rk naturally, instinctively; he tells the story as
he received it by word of mouth, briefly--laying stress only on the
things that cut into the imagination of an eye-witness, and remain in
the memory of those to whom they were related. He troubles us with no
moral reflections, but goes on quietly to the next chapter of
incidents. The modern historian has composed his picture from details
collected by study of documents; he puts in adjectives as a painter
lays on colour; yet the effect, the impression, is of the same
quality: it is artistic.

Now the principal English historians of the modern school, who revived
what one may call the dramatic presentation of history, I take to be
Macaulay, Froude, and Carlyle. They all worked upon genuine material,
upon authentic records of the period which they were writing about.
Lord Acton mentions that Froude spoke of having consulted 100,000
papers in manuscript, at home and abroad, for one of his histories.
Macaulay was industrious and indefatigable. Yet Ranke, the great
German historian, said of Macaulay that he could hardly be called a
historian at all, judged by the strict tests of German criticism. And
Freeman, the English historian, brought violent charges against Froude
of deliberately twisting his facts and misquoting his authorities;
though I believe that Freeman's bitter jealousies led him into grave
exaggerations. Then take Carlyle. His Cromwell is a fine portrait by
an eminent literary artist. But is it a genuine delineation of the man
himself, of his motives, of the working of his mind in speech and
action? Later investigation, minute scrutiny of old and new material,
suggest doubts, different interpretations of conduct and character.
Take, again, his description of the battle of Dunbar, Cromwell's great
victory. Carlyle explains to us the nature of the ground, the
movements of the troops, the tactics, the points of attack, with
admirable force and clearness--it is a marvellous specimen of literary
execution. Yet recent and very careful examination of the locality,
and a comparison of the evidence of eye-witnesses, have proved beyond
doubt that Carlyle had not studied the ground, had made some important
errors. He was, in fact, giving a dramatic representation of the
battle, which, if it had come down to us from some mediaeval annalist,
would have been universally accepted as genuine. In short, these three
artists have all suffered damage under scientific treatment.