Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 31.djvu/184

 sonally and had heartily endeavoured to support (Kingsley, i. 222, 369–70, 444–5). It is in some ways his most characteristic book, and the descriptions of Devonshire scenery, his hearty sympathy with the Elizabethan heroes, and the unflagging spirit of the story, make the reader indifferent to its obviously one-sided view of history.

While staying at Bideford Kingsley displayed one of his many gifts by getting up and teaching a drawing class for young men. In the course of 1855 he again settled at Eversley, spending the winter at a house on Farley Hill, for the benefit of his wife's health. Besides frequent lectures, sermons, and articles, he was now writing ‘Two Years Ago,’ which appeared in 1857. Kingsley had been deeply interested in the Crimean war. Some thousands of copies of a tract by him called ‘Brave Words to Brave Soldiers,’ had been distributed to the army. He always had keen military tastes; he studied military history with especial interest; many of the officers from Sandhurst and Aldershot became his warm friends; and he delighted in lecturing, preaching, or blessing new colours for the regiments in camp. Such tastes help to explain the view expressed in ‘Two Years Ago,’ which was then less startling than may now seem possible, that the war was to exercise the great regenerating influence. The novel is much weaker than its predecessors, and shows clearly that if his desire for social reform was not lessened, he had no longer so strong a sense that the times were out of joint. His health and prospects had improved, a result which he naturally attributed to a general improvement of the world.

The Crimean pamphlet had been published anonymously, on account of the prejudices against him in the religious world. The prejudices rapidly diminished from this time. In 1859 he became one of the queen's chaplains in ordinary. He was presented to the queen and to the prince consort, for whom he entertained a specially warm admiration. He still felt the strain of overwork, having no curate, and shrank from London bustle, confining himself chiefly to Eversley. In May 1860 he was appointed to the professorship of modern history at Cambridge, vacant by the death in the previous autumn of Sir James Stephen. He took a house at Cambridge, but after three years found that the expense of a double establishment was beyond his means, and from 1863 resided at Eversley, only going to Cambridge twice a year to deliver his lectures. During the first period his duties at Eversley were undertaken by the Rev. Septimus Hansard. The salary of the professorship was 371l., and the preparation of lectures interfered with other literary work. During the residence of the Prince of Wales at Cambridge a special class under Kingsley was formed for his benefit, and the prince won the affectionate regard of his teacher. The prince recommended him for an honorary degree at Oxford on the commemoration of 1863, but the threatened opposition of the high church party under Pusey induced Kingsley to retire, with the advice of his friends. Kingsley's tenure of the professorship can hardly be described as successful. The difficulties were great. The attempt to restore the professorial system had at that time only succeeded in filling the class-rooms with candidates for the ordinary degree. History formed no part of the course of serious students, and the lectures were in the main merely ornamental. Kingsley's geniality, however, won many friends both among the authorities and the undergraduates. Some young men expressed sincere gratitude for the intellectual and moral impulse which they received from him. Professor Max Müller says (Kingsley, ii. 266) ‘history was but his text,’ and his lectures gave the thoughts of ‘a poet and a moralist, a politician and a theologian, and, above all, a friend and counsellor of young men.’ They roused interest, but they did not lead to a serious study of history or an elevation of the position held by the study at the university. Kingsley's versatile mind, distracted by a great variety of interests, had caught brilliant glimpses, but had not been practised in systematic study. His lectures, when published, were severely criticised by writers of authority as savouring more of the historical novelist than of the trained inquirer. He was sensible of this weakness, and towards the end of his tenure of office became anxious to resign. His inability to reside prevented him from keeping up the intimacies with young men which, at the beginning of his course, he had rightly regarded as of great value.

In the beginning of 1864 Kingsley had an unfortunate controversy with John Henry Newman [q. v.] He had asserted in a review of Mr. Froude's ‘History’ in ‘Macmillan's Magazine’ for January 1864 that ‘Truth, for its own sake, had never been a virtue with the Roman catholic clergy,’ and attributed this opinion to Newman in particular. Upon Newman's protest, a correspondence followed, which was published by Newman (dated 31 Jan. 1864), with a brief, but cutting, comment. Kingsley replied in a pamphlet called ‘What, then, does Dr. Newman mean?’ which produced Newman's famous ‘Apologia.’ Kingsley was clearly