BOOKS.
MR. KINGLAKE AND HIS CRITICS.*
EVERY one will recollect that memorable engagement when Robinson Crusoe's ship was beset by savages in the China Sea, and the breathless interest with which he read on to discover the result of the discharge of their spears and arrows. It was not, of course, possible that they should destroy a vessel so superior to theirs in size and force, but they might, nevertheless, succeed in doing her some serious mischief; and this, indeed, they did, for though the framework of Crusoe's vessel remained undamaged, Friday, the life and soul of the whole story, was killed. The time then came for Orusoe to reply with grape and canister to the broadside of "these wretches," and a good deal of execution he did. To drop metaphor, we think this controversy is pretty much in the same position. The critics, in truth, laid themselves absurdly open to reply. If they had confined themselves to strictures on Mr. Kinglake's tone and temper, to denying the justice of his inferences and the impartiality of his nar- rative, they would have been on ground on which they were, at least, on an equality with their antagonist. But the Press had for a long time been very unfavourable to Mr. Kinglake as a politician, and to refuse a challenge is not in his nature, in which, if we may judge by his writings, courage borders on pugnacity, and magnanimity is apt to degenerate into scorn. The Times had not spared him, and he did not spare the Times. When he drew that cruelly outspoken picture of "the Company," and "the shrewd, idle clergyman," who prompted its managers, he must have known what it would draw down on him. There was also, in more than a The IncasiOn of the Crimea. By A. W. Kinglike. Fourth edition. London: W. Blackwood and Sons. one passage, a certain air of being above caring about the opinion of periodical writers—just as now he seldom names the review or paper he replies to, but speaks of " one of the coin- mentatorts," or "a respectable publication," or "a writer in a newspaper." Of course, in these days, this sort of thing is as near as possible to high treason, and if Mr. Kiuglake had set himself to make his critics lose their temper, he could not nave done better. Mere criticism proper would not slake their thirst for vengeance, and they accordingly determined to prove hint a blunderer in facts. Now, there is always a strong probability that a man who has given some years to writing a history, will know more about the facts than people who have only given some weeks to pickiug boles in his book ; and if they had reflected for a moment they would have seen that it was very dangerous to accuse of error a man who had Lord Raglan's unpublished papers in his keeping, simply because there was no published authority for his statements. How- ever, they did it, they did their worst, and they have laid them- selves open to a triumphant reply. Their failure has been as com- plete as was the failure of Croker's attack upon Macaulay. They have established some dozen not very important misstatements in matters of fact, and also that it is very wonderful that in two large volumes there are no more. But it must not be imagined that by thus replying to those who impugn his accuracy Mr. Kinglake, as, indeed, he himself points out, has disposed of the general controversy which his book has engendered. That will be a very much harder task, and, moreover, one with respect to which his success is, perhaps, more than doubtful.
Six cases in which proper names have been misspelt, four mistakes on unimportant collateral points, are the result of the unassisted energy of the press ; in two more misspellings, and two more unimportant errors in fact, public criticism was fore- stalled by " private communication." As to most of the other controversies of which we have heard so much—as to the exact point of time at which war commenced between Turkey and Russia, and between Russia and the allies—as to whether Lord Palmerston did or did not resign in December, 1853,— as to whether the French misplaced the buoy in Old Fort Bay,—as to whether the 7th Fusiliers ever "turned round and moved back" on the day of the Alma,—as to whether it was Sir George Brown who led the Grenadier Guards into the Redoubt, and the like, the notes which Mr. King- lake has appended to this edition completely vindicate his accu- racy. As to the operations of the Rifles, he admits himself to have been in error ; but then lie has the pleasure of pointing out that his error is the result of following the report of Sir George Brown.
But while we freely admit Mr. Kinglalce's triumph as to matters of fact, is he always quite fair in his mode of arguing? The great impugner of the accuracy of his narrative of the battle of the Alma was the Quarterly Review; but he is not at all satisfied to fight with "Reviewers," so he proceeds to identify the Quarterly with poor Sir George, and fires all his artillery into that unhappy General of Division. This is done in this way : —Sir George has, it seems, circulated a MS. containing an ac- count of what he imagines he saw and did at the battle. The Quarterly Review makes a mistake, which Sir George also made in his report to Lord Raglan, and it shows so very minute an acquaintance with his views, that a "writer could hardly have learnt so much unless he derived his knowledge with more or less directness from Sir George himself." Now, we cannot see that this is fair reasoning. 'Would a writer who was criti- cizing Lord Stratford be justified in treating Mr. Kinglake's account of the Ambassador's feelings towards the Czar as sub- stantially written by Lord Stratford himself, because it is so very minute, and Lord Stratford has never contradicted it? When Mr. Kinglake points out that at least the Quarterly Reviewer must have had Sir George's MS. in his hands, he is probably enough in the right, but a man is not responsible for everything which may be said by a writer to whom he has furnished mate- rials, nor bound to correct him if he misuses them. By this sort of reasoning it would not be hard to show that Mr. Kinglake may properly be treated as if he were responsible for the pamphlet of the "Old Reviewer." But even if it is fair to look loftily over the Quarterly and "refute" Sir George Brown, what is the use of it? If the errors of the Review are exposed, why seek to make it a personal contest? is it not enough to be engaged in a sort of duel with the Emperor of the French and all "the brethren of the Elysee? " In truth this is more than courage, it is pug- nacity.
Let us take, again, the dispute with Captain Mends. He was
not a formidable opponent. The mere fact that he knew nothing about the buoy by no means proved that it was not misplaced; and it was not difficult, for one who had Lord Raglan's letter in his hands, to compel him to confess that "it seems there was
a buoy.' But the real question remains, did or did not Mr. Kinglake insinuate that the French officer who laid the buoy down was influenced by evil motives ? Whether the mis- placement was an act "resulting from sheer mistake on the part of our allies, or front their over-greediness for space, or from a scheme more profoundly designed, it plainly went straight towards the end desired by those French officers who had been labouring to bring the enterprise to a stop." That is the original passage, and we must say that we cannot doubt what it means. It is carefully pointed out to us that the French wished to stop the enterprise, and that the misplacement tended to stop it ; the inference is inevitable that it was done with that intentiou. It is true that Mr. Kinglake suggests two other explanations, of which one does not imply any evil motive ; but even taking the passage as it stands, every one can see pretty well which explanation is suggested as the real one,—taking the passage in connection with the spirit of the rest of the narrative towards the French there cannot he a doubt about it. And the best proof of it is that neither Captain Mends nor any one else has ever doubted it, except, and the exception is an odd one, Mr. Kinglake himself. "So far," says he in the advertisement to this edition, "so far from undertaking to assert that the dis- placement was wilful," my book "goes out of its way to suggest" that it may have happened from sheer mistake. This is a strange idea of what amounts to going out of one's way ; but it is quite true that be did not assert that the motive of the French officer was evil, for he could not, as he very well knew, prove that ; but he did insinuate it.
This is not the only instance in which Mr. Kinglake really seems not altogether to apprehend the force of his own words. In a short addition to his note on the question whether there was or was not a fight on the Telegraph Hill, he says, "I did not affect to conceal the leaning of my own opinion ; but still I avoided the language of actual assertion, and was content to speak in terms which were fitted—not so much to demand assent, but rather—to provoke inquiry." Now, if we turn to the test—of which "not a word" has been altered—we find it to be as follows :—" It is certain that there was much of the appearance of a real fight at the Telegraph . . . . on the other hand . . . . unless all the Russian narrators . . . . have united to join in an unaccountable perversion of the truth, it must now be held certain that the Zouaves, no less than their . . . comrades of the line, were precluded by sheer want of opponents from the means of engaging in that dreadful scene of hand-to-hand fighting" which has a place in French annals. Now, this really is very curious, and the explanation of it, which seems to us the true one, is that Mr. Kinglake's partialities are of that passionate kind of which a man is often really unconscious, and that he-imagines that if a thing is not asserted in the absolutely unqualified words in which it would be stated in a legal document be cannot be held to have asserted it at all. But mankind in general will never be induced to construe a historical narrative in this lawyer-like fashion. A narrator is not a clergyman defending himself from a charge of heresy before the Dean of Arches. People will—in spite of his protests—hold him to have said what he has plainly, however unconsciously, implied ; and, indeed, if this is not per- missible, it would be necessary to reconsider the praise which has been lavished on Mr. Kinglake's style. What we have all been admiring as literary skill would, in fact, be merely clumsy writing. We hope Mr. Kinglake will forgive us for saying that, in spite of his disclaimer, we must abide by the feelings of admi- ration which we expressed when his book was first noticed in these columns.
Again, Mr. Kinglake admits that he was wrong in saying that St. Arnaud quitted the army a second time in 1830. How does he correct it? By saying, in a note, that it is not meant that his name was removed from the "Army List," but that he ceased to be an officer serving with troops. However, he adds, as when St. Arnaud returned to active service, he was removed from &French regiment to the Foreign Legion, there was a descent, "so abrupt and decisive, as to warrant me in speaking of it as a fresh career." Now, is this fair ? Let us suppose an officer in the Guards were to obtain permission to study at the Staff College, and when the time came for returning to his military duties, he were to exchange into a line regiment under orders for India. Would it be fair to say of that officer, "The clouds passed over him. A second time he entered the military profession, in an active way, as an officer serving with troops?" And when it is objected that these expressions imply that there was something discreditable in the matter, is it just to say, "Well, probably there was, for to pass from the Guards to the line is a descent ?" Of course, to be employed at a "Gymnase Militaire" is not like studying at the Staff College- s proof of merit; but it is not a bit more an abandenment of active service, and if it does not imply merit, it at least implies interest. Now, we are no friends of St. Arnaud. There can be no doubt that when he left the army the first time he was in debt, for he says as much in his letters ; and it is not at all improbable that he was also embarrassed when he exchanged into the Foreign Legion. But if that is what Mr. Kinglake means, why doe; he not say so, instead of using vague language which implies more than it says ? Primti facie St. Arnaud's conduct is sufficiently accounted for by a desire to see active service. He was ambi- tious, and eight years in Algeria made him a brigadier. Eight' years with his regiment in France would probably have left him at most a captain. We cannot help thinking that there is some- thing a little petty in this grudging correction.
We have dwelt at some length on Mr. Kinglake's mole of con- ducting the controversy, because it seems important not to forget what is the real question at issue. It is not that Mr. Kinglake himself forgets it. He expressly points out that he is not reply- ing at present to hostile criticism, but simply establishing the truth of his statements on matters of fact. "He has no present intention" of joining in "the general controversy," but " when he gives his long withheld preface he will say why he resolved to tell aloud the transactions which brought on the war." Similarly he means to show that he is right about the fighting at the Tele- graph, "by and bye, though not at this moment, nor in this appendix." But it is clear, therefore, that the real question at issue remains to be argued. Mr. Kinglake has triumphantly established his accuracy, but we have yet to hear what he can reply to those who impugn his impartiality. He has won his Ligny, but he may, nevertheless, fail at Waterloo. Public opinion at present probably regards his book much as it regards Lord Macaulay's history. It thinks it not merely a splendid literary performance, but exceptionally accurate in mere facts. But it also thinks that Frenchmen fare in the one work pretty much as Tories fare in the other. Even Mr. Kinglake's defender, the writer in the North British Review, seems on this point to plead guilty :— " Like Hume's leaning to prerogative, or Gibbon's scepticism, or Lord Macaulay's detestation of the Stuarts and fondness for William, the anti-Napoleonic tendency has diverted and troubled the current ; but in neither case could we get rid of the disturbing element without drying or damming up the spring. We must take men of genius as we find them content to be on our guard against their prejudices, and fix on them the full responsibility of their aberrations."
We think this puts the matter perfectly justly, but it is cer- tainly the province of criticism to point out the prejudice to the public, and we must not shut our eyes to what the critics have really effected because they have overshot their mark, imagined that prejudice is always inaccurate, and by ill-judged attacks as to matters of fact drawn down on themselves a not unmerited chastisement. It is easy to answer antagonists on the points on which they are wrong.
So long as the controversy continues, we think Mr. Kinglake cannot be blamed for keeping his text unaltered, although it does wear rather the appearance of obstinacy. He has a right "to keep a check upon those who might like to say that he had materially altered the book ;" and for the purposes of the con- troversy it is really convenient, as readers know how the passage originally stood, without baying the trouble of referring to the first edition. But it sadly disfigures the text. For instance, at p. 320 of Vol. IL, a paragraph begins, "And by this time he had not only driven," there being no proper name to which "he" can refer ; while in a note we are told that " he" means "the 2nd Battalion of the Rifle Brigade." In the very neat line, a note tells us to strike out "even," and insert no less than four lines of text in its _place. We cannot help saying that we admire the literary skill displayed in the work so much that we shall be glad when the notes have done their work, and the author is willing to restore to his narrative its beautiful clearness and continuity.
Previous page
