birmingham, 1838.




THOMAS ARNOLD, born in 1795, was educated at Winchester. From school he went to Oxford, where he was elected to a Scholarship at Corpus Christi College, and afterwards to a Fellowship at Oriel, at that time the most distinguished Society in the University. In 1818 he took Orders, and for nine years lived in the country as a private tutor. In 1828 he was appointed to the Head Mastership of Rugby School, the duties of which he discharged till his death with great and memorable success. In 1841 he was made Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford, but had only delivered a single course of lectures, when he died suddenly at Rugby, June 12, 1842. He published several volumes of School Sermons, a well-known edition of Thucydides, a Roman History (which was intended to be continued to the time of Charlemagne, but at his death had only advanced as far as the latter years of the Second Punic War), a volume of Introductory Lectures on Modern History, and some pamphlets on political and ecclesiastical topics.

Dr. Arnold's style underwent the same change which Lord Macaulay notes as having taken place in the style of Bacon, and also in that of Burke—a change from an almost bare simplicity to considerable richness and fulness, rising at times to a high order of eloquence. He is not always careful in the construction of his sentences, and most of his writings betray signs of haste. But he has a freshness of feeling and a glow of moral enthusiasm which impart beauty as well as force to his style, and far more than atone for occasional prolixity and negligence of expression.

1. Niebuhr.

NOTHING is more unjust than the vague charge sometimes brought against Niebuhr, that he has denied the reality of all the early history of Rome. On the contrary, he has rescued from the dominion of scepticism much which less profound inquirers had before too hastily given up to it; he has restored and established far more than he has overthrown. Ferguson finds no sure ground to rest on till he comes to the second Punic war; in his view, not only the period of the kings and the first years of the commonwealth, but the whole of two additional centuries,-not only the wars with the Equians and Volscians, but those with the Gauls, the Samnites, and even with Pyrrhus,-are involved in considerable uncertainty. The progress of the constitution he is content to trace in the merest outline; particular events, and still more particular characters, appear to him to belong to poetry or romance rather than to history. Whereas Niebuhr maintains that a true history of Rome, with many details of dates, places, events, and characters, may be recovered from the beginning of the commonwealth. It has been greatly corrupted and disguised by ignorant and uncritical writers, but there exist, he thinks, sufficient materials to enable us, not only to get rid of these corruptions, but to restore that genuine and original edifice, which they have so long overgrown and hidden from our view. And accordingly, far from passing over hastily, like Ferguson, the period from the expulsion of Tarquinius to the first Punic war, he has devoted to it somewhat more than two large volumes; and from much, that to former writers seemed a hopeless chaos, he has drawn a living picture of events and institutions, as rich in its colouring, as perfect in its composition, as it is faithful to the truth of nature.

Were I indeed to venture to criticise the work of this great man, I should be inclined to charge him with having overvalued rather than undervalued the possible certainty of the early history of the Roman commonwealth. He may seem in some instances rather to lean too confidently on the authority of the ancient writers, than to reject it too indiscriminately. But let no man judge him hastily, till by long experience in similar researches he has learnt to estimate sufficiently the instinctive power of discerning truth, which even ordinary minds acquire by constant practice. In Niebuhr, practice combined with the natural acuteness of his mind, brought this power to a perfection which has never been surpassed. It is not caprice, but a most sure instinct, which has led him to seize on some particular passage of a careless and ill-informed writer, and to perceive in it the marks of most important truth; while on other occasions he has set aside the statements of this same writer, with no deference to his authority whatever. To say that his instinct is not absolutely infallible, is only to say that he was a man; but he who follows him most carefully and thinks over the subject of his researches most deeply, will find the feeling of respect for his judgment continually increasing, and will be more unwilling to believe what Niebuhr doubted, or to doubt what he believed.-History of Rome.

2. Reflections on the Sufferings of the Roman Commons after the Retreat of the Gauls.

BUT the prospect at home was not overclouded merely; it was the very deepest darkness of misery. It has been well said that long periods of general suffering make far less impression on our minds, than the short sharp struggle in

« VorigeDoorgaan »