Harrison  says  again:

"But,  unfortunately,  Macaulay,  having  stated  in  majestic
antitheses  his  problem  of  'the  unchangeable  Church,*  makes
no  attempt  to  provide  us  with  a  solution.  This  splendid  eulo-
gium  is  not  meant  to  convert  us  to  Catholicism — very  far
from  it.  Macaulay  was  no  Catholic,  and  had  only  a  sort  of
literary  admiration  for  the  Papacy.  As  Mr.  Cotter  Morison
has  shown,  he  leaves  the  problem  just  where  he  found  it,
and  such  theories  as  he  offers  are  not  quite  trustworthy.  He
does  not  suggest  that  the  Catholic  Church  is  permanent  be-
cause it  possesses  truth;  but,  rather,  because  men's  ideas  of
truth  are  a  matter  of  idiosyncrasy  or  digestion.  The  whole
essay  is  not  a  very  safe  guide  to  the  history  of  Protestantism
or  of  Catholicism."

The  contrast  between  Macaulay  and  Carlyle  is  quite
clearly  seen  in  the  essays  written  by  the  two  men  On
History.    Macaulay's  appeared  in  the  Edinburgh  Re-


120  ENGLISH  ESSAYISTS

view  in  1828,  Carlyle's  in  Fraser's  Magazine  in  1830.
Each  writer  had  already  had  some  successful  experi-
ence in  writing,  each  was  destined  in  a  few  years  to
do  some  notable  historical  writing  in  accordance  with
the  ideas  expressed  in  his  essay.
Each  author  considers  that  history  in  its  final  analy-
sis is  philosophy  teaching  by  examples.  But  whereas
Macaulay  assumes  that  the  ability  to  prognosticate
political  events  may  be  attained  through  a  study  of
history,  Carlyle  regards  this  practical  end  as  visionary,
as  an  ideal  probably  forever  unattainable.  Macaulay
encourages  the  historian  through  the  exercise  of  his
reasoning  and  his  imaginative  powers  to  attempt  to
convey  a  reduced  but  still  accurate  picture  of  some  re-
mote period.  Carlyle  warns  the  historian  against  at-
tempting to  portray  any  but  the  smallest  sections.
