316 Tlie Bight Bev. The Lord Bisliop of London [Feb. 5, 



interest lies in the fact that he really existed, and he must above all 

 things be made possible. The reader must not be left bewildered 

 and amazed, asking himself what sort of men lived on the earth in 

 those days, and what were the interests and pursuits of the ordinary 

 man. 



It is obvious, therefore, that all history cannot be made equally 

 picturesque, and that it is useless to attempt to make it so by de- 

 liberate omissions of all that is not picturesque. We must take 

 human affairs as they come. After all, men did not live in the past for 

 our amusement, but for our instruction. There were probably as 

 many dull people in the past as there are in the present, and we 

 may console ourselves with that reflection. I can see no reason why 

 any one should read history except that he wishes to learn how things 

 really went on. I do not know that any method of writing can make 

 them always exciting. I hear people sometimes complain, " The 

 newspapers are very dull to-day." I find they mean that there is 

 no record of a great accident, or a horrible murder, or a political 

 catastrophe. I think, however, they would change their remark and 

 become very serious if, let us suppose, the newspapers chronicled 

 a great railway accident on every day in one week. They would 

 crave for a period of uneventfulness, and think that it was more 

 permanently satisfying. We need a stable basis to rest upon before 

 we can find comfortable i)leasure in contemplating instability. 

 Picturesqueness must have an element of restfulness. It is not 

 to be found in constant excitement, but in clear-cut and attractive 

 presentation of events. 



The possibility of such presentation, strange to say, becomes 

 greater as the events are more remote. This is due to two causes : 

 first, that we have made up our minds more clearly about what is 

 imjjortant in the past ; secondly, because the amount of materials 

 which are available is limited. There is an immense difference 

 between writing history previous to the sixteenth century and 

 writing history after that date, owing to the nature of the material. 

 The change which separates modern from mediaeval times was made 

 by the conscious growth of nations, and the consequent complexity 

 of international relations. The difficulty of dealing with modern 

 history is the imjwssibility of isolating events and their results. 

 This truth is expressed in the amazing development of diplomacy 

 and the vast multiplication of documents, which is to the historical 

 craftsman the dividing line between two periods. The contemporary 

 chronicler, who was previously the chief authority, sinks into the 

 background. The historian has to wander patiently through end- 

 less byways, which lead apparently nowhere. It is comparatively 

 easy to form a clear conception of a man's character when you have 

 only the general outlines of his life and the record of his permanent 

 achievements. It is much more difficult when you can follow his 

 projects from day to day. The great mass of those projects came to 

 nothing. Yet it is true, if we look to private life, that a man's 



