PREFACE

ΤΟ

THE TENTH VOLUME.

THE time spent upon reviewing old work in the preparation of this edition has, I trust, not been wholly lost. Especially in the early volumes something has been done to assimilate new information to the old, and to correct or tone down crude reflections. Imperfect as every attempt of this kind must be, from the impossibility of absolutely recasting the original work, what I have to offer is, perhaps, not quite so imperfect as it was, though I have become aware of a certain want of artistic proportion in the book as a whole, and can perceive. that some incidents have been treated of at greater length than they deserve.

Something too has been gained by the opportunity afforded me for reconsidering the whole ground on which I have taken my stand. It is impossible to publish ten volumes of history without being led to face the question whether the knowledge acquired by the historian has any practical bearing on the problems of existing society-whether, in short, if, as has been said, history is the politics of the past, the historian is likely to be able to give better advice than other people on the politics of the present.

It does not indeed follow that if the reply to this question were in the negative, the labour of the historian would be wholly thrown away. All intellectual conception of nature is a

good in itself, as enlarging and fortifying the mind, which is thereby rendered more capable of dealing with problems of life and conduct, though there may be no evident connection between them and the subject of study. Still, it must be acknowledged that there would be cause for disappointment if it could be shown that the study of the social and political life of men of a past age had no bearing whatever on the social and political life of the present.

At first sight indeed it might seem as if this were the case. Certainly the politics of the seventeenth century, when studied for the mere sake of understanding them, assume a very different appearance from that which they had in the eyes of men who, like Macaulay and Forster, regarded them through the medium of their own political struggles. Eliot and Strafford were neither Whigs nor Tories, Liberals nor Conservatives. As Professor Seeley was, I believe, the first to teach directly, though the lesson is indirectly involved in every line written by Ranke, the father of modern historical research, the way in which Macaulay and Forster regarded the development of the past that is to say, the constant avowed or unavowed comparison of it with the present-is altogether destructive of real historical knowledge. Yet those who take the truer view, and seek to trace the growth of political principles, may perhaps find themselves cut off from the present, and may regret that they are launched on questions so unfamiliar to themselves and their contemporaries. Hence may easily arise a dissatisfaction with the study of distant epochs, and a resolution to attend mainly to the most recent periods—to neglect, that is to say, the scientific study of history as a whole, through over-eagerness to make a practical application of its teaching.

Great, however, as the temptation may be, it would be most. unwise to yield to it. It would be invidious to "sk whether the counsel given by historians to statesmen has always been

peculiarly wise, or their predictions peculiarly felicitous. It is enough to say that their mode of approaching facts is different from that of a statesman, and that they will always therefore be at a disadvantage in meddling with current politics. The statesman uses his imagination to predict the result of changes to be produced in the actually existing state of society, either by the natural forces which govern it, or by his own action. The historian uses his imagination in tracing out the causes which produced that existing state of society. As is always the case, habit gives to the intelligence of the two classes of men a peculiar ply which renders each comparatively inefficient for the purposes of the other. Where they meet is in the effort to reach a full comprehension of existing facts. So far as the understanding of existing facts is increased by a knowledge. of the causes of their existence, or so far as the misunderstanding of them is diminished by clearing away false analogies supposed to be found in the past, the historian can be directly serviceable to the statesman. He cannot expect to do more. 'Nur ein Theil der Kunst kann gelehrt werden, der Künstler braucht sie ganz.' The more of a student he is—and no one can be a historian without being a very devoted student-the more he is removed from that intimate contact with men of all classes and of all modes of thought, from which the statesman derives by far the greater part of that knowledge of mankind. which enables him to give useful play to his imaginative power for their benefit.

If, however, the direct service to be rendered by the historian to the statesman is but slight, it is, I believe, impossible to over-estimate the indirect assistance which he can offer. If the aims and objects of men at different periods are different, the laws inherent in human society are the same. In the nineteenth, as well as in the seventeenth century, existing evils are slowly felt, and still more slowly remedied. In the nineteenth

as well as in the seventeenth century, efforts to discover the true remedy end for a long time in failure, or at least in very partial success, till at last the true remedy appears almost by accident and takes root, because it alone will give relief.

He, therefore, who studies the society of the past will be of the greater service to the society of the present in proportion as he leaves it out of account. If the exceptional statesman can get on without much help from the historian, the historian can contribute much to the arousing of a statesmanlike temper in the happily increasing mass of educated persons without whose support the statesman is powerless. He can teach them to regard society as ever evolving new wants and new diseases, and therefore requiring new remedies. He can teach them that true tolerance of mistakes and follies which is perfectly consistent with an ardent love of truth and wisdom. He can teach them to be hopeful of the future, because the evil of the present evolves a demand for a remedy which sooner or later is discovered by the intelligence of mankind, though it may sometimes happen that the whole existing organisation of society is overthrown in the process. He can teach them also not to be too sanguine of the future, because each remedy brings with it fresh evils which have in their turn to be faced. These, it may be said, are old and commonplace lessons. enough. It may be So, but the world has not yet become so wise as to be able to dispense with them.

A further question may arise as to the mode in which this teaching shall be conveyed. Shall a writer lay down the results at which he has arrived and sketch out the laws which he conceives to have governed the course of society; or shall he, without forgetting these, make himself familiar, and strive to make his readers familiar, with the men and women in whose lives these laws are to be discerned? Either course is profitable, but it is the latter that I have chosen. As there is a