CHAPTER XI

THE ENGLISH HISTORICAL REVIEW'

EARLY in 1885 Creighton was invited to dine at Dr. James Bryce's house to discuss the possibility of starting an English Historical Review. Lord Acton, Dean Church, Dr. A. W. Ward, and Mr. York Powell were also present. This project had been debated for nearly twenty years. J. R. Green had agitated for it with Bryce and Freeman in 1867. Macmillan had been consulted as publisher, and Stubbs had been thought of as editor. Later on, it was suggested that Green himself should be editor, but difficulties always arose, and the Review was not started. Now Creighton was surprised to find a general wish expressed that, could such a Review be started, he should be editor. This was sure to entail much difficult and anxious work, but he felt that the Review would advance the study of history at home, and promote intercourse between English, American, and foreign students, and that if he was considered the right man to start it by those whose judgment he could trust, he must do his best. Messrs. Longman were suggested as publishers, and Creighton at once communicated with them on the subject.

To Mr. York Powell

May 11, 1885. 'His [Mr. C. J. Longman's] answer is better than I expected. It is very much better that he should undertake it. If he cannot float it, no one can. I will edit for nothing, to start the concern, for a year. . . . Of course we might get articles gratis at first, but no one should be asked to write without some remuneration being offered.'

...

Mr. R. L. Poole accepted the post of sub-editor, and the first necessary business of drawing up a prospectus and getting a representative list of supporters was rapidly proceeded with.

To R. L. Poole

'June 12, 1885.

I have just this morning got Longman's authorisation to say that the Review will be published by him. . . . I think that now we had better get on as fast as possible.'

'June 20.

'Send out prospectus and ask for help widely. . . . Let us now go on fast, as fast as possible. . . . Please keep a note of all arrangements promised. Records in books are a great saving of time and order.'

To C. J. Longman

'June 20, 1885.

'You will have received the prospectus of the "Historical Review" by this post. . . . I think that if you make known your wish, books will flow in. I only wanted to emphasise the foreign books about which English students need information and which are hard to get. The next thing which we propose to do is to get promises of help from all who are likely to help.'

'August 5, 1885.

'I wished to report progress about the "Historical Review." All that has been done is very favourable to its success. Everybody who has been applied to is ready to help. I can count upon a staff, more or less regular, which includes practically everybody who is worth having. As helpers by their counsel and warm co-operation, I have Dean Church, Bryce, Seeley, Robertson Smith, S. R. Gardiner, R. Garnett, A. W. Ward, Freeman, and Lord Acton. The last especially is most helpful through his learning, which is probably greater than that of any other Englishman now alive. . . . I have been surprised to find how warmly the project is greeted. I think I can promise you that the experiment will be tried under circumstances and conditions as favourable as the present state of historical research in England allows of.'

To Lord Acton

'Cambridge: July 28, 1885.

'My dear Lord Acton,-Your letter was a great relief to me. The assurance of your hearty co-operation gives me hope of the success of the Review which I had not felt before. We must confess that we are not strong in historical method in England. Our work has all the advantages and all the disadvantages of amateur work. Most of the well-known persons have already said all that they have to say. You are one of the very few persons who can add any novelty. You

are the only person who has a knowledge of the general European literature of the subject. The impression left upon my mind by our conference at Bryce's was that you were the only person who had a clear notion of the scope and object of our undertaking and of the difficulties which an editor would have to face. I only warn you that you must not be too kind to me, or you will find me taking an unfair advantage of your kindness and troubling you by requests for advice.

The subjects you propose--the Catholic negotiations before the Civil War, and the Conclave of 1550-are both excellent. I have no fear of the Conclave seeming polemical. Notes and quotations would certainly be necessary for an original article. We need not support everything by a reference after the elaborate German fashion, but quotations are always necessary for anything that is meant for scholars....

'Correspondence in the case of such a review would tend to fall under two heads: (1) queries; (2) corrections of articles or remonstrances from reviewed. I think, as things are at present in England, that queries probably deserve a place or would fulfil a useful purpose. Men might raise a question, or point out a difficulty, or make a suggestion, but this must be on strictly historical subjects, and I should like it to take the form of notes rather than of letters. The second head of remonstrances or controversy I should like to be sparing in admitting. Some points are cleared up by an argument carried on by advocates; but I should use my discretion sparingly in allowing such points: they must be important, and must require special competence. Ordinary remonstrances are better met by a private correspondence carried on through the editor, and he might, if he thought fit, redact a memorandum at the end which he should submit to both parties before publishing. Does that seem to you right?

'The last point that you raise is valuable. A conspectus of similar reviews, with some account of what they have done, would be most useful, but no one could do it except yourself. Would you do it . . . for our first number? Would you add to it your advice about our future? Again I apologise for asking. It would be the best possible introduction that we could have: do not dismiss the suggestion.'

... Your advice is indeed most valuable, and my own deficiencies for the post of editor are many. I have lived long in the country away from books, and only able

to pick up such as I actually needed. I have no thorough knowledge of history as a whole. I have always been busied with many things, and have had no opportunities of becoming a thorough student. I am at present more busy than ever. I only undertook the office of editor because I saw no one obvious who could or would give to it his whole time and attention. My only hope is to overcome some of the initial difficulties, and find as soon as possible some one to relieve me. Your ungrudging help is the greatest possible encouragement. Now I will not thank you any more, but will take your help with a constant gratitude.

'Your proposal of a letter to the editor setting forth briefly what other reviews there are, and what is their public, and what are your hopes about an English Review, seems to me to be an excellent form for an introduction to take. It was quite clear to me that an attempt to issue an editorial programme would be a mistake. We have not sufficient agreement about the method and scope of history. Freeman and Seeley may appear side by side, but I could not draw up a detailed prospectus in which they could both agree. The editor must keep open house, and let in all recognised historical students, and make as much room as possible. But a sketch of possibilities from a well-wisher outside would be acceptable to everyone, and would do much to make the lines clear for the future. Of course we are very insular; that is a fact which strikes me in every English book; a correlation of ourselves with other nations would be of the greatest value, and you would do it lightly and with brevity, which would mean much to those who chose to understand. Therefore I entirely favour your suggestion.

'. . . The student and the general reader are hard to combine. The student wants to know about foreign books, the general reader has no interest in them at all. Moreover, there is the publisher's question. English publishers demand notices of their books, advertisements depend upon that, and we have our publisher to consider. You must pardon me if you think sometimes that trifling English books exclude good German books. An editor must be also a man of business- more is the pity. I am also hampered at first by want of funds. If German publishers will not send their books, I cannot ask a man to get a book and review it for nothing. Publishers do not rise much to a prospectus; they want to see a magazine in the flesh, or in the paper, before they believe in its reality. . . . I agree with you that our motto ought to be, "One man, one book to review" but at first this is difficult from the reasons

I have mentioned. Church is too busy to write. B. F. Dunelm says it is quite impossible, . . . so too Stubbs. I will pester Stubbs some more, for I think he ought to write something, at all events just once. Really busy men dislike putting pen to paper, and if they do so at all would rather write an article than a review. . . . What I feel generally is that the success of the Review at first will depend on its articles. If it succeeds at all, the organisation of the review and notes departments will have to be thoroughly looked to; but I have no hope of getting that done before starting. It will get gradually into shape, because I think that I have fairly good material in many departments. But in most cases there is a preliminary languor to be overcome. Nothing succeeds in England like success; if the Review gets on its feet, the scholars will be glad to write in it. At first we must trust to the energy of a few who are determined. . . . Your ideal list of contributors opens up a splendid prospect. Most of them have in some shape promised. Many addresses are difficult to find. The saddest thing is that almost everybody who undertakes to write to some whom he knows, fails to do so or forgets to forward the answer.

'I am going to venture to write to Döllinger: will you support me? I hear that he is very indignant with John Inglesant's Molinos: perhaps he would like to tell the true story.'

To Mr. R. L. Poole

Worcester: September 1, 1885.

'About the list. One question strikes me, Do we do well to omit Froude? I think not let us be entirely catholic. He need not be asked to contribute at once: he will not wish to do so, but he should be asked to support. We ought not to leave any possibility of a faction against us.'

'September 8, 1885.

'I don't like asking Froude, but I feel that one ought not to let one's personal prejudices1 stand in the way of catholicity. . . . They are indeed misguided who fear lest the Review be too popular. My fear is lest it die of dullness; but oh how the dullards croak with dread lest the atmosphere in which they live should by any chance be rarified. I wish I saw much chance that we would not be portentously dull.

'I think that a good many people at first will not want to be paid. The more I meditate about payment, the less chance

'These 'personal prejudices' were solely on historical grounds. Creighton had never met Froude.

VOL. I.

Ꮓ