rks of
having been taken from life; with descriptions of castles and towers,
minsters and abbeys, and of the scenes that have made them memorable;
with comparisons of one ruler with another, always sane and just; and
with graphic pictures of coronations, of battles, sieges, burnings,
and all the havoc and pomp of war.

The essays and studies in politics show Mr. Freeman in a yet more
interesting light; many are elaborate reviews of historical works, and
therefore cover a wide range of topics, both ancient and of the
present time. Now his subject is Mr. Bryce's 'Holy Roman Empire'; now
the Flavian Caesars; now Mr. Gladstone's 'Homer and the Homeric Age';
now Kirk's 'Charles the Bold'; now presidential government; now
Athenian democracy; now the Byzantine Empire; now the Eastern Church;
now the growth of commonwealths; now the geographical aspects of the
Eastern Question.

By so wide a range of topics, an opportunity is afforded for a variety
of remarks, analogies, judgments of men and times, far greater than
the histories could give. In the main, these judgments may be
accepted; but so thoroughly was Freeman a historian of the past, that
some of his estimates of contemporary men and things were singularly
erroneous. While our Civil War was still raging he began a 'History of
Federal Government,' which was to extend from the Achaean League "to
the disruption of the United States." A prudent historian would not
have taken up the role of prophet. He would have waited for the end of
the struggle. But absolute self-confidence in his own good judgment
was one of Freeman's most conspicuous traits. His estimate of Lincoln
is another instance of inability to understand the times in which he
lived. In the 'Essay on Presidential Government,' published in the
National Review in 1864 and republished in the first series of
'Historical Essays' in 1871, the greatest President and the grandest
public character the United States has yet produced is declared
inferior to each and all the Presidents from Washington to John Quincy
Adams. A comparison of Lincoln with Monroe or Madison or Jefferson by
Freeman would have been entertaining.

Two views of history as set forth in the essays are especially
deserving of notice. He is never weary of insisting on the unity and
the continuity of history in general and that of England in
particular, and he attaches unreasonable importance to the influence
of the Teutonic element in English history. T