Page:American Historical Review vol. 6.djvu/573

 I Morley : Oliver Croiincrl/ 563 portant problems which constantly pressed upon him for solution. In just so far, therefore, his conclusions will rest upon insecure foundations. Mr. Morley's variations from the conclusions of Mr. Gardiner and Mr. Firth are numerous and are in general in the way of disparagement of Cromwell's motives. In the case of the Self-Denying Ordinance, both Mr. Gardiner and Mr. Firth look upon Cromwell's actions as straight- forward and sincere, while to Mr. Morley they appear "oblique." Mr. Morley is also not entirely convinced of Cromwell's complete ignorance of the proposed disbanding of Barebone's Parliament. Since Mr. Mor- ley's conclusions have the disadvantage of resting upon more or less in- complete information, he will not take it ill if they are forced to run the gauntlet of a somewhat severer scrutiny than would otherwise be the case. In general, it may be said that those who know Cromwell best have the most favorable opinion of both his sincerity and his intentions. Mr. Morley has the true historian's gift of sympathy. Not only Cromwell but the minor characters are real and move in the real world of the seventeenth century. It is seldom indeed that an incident is taken out of its historical setting and judged by modern standards. One case may be mentioned where something very like this took place, where the full weight of Cromwell's mistaken Irish policy is thrown upon his own shoulders, whereas Mr. Morley himself knows well that Cromwell was in this as in so many of his mistakes a typical Englishman of his time. But in general it may be said that Mr. Morley has satisfactorily solved the difficult task of giving to his figure a historical background. Mr. Morley's historical method differs in two particulars from that of the more severe school of modern historians. He looks at history from a strongly moral point of view. He still believes that it is the province of the historian not merely to explain but to administer praise and blame. Some of the most interesting passages in the book are in answer to Car- lyle, who also praised and blamed, but erratically. The historian of the present day is inclined to look askance at such judgments, because of the danger one runs of trying former ages by the standards of our own. He is not so much concerned to pass judgment on the righteousness of an historical action, as he is anxious correctly to understand it. If he can explain just what happened, why it happened, and what consequences followed, he is satisfied. In the case of Mr. Morley, furthermore, the interests of the statesman sometimes control the interests of the historian, and even color his views. Current (juestions of English politics, the Irish question, imperialism, appear furtively in his pages, and few of his readers will wish them gone. They offer a departure, however, from the severer historical method of exposition, since they are usually not history but politics. This is intended, however, merely as a distinction, not as a criticism. Mr. Morley must be pleased with the way in which the publishers have done their part. It is a book of rare beauty, filled with some sixty well-executed portraits. The general literary public, for whom the work is primarily intended, will be delighted by the breadth of view, the im-