generally incorrect; and, in his dramatic renderings, he has made an erroneous distribution of his characters. His villain was frequently the best man in the crowd. Some of these mal-assignments he has rectified by recasting his play and recasting his plates, but a myriad of them are still uncorrected; and, although they have often been publicly exposed, they have been reproduced in his revised "Centennial edition." General Greene there still appears as an incompetent, 'under the frown of his commander-in-chief;" General Schuyler as a semi-poltroon, "under the suspicion of cowardice;" General Sullivan as a half traitor, "a pensioner of France;" Cotton Mather as the contriver of Salem Witchcraft; and General Arnold as not present on the battlefield of Saratoga, September 19, 1777. If these had been simple errors of statement they might be corrected; but they have gone into the drama, the characters have been cast, and the plot arranged on erroneous hypotheses. To correct the mistake in one act would only make it more conspicuous in other acts. The only remedy that can be applied and maintain historic verity, is—to shelve the play.
We must not be understood as speaking with disrespect of what is truly, and in the best sense, "the philosophy of history;" for there is such a philosophy, and it is a higher and more profound treatment than simply a plain narrative of events. The writers are few who are competent to deal with this philosophy, and it is not a profitable study for readers until they are familiar with the historical facts on which it is based. It is not itself history, but is an embodiment of the characters, lessons and principles drawn from the study of history. It is a style of historical composition, therefore, which is out of place in a "History of the United States" for the people.
In the re-publication of Mr. Hildreth's meritorious work, the plates should have passed under an editorial revision such as the author would have given them if he had been living. In a chapter on Western history we detect on a single page (vol. 3, p. 527) two lapses which an intelligent editor would certainly have corrected. Mr. Carrington, of Virginia, and not Mr. Dane, of Massachusetts, was the chairman of the committee which reported the "Ordinance of 1787" for the Government of the Northwestern Territory. The draft of the Ordinance reported July 11th did not "embrace, like its predecessor, the provisions of Jefferson's accepted report," but was an entirely new draft wholly unlike its predecessors. It was still more inexcusable in the publishers to allow the plates to go to press with so many battered letters in the text, and broken figures in the marginal dates and folios.
The standard general history of the United States, that will endure like Hume and Gibbon, has not yet been written. Thirty years ago such a history would have been impossible, for its materials were not then accessible. Since that time there has been an extraordinary interest developed for historical investigations, and with it a purer taste and more critical methods. State, county and other local historical societies have been established in all parts of the country, and thousands of zealous workers have collected materials and written out their investigations. He will be the writer of the standard history of the United States who will make the best use of what has been done within the past thirty years by the best writers on special subjects pertaining to our national history. W. F. Poole.
Religion in England.[1]
The distance between the early Druids of Britain and the pulpits of the modern Stanleys and Spurgeons and Martineaus of England is very great; but Brooke Herford, in his volume just published, leads the student along rapidly and cheerfully over the nineteen hundred years. The full and all-reaching history of such a nation as England is too large to be read or at all grasped when taken in all its immensity. The best success is found by the reader who attacks the army of facts in detail. Having read this story of religion, we feel that we know something of one form of that life which has made those islands so remarkable for nearly twenty centuries. The author has helped us attack England in detail.
Brooke Herford is certainly strong as a historian. His style is animated, his judgment as to the valuable and the interesting is excellent, and his freedom from prejudice is almost remarkable. Beyond most religious writers, he can see things as they come to pass; and the reader will be as certain to be told the
- ↑ The Story of Religion in England. By Brooke Herford. Chicago: Jansen, McClurg & Co.
