XXX OBITUARY NOTICES OF MEMBERS DECEASED. 



other a great citizen, ever in public and active civic life. Would 

 not an historian of Philadelphia come to the same conclusion and 

 express his conviction that there were here in Philadelphia during 

 the last half century two men both bearing the identical name, 

 Henry Charles Lea? One striving and prominent in the heady fight 

 of politics and reform ; and the other a modest, sequestered scholar, 

 leading a cloistered life of historical research. 



* Far, far indeed behind his worth come all the praises we can 

 now bestow.' 



I cannot analyze his character. His loss to me is too recent 

 and we are all too close to him. My few words cannot but be 

 stammering; if haply they only be coherent. 



Whatever may be the qualities demanded in a scholar, and espe- 

 cially in an liistorian, accuracy in statement stands preeminent. It 

 is the foundation of his work ; on it rests the whole superstructure — 

 a taint of suspicion of a scholar's truth is the fly which ruins the 

 apothecary's ointment. 



In this accuracy, Mr. Lea ranks among the highest. The sources 

 whence he drew his statements cannot be impugned. They are the 

 very words of the speakers, the very acts of the governments, the 

 very decrees of the church. And of them he urges upon the reader 

 no interpretation drawn from imagination, or tinged by prejudice. 

 He gives the documents themselves, from which the interpretation 

 to be drawn is the bare, unqualified meaning of the very words 

 themselves. 



And herein he reveals to us the lofty attribute of pure intelli- 

 gence ; pure intelligence is absolutely cold and impartial. This im- 

 personality elevates his writings to the ruthless dignity of a scroll 

 of fate. Here are your facts. Lament, deplore, extenuate as you 

 will, but deny you cannot. 



Obedient to this high attitude, an historian need not point the 

 moral. Whoso cannot of himself find the moral, for him will Clio 

 for ever inscribe her scrolls in vain. We need no elimination of the 

 personal question when we read Lea's general conclusions drawn 

 from a survey of the whole field; and, in less prejudiced and less 

 impartial hands, we all know how vulnerable such general surveys 

 are apt to be. 



