1897.] on the Picturesque in History. 323 



scribed in themselves, apart from the results of their actions. In 

 fact, any estimate of or sympathy with their line of action was entirely 

 secondary to the interest of the men themselves. In this sense they 

 resemble the subjects of Italian or French history. They rose to 

 power by their own capacity, and they used their position consciously 

 lor the furtherance of objects which they deliberately selected for 

 themselves. It is this which gives a picturesque interest to 

 characters in history. We are most easily attracted by a sense of 

 completeness and self-determination. This, indeed, is the artistic 

 quality in character, and alone admits of clear and forcible delineation. 

 Opportunism, however successful, cannot well be depicted clearly ; it 

 must be considered by reference to a number of possibilities, and 

 challenges our judgment at every step. A man who is doing his best 

 under untold difficulties may be heroic, but he rarely enjoys any 

 great moments which set forth his heroism in a striking way. Our 

 judgment may after a long survey recognise his w^orth, but that does 

 not make him picturesque. William the Silent can never fill a large 

 canvas, great as was his contribution to the best interests of the 

 world. 



The picturesqueness, then, of the history of any nation, or period, 

 depends upon the possibility of an individual detaching himself from 

 ordinary life in such a way as to express in himself its unconscious 

 tendencies. The possibility of such individual detachment depends 

 on the ideas on which the ordinary life of the nation is founded. If 

 these ideas are to be represented by a person, they must be compara- 

 tively simple. For this reason great crises in a nation's history are 

 the most picturesque, for they simplify national ideas by forcing one 

 or two great principles into temporary supremacy over all else. Yet 

 even in great crises England has not brought forth clearly repre- 

 sentative characters. Oliver Cromwell, for instance, was the executor, 

 rather than the representative, of the principles of the Great Eebel- 

 lion. They were never definite enough to be summed up by any 

 individual. However highly we may rate Cromwell's capacity, 

 we cannot make him out as eminently picturesque, or place him by 

 the side of Napoleon. 



We may, 1 think, go a step further. The ideas on which national 

 life are founded may be ultimately reduced to the national conception 

 of liberty. Ultimately each man values the society of which he 

 forms part for the opportunities which it affords him of doing or 

 being what he wishes to do or be. 



Now there is a difference, which is not always recognised, in the 

 meaning of liberty to different peoples. It would be a long matter 

 to attempt to explain this difference in detail and account for it. But 

 we may say generally that it depends on the way in which the rights 

 of the individual are regarded in relation to the rights of tlie com- 

 munity. Let me apply this to the instances of picturesqueness which 

 I have taken. In Italy, in the sixteenth century, the communities 

 were so small, and their position was so precarious, that men longed 



