Born, at Windsor, 9 July 1777. At Eton, 1790–94. Contrib. to “Musæ Etonenses,” 1795. Matric. Ch. Ch., Oxford, 20 April 1795; B.A., 1799. F.S.A., 12 March 1801. Student at Inner Temple; called to Bar, 2 July 1802. Commissioner of Records; afterwards Commissioner of Stamps, 1806–26. Married Julia Elton, 1807. Withdrew from legal practice and engaged in historical studies. Vice-Pres. of Soc. of Antiquaries, 1824–59. Royal Medal for historical achievements, 1830. Lived mainly in London. M.A., Oxford, 1832, Hon. D.C.L., 5 July 1848. Founder and Treasurer of Statistical Soc., 1834. Bencher of Inner Temple, 1841. Hon. Prof. of History to Royal Society. Foreign Associate of Institute of France. Hon. LL.D., Harvard Univ., 1848. Died, at Penshurst, Kent, 21 Jan. 1859. Works: “A View of the State of Europe during the Middle Ages,” 1818 (supplementary vol. of “Notes,” 1848); “The Constitutional History of England,” 1827; “The Introduction to the Literature of Europe” (4 vols.), 1837–39; “Letters addressed to Lord Ashley, etc.” [1844]. He edited: A. H. Hallam’s “Remains,” 1834.
Personal
Do you know Hallam? Of course I need not ask you if you have read his “Middle Ages”: it is an admirable work, full of research, and does Hallam honour. I know no one capable of having written it, except him; for, admitting that a writer could be found who could bring to the task his knowledge and talents, it would be difficult to find one who united to these his research, patience, and perspicuity of style. The reflections of Hallam are at once just and profound—his language well chosen and impressive. I remember being struck by a passage, where, touching on the Venetians, he writes, “Too blind to avert danger, too cowardly to withstand it, the most ancient government of Europe made not an instant’s resistance: the peasants of Unterwald died upon their mountains—the nobles of Venice clung only to their lives.” This is the style in which history ought to be written, if it is wished to impress it on the memory.
I had a long visit this morning from Hallam, whom I never saw before, because he was not in London, either in 1819 or 1835, when I was here. It gratified me very much. He is such a man as I should have desired to find him; a little sensitive and nervous, perhaps, but dignified, quiet, and wishing to please…. Mr. Hallam is, I suppose, about sixty years old, gray-headed, hesitates a little in his speech, is lame, and has a shy manner, which makes him blush, frequently, when he expresses as decided an opinion as his temperament constantly leads him to entertain. Except his lameness, he has a fine, dignified person, and talks pleasantly, with that air of kindness which is always so welcome to a stranger.
The historian is a fine-looking, white-haired man of between sixty and seventy. Something in the line of feature reminds one of Cuvier and Goethe, all is so clear and definite. He talks much, but with no pedantry, and enjoys a funny story quite as much as a recondite philological fact. He thinks the English infatuated about German critics, and showing it by their indiscriminate imitation of them, tasteless as he considers them.
The great historian is long past the “middle ages” now. He is paralysed in the right leg, the right arm, and slightly in the tongue. His face is large, regularly handsome, ruddy, fresh, and very good-humoured. He received me with great cordiality, and we had half an hour’s talk. He begged me to leave my address, and I suppose he means to invite me to something or other…. His mind does not seem essentially dimmed, and there is nothing senile in his aspect, crippled as he is. He is a wreck, but he has not sunk his head downwards, as you sometimes see, which is the most melancholy termination to the voyage. His mind seems bright and his spirits seem light.
The reader of his weighty (not heavy) works, impressed with the judicial character of the style both of thought and expression, imagined him a solemn, pale student, and might almost expect to see him in a Judge’s wig; whereas, the stranger would find him the most rapid talker in company, quick in his movements, genial in his feelings, earnest in narrative, rather full of dissent from what everybody said, innocently surprised when he found himself agreeing with anybody, and pretty sure to blurt out something awkward before the day was done—but never giving offence, because his talk was always the fresh growth of the topic, and, it may be added, his manners were those of a thoroughbred gentleman.
In his general manner rather cold and dry, he would occasionally deliver an energetic opinion, pregnant with good sense and refined taste. I used at first to feel some shrinking from his critical faculty, but no one could be more tolerant or encouraging; and if he made objections it was generally without harshness. He was in the full possession of his high faculties when I first had the opportunity of benefiting, in a small degree, by the quiet exhibition of his varied acquirements. The great sorrow of his life had not then chilled his energy. He lived to recover, outwardly, the loss which gave occasion to the noblest elegiac poetry in our language.
I received the most touching letters from Hallam himself, written on the very days of these great losses of his life. His own latter years were clouded by a paralytic seizure, which I mention only from the effect on him, rarely found in such cases, of diffusing a placid gentleness over the sterner qualities of his mind. He still indeed clung to society; but submitted patiently to the altered conditions of his appearance in it. A physician can best estimate the moral rectitude expressed in this gentle acquiescence, supervening on a mind disputative and dogmatical in its natural bent…. It is not generally known that he refused a baronetcy, pressed upon him in the most flattering terms by Sir Robert Peel. He came to consult me on the subject, and, although reluctantly, I acquiesced in the reasons which led him finally to decline it. The statue of Hallam in St. Paul’s strikingly portrays his massive intellectual features, and the general aspect of the man.
Europe During the Middle Ages, 1818–48
An able and interesting performance, connected in a good measure with our earlier history…. His work is a sort of an introduction to the earlier histories of the ensuing countries (France, Portugal, Italy, and Germany), and should be read with promptitude and diligence by every one interested in such studies. The notes are full of erudition.
All the subjects that have been glanced at in these earlier lectures are there (in Hallam’s work on the Middle Ages) thoroughly considered by this author with all the patience of an antiquarian and the spirit and sagacity of a philosopher; the French history; the feudal system; the history of Italy; the history of Spain; the history of Germany; of the Greeks and Saracens; the history of ecclesiastical power; the constitutional history of England; the Anglo-Saxon and the Anglo-Norman; afterwards to the end of the civil wars between the Roses, with a concluding dissertation on the state of society during the Middle Ages. I should have been saved many a moment of fatigue, some almost of despair, if these volumes had appeared before I began my lectures.
The “State of Europe during the Middle Ages” is full of information for all who desire to be informed of the political and social condition of those kingdoms and states which arose out of the ruins and ashes of the empire of Rome. To show order emerging from confusion, the decisions of law taking place of those of passion and violence, and a line of defence raised to protect the weak and the peaceable against the strong and tyrannous, was the task which Hallam assigned to himself; and he has accomplished all he undertook.
Notwithstanding the interesting character of the Aragonese constitution, and the amplitude of materials for its history, the subject has been hitherto neglected, as far as I am aware, by continental writers. Robertson and Hallam, more especially the latter, have given such a view of its prominent features to the English reader, as must, I fear, deprive the sketch which I have attempted, in a great degree, of novelty.
By those students, therefore, who are able to make free use of French and German, Hallam will be not very highly esteemed. Even the best of his chapters, those on “The Constitutional History of England” and “The State of Society in the Middle Ages,” have been superseded by the more successful investigations of Stubbs, Guizot, and others. The literary qualities of the work are not such as to attract the general reader, though the author’s unfailing impartiality cannot but secure the respect of every thoughtful student.
The “History of the Middle Ages” and the “Constitutional History of England” were produced in the early part of his life. The former is perhaps his greatest work, and it is impossible not to admire the large and noble investigation of universal life into which the writer enters, perceiving in every change of living its after development, and tracing from step to step the bursting of successive husks, the opening out of new channels, the gradual rise and growth of the forces with which we are now familiar in their far distant origin, so much unlike, yet so closely connected with the present issues—and at the same time the dyings off, the failures, the unproductive attempts of the past.
Hallam’s works helped materially to lay the foundations of the English historical school, and, in spite of later researches, maintain their position as standard books. The “Middle Ages” was probably the first English history which, without being merely antiquarian, set an example of genuine study from original sources. Hallam’s training as a lawyer was of high value and enabled him, according to competent authorities, to interpret the history of law even better in some cases than later writers of more special knowledge. Without attempting a “philosophy of history,” in the more modern sense, he takes broad and sensible views of facts.
Since then [1848] much has been added to our knowledge, especially as to the organisation of feudal relations, both in town and country, in the history of the English constitution, and the land-system at home and abroad. But no book has filled the whole space occupied by Hallam with his breadth of view and patient comparative method. At present, perhaps, the most valuable portions of his work are the first four chapters on France, Italy, and Spain, and the concluding chapter on the state of society, much of which, it is true, may now be corrected by later research.
Constitutional History of England, 1827
Mr. Hallam is, on the whole, far better qualified than any other writer of our time for the office which he has undertaken. He has great industry and great acuteness. His knowledge is extensive, various and profound. His mind is equally distinguished by the amplitude of his grasp, and by the delicacy of its tact. His speculations have none of the vagueness which is the common fault of political philosophy. On the contrary, they are strikingly practical. They teach us not only the general rule, but the mode of applying it to solve particular cases. In this respect they often remind us of the Discourses of Machiavelli…. His work is eminently judicial. Its whole spirit is that of the bench, not that of the bar. He sums up with a calm, steady, impartiality, turning neither to the right nor to the left, glossing over nothing, exaggerating nothing, while the advocates on both sides are alternately biting their lips to hear their conflicting mis-statements and sophisms exposed. On a general survey we do not scruple to pronounce the Constitutional History to be the most impartial book that we ever read.
The book is the production of a decided partisan; presenting not the history itself, but what is called the philosophy of history, and to be received with the more suspicion, because it deals in deductions and not in details. There are many ways in which history may be rendered insidious; but there is no other way by which an author can, with so much apparent good faith, mislead his readers….
| “Unto thee, | |
| Let thine own times like an old story be,” |
There are objectional passages, and even strange passages, more particularly in the notes, but they are of no consequence in a work of so vast a range, and of so much merit. And Mr. Hallam may have given offence, which could never have been his intention, to some good men, to whom their establishments are naturally so dear; but I see not how this was to be avoided, if he was to render equal justice to all persons and parties, all sects and churches in their turn; and if he was to do his duty, as he has nobly done, to the civil and religious liberties of his country.
Panizzi came in the evening, and there was a great deal of pleasant conversation. He had breakfasted the day before with Macaulay, whose “History” (the two next volumes) will not be ready for another year. Panizzi said Macaulay was very conscientious as to his authorities, and spared no pains to get at the truth, and willingly re-wrote any part of his book when he had any reason to believe that he had been in error as to facts. Of all living English historians, Panizzi considered Hallam to be the most eminent, and that his book on the “Constitutional History of England” was not to be surpassed.
Taught our University students and our educated youth in general the true nature and the priceless worth of the free but orderly institutions, that have grown up in England during long centuries, expanding their popular organization and energy, as the people expanded its capacity to use them, but preserving their primary principles intact, and as abhorrent of anarchy as of despotism. It is not of course meant that the true character of the British Constitution was undiscovered before Hallam’s time; but it was he, more than any other statesman or writer, who by his learning, his sagacity, his perfect fairness, his lucidness in statement, and his force in argument, brought those truths home to his readers’ minds; and made sound constitutional knowledge one of the very groundworks of the education of the English upper and middle classes…. Party spirit made some of the organs of very high-flying Toryism attack these works on their first appearance, but this opposition soon died away, and the highest Conservatives now acknowledge Hallam’s merits as freely as do all loyal Liberals.
The author’s literary style is so faulty that but for his great learning and good sense the work would long since have been condemned to obscurity. Its judicial spirit of fairness to all persons and parties makes it popular with judicious minds, in spite of all its shortcomings.
Introduction to the Literature of Europe, 1837–39
I have read Hallam’s book, which is dry, meagre, and ill written, with a few misplaced patches of laboured rhetoric. So far from understanding any one subject well, he does not seem to understand any one book well. His text is a mere digest of compilations and biographical dictionaries. I believe that he knows a little German, for a governess who lived in his family went afterwards to Lady ————, who told me that Hallam had learnt of her. Probably he spells through a book by the help of a dictionary with about the same success that he translates “das Bücherwesen,” “the being of books.” It must be confessed that charlatanerie is marvellously successful.
The work of Mr. Hallam, now in progress of publication; the first volume of which,—the only one which has yet issued from the press,—gives evidence of the same curious erudition, acuteness, honest impartiality, and energy of diction, which distinguish the other writings of this eminent scholar. But the extent of his work, limited to four volumes, precludes any thing more than a survey of the most prominent features of the vast subject which he has undertaken.
I am glad to find in it more unction than in his former writings—more to please as well as instruct. I am much pleased with his view of Luther, the hardest character, perhaps, to be understood in modern time, not from any inherent difficulty, but from the prejudices and passions awakened by his name.
The subject which he has now treated is one of more general interest than those discussed in his previous publications; and, as the work was known to embody the labors of many years, it was received with curiosity and respect, and is likely to establish for him a wide and enduring reputation…. We close with the expression of gratitude to him for undertaking an important and difficult task, and of respect for the ability, learning, and taste, with which it is executed.
Mr. Hallam, a learned and elegant scholar, has written the history of European literature for three centuries,—a performance of great ambition, inasmuch as a judgment was to be attempted on every book. But his eye does not reach to the ideal standards: the verdicts are all dated from London; all new thought must be cast into the old moulds. The expansive element which creates literature is steadily denied. Plato is resisted, and his school. Hallam is uniformly polite, but with deficient sympathy; writes with resolute generosity, but is unconscious of the deep worth which lies in the mystics, and which often outvalues as a seed of power and a source of revolution all the correct writers and shining reputations of their day. He passes in silence, or dismisses with a kind of contempt, the profounder masters: a lover of ideas is not only uncongenial, but unintelligible. Hallam inspires respect by his knowledge and fidelity, by his manifest love of good books, and he lifts himself to own better than almost any the greatness of Shakspeare, and better than Johnson he appreciates Milton.
It shows the ability and the accomplishments of the authors to better advantage than either of his other productions. Its great qualities have been universally acknowledged. It displays conscientiousness, accuracy, good judgment, and great familiarity with the vast subject of which it treats. It comprehends within its scope the literature of poetry, history, romance, natural science, mathematics, physics, medicine, law and theology; and at all points the author shows himself, not merely a good descriptive writer, but also a fair and competent critic. The style is less faulty than that of Hallam’s earlier works, as it is less involved and more uniform and straightforward.
Often written with great force, suffers from the enormous range. Hardly any man could be competent to judge with equal accuracy of all the intellectual achievements of the period in every department. Weaknesses result which will be detected by specialists; but even in the weaker departments it shows good sound sense, and is invaluable to any student of the literature of the time. Though many historians have been more brilliant, there are few so emphatically deserving of respect. His reading was enormous, but we have no means of judging what special circumstances determined his particular lines of inquiry.
A sober, sensible, learned work, but not effervescent. It is falling into disrepute, and if you ask why, you will probably be told by some young exquisite, who has never read it, that its author must have been a blockhead because he did not sufficiently admire Shakespeare’s sonnets, and calls them remarkable productions, and goes so far as to wish Shakespeare had never written them. To display temper on such a subject is ridiculous. Replace Hallam, if you can, by a writer of equal learning and better judgment; but, till you have done so, the English student who wishes to get a general acquaintance with the course of European literature, will not do wrong to devote a few hours a week to the careful reading of this book, even though it does not bubble or sparkle.
If Hallam’s “Introduction to the Literature of Europe,” admirable as it is for its learning and good sense, were recast, revised, amended, and reduced from four large volumes to a single volume of three hundred pages, we should possess something which might at least serve as a stop-gap until a better book were ready to take its place.
Perhaps the most successful of all attempts at a general history of literature.
General
The extreme austerity of Mr. Hallam takes away something from the pleasure of reading his learned, eloquent, and judicious writings. He is a judge, but a hanging judge, the Page or Buller of the high court of literary justice. His black cap is in constant requisition. In the long calendar of those whom he has tried, there is hardly one who has not, in spite of evidence to character and recommendations to mercy, been sentenced and left for execution.
One of the most judicious minds of the day—a mind trained in the most exact and laborious historic research.
The cold academic style of Robertson may suit the comparative calmness of the eighteenth century, but the fervour and animation of its close communicated itself to the historical works of the next. Hallam was the first historian whose style gave token of the coming change; his works mark the transition from one age and style of literature to another. In extent and variety of learning, and a deep acquaintance with antiquarian lore, the historian of the Middle Ages may deservedly take a place with the most eminent writers in that style that Europe has produced; but his mind is more imaginative than those of his laborious predecessors, and a fervent eloquence, or poetic expression, often reveals the ardour which the heart-stirring events of his time had communicated to his disposition.
He has often essayed to criticise our greatest poets, and has displayed intimate knowledge of their writings, and of the ages in which they lived. But it is merely mechanical knowledge. He knows poets by head-mark, not by heart-recognition. He may see, but he scarcely feels, their beauties.
Mr. Hallam’s impartiality does not proceed from indifference as to the topics which he discusses, but from the moderation of his views, and the calmness of his judgment. Extreme opinions find little favor in his eyes. He was a Whig; but he was a Whig educated at Oxford, and this circumstance doubtless exerted a very fortunate influence on the character of his writings. Even when he expresses the strongest disapprobation of any system or policy, or pronounces the most unfavorable opinion as to the character of any individual, or any body of men, he never suffers himself to lapse into partisanship, and his language has the calmness and dignity of a judicial opinion. Unlike Mr. Carlyle, he never attempts to make a man odious by personal abuse, and in his delineation of character he uses other colors beside black and white. It is this moderation in his views—this inflexible determination to follow the narrow path between the mountain and the sea—which, as we conceive, constitutes Mr. Hallam’s least questionable title to a place among the greatest historians who have written in our language. It is very easy to be a partisan: it is very hard to hold moderate opinions.
With the skill of an advocate he combines the calmness of a judge; and he has been justly called “the accurate Hallam,” because his facts are in all cases to be depended upon. By his clear and illustrative treatment of dry subjects, he has made them interesting; and his works have done as much to instruct his age as those of any writer. Later researches in literature and constitutional history may discover more than he has presented, but he taught the new explorers the way, and will always be consulted with profit, as the representative of this varied learning during the first half of the nineteenth century.
Of Henry Hallam a writer of distinction observed, at the time of his death, that the reader of his weighty (not heavy) works, impressed with the judicial character of the style both of thought and expression, imagined him a solemn, pale student, and might almost expect to see him in a judge’s wig; whereas the stranger would find him the most rapid talker in company, quick in his movements, genial in his feelings, earnest in narrative, rather full of dissent from what everybody said, innocently surprised when he found himself agreeing with anybody, and pretty sure to blurt out something awkward before the day was done—but never giving offence, because his talk was always the fresh growth of the topic, besides that his manners were those of a thoroughbred gentleman.
In 1830 George IV instituted two gold medals for the best historical works of his reign; and Hallam and Washington Irving were the historians that his Majesty delighted to honour. Hallam’s works are praised for industrious research and dignified impartiality; his “Constitutional History” is accepted as the standard work on that subject. He had great reputation as a scholar; Byron calls him “Classic Hallam much renowned for Greek”: but it may be doubted whether his “Introduction to the Literature of Europe” was not too ambitious a work for any one man not possessed of the resources of Faust. Certainly his criticisms of English writers, though always expressed with elegance, will not always bear close examination, and too often give evidence of very superficial and second-hand knowledge. Ornate, dignified elegance is the characteristic of his style: for popular purposes it is perhaps too Latinised.
The subject of this memoir was never in Parliament, and never addressed his fellow countrymen by speech or by pen on any of the immediate questions of the day. He founded no association—he took no part in electioneering: he was not even proprietor or editor of a newspaper: and yet he has influenced the political opinions and conduct of the best and ablest classes of Englishmen, more than almost any other leader of thought that modern times have produced; and his influence is certain to be permanent.
Henry Hallam was the first who wrote history in this country with so careful a love of truth, and with so accurate a judgment of the relative value of facts and things, that prejudice was excluded. His “Europe During the Middle Ages,” and his “Literature of Europe” are distinguished for their exhaustive and judicial summing up of facts; and his “Constitutional History of England” set on foot a new kind of history in the best way.
The greatest historical name in this period, and one of the most learned of our constitutional writers and critics…. With vast stores of knowledge, and indefatigable application, Mr. Hallam possessed a clear and independent judgment, and a style grave and impressive, yet enriched with occasional imagery and rhetorical graces. His “Introduction to the Literature of Europe” is a great monument of his erudition. His knowledge of the language and literature of each nation is critical, if not profound, and his opinions were conveyed in a style remarkable for its succinctness and perspicuity.
No great historian ever wrote with less passion, or was more anxious than Hallam to place the whole of his facts, for what they were worth, before his readers. In this respect, then, Hallam displays a marked contrast to Mitford. In elaborate research he was at least Mitford’s equal…. It may be doubted whether three works of any other author contain the results of such extensive, varied, and careful reading.
Was an historian of powers, perhaps, not originally superior to those of Mackintosh, but put to infinitely better account.
Industrious, sober-minded, accomplished and as judicial in his views as was consistent with a certain want of catholicity of taste and with strong views in general politics, Hallam is an authority to be cautiously differed with. The style in him exactly corresponds to the thought.
We have had a few other critics—they might be counted on one hand, and barely exhaust the fingers—who show flashes of finer insight. Even, however, from a born rhetorician like Lord Macaulay, Hallam extorted the praise that here only was the judge with one weight and one balance,—justissimus unus.
The truth about Hallam seems to have been that books were more to him than men, and literature than life. The pulse of human feeling beats faintly in his writings, through which the reader moves as in a shadowy intellectual world inhabited by the departed actors of a real, indeed, but unresuscitated past. We feel that this is the land of shades, and the ghost of history, which needs to be clothed upon with flesh and blood. Hallam’s works are a capital demonstration of the thesis that imagination is indispensable to the writing of history, whether social or political. It was the intellectual framework of things that interested him: action, passion, the busy world of moving humanity, for these he had no eye, or no reconstructive talent. The warmth, colour, and animation of the brisk, humourous drama of life are not suggested on his canvas, and it would be difficult, perhaps, to recall a single scene or single character of which he speaks in words that betray a keen personal pleasure, sympathy or aversion. With one he deals as with another, much as the geometrician deals with his cubes and squares.
Hallam represents, better perhaps than any other, the English intellect of the epoch in which the eighteenth century was passing into the nineteenth, when the age of “common-sense” was discredited but not extinct, and Romanticism was in the air, but not in the blood.
Was full of all serenities of character—even under the weight of such private griefs as were appalling. He was studious, honest, staid—with a great respect for decorum; he would have gravitated socially—as he did—rather to Holland House than to the chambers where Lamb presided over the punch bowl. In describing the man one describes his histories; slow, calm, steady even to prosiness, yet full; not entertaining in a gossipy sense; not brilliant; scarce ever eloquent. If he is in doubt upon a point he tells you so; if there has been limitation to his research, there is no concealment of it; I think, upon the whole, the honestest of all English historians. In his search for truth, neither party, nor tradition, nor religious scruples make him waver. None can make their historic journey through the Middle Ages without taking into account the authorities he has brought to notice, and the path that he has scored.
A brilliantly gifted writer on political history…. In his old age Hallam made a track through the previously pathless waste of general European literature. His gravity is supported by a vast basis of solid knowledge, his judgment is sane and balanced, and to his immediate contemporaries his style appeared remarkable for “succinctness and perspicuous beauty.” But the modern writer is not so well pleased with Hallam, who begins to be the Georgian type of the falsely impressive. His felicities are those which Macaulay emphasised and carried to a further precision; his faults are his own, and they are a want of intuitive sympathy with the subject under discussion, and a monotonous and barren pomp of delivery which never becomes easy or flexible. The far-famed “judgment,” too, of Hallam is not as wide as we could wish. He is safe only in the discussion of recognised types, and the reader searches his critical pages in vain for signs of the recognition of an eccentric or abnormal talent. The most laudable tendency of the historians of this age, seen in Hallam, indeed, but even more plainly in secondary writers.
We seldom find any warmth in his works, his style lacks animation, and in his æsthetic views of poetry, he is a man of the eighteenth rather than the nineteenth century. His dry, cold manner reminds us of Ranke.
