Roman and the Teuton | Page 6

poet, a moralist, a politician, a
theologian, and, before all, of a friend and counsellor of young men,
while reading for them and with them one of the most awful periods in
the history of mankind, the agonies of a dying Empire and the birth of
new nationalities. History was but his text, his chief aim was that of the
teacher and preacher, and as an eloquent interpreter of the purposes of
history before an audience of young men to whom history is but too
often a mere succession of events to be learnt by heart, and to be ready
against periodical examinations, he achieved what he wished to achieve.
Historians by profession would naturally be incensed at some portions
of this book, but even they would probably admit by this time, that
there are in it whole chapters full of excellence, telling passages, happy
delineations, shrewd remarks, powerful outbreaks of real eloquence,
which could not possibly be consigned to oblivion.

Nor would it have been possible to attempt to introduce any alterations,
or to correct what may seem to be mistakes. The book is not meant as a
text-book or as an authority, any more than Schiller's History of the
Thirty Years' War; it should be read in future, as what it was meant to
be from the first, Kingsley's thoughts on some of the moral problems
presented by the conflict between the Roman and the Teuton. One
cannot help wishing that, instead of lectures, Kingsley had given us
another novel, like Hypatia, or a real historical tragedy, a Dietrich von
Bern, embodying in living characters one of the fiercest struggles of
humanity, the death of the Roman, the birth of the German world. Let
me quote here what Bunsen said of Kingsley's dramatic power many
years ago:
'I do not hesitate (he writes) to call these two works, the Saint's Tragedy
and Hypatia, by far the most important and perfect of this genial writer.
In these more particularly I find the justification of a hope which I beg
to be allowed to express--that Kingsley might continue Shakspeare's
historical plays. I have for several years made no secret of it, that
Kingsley seems to me the genius of our century, called to place by the
side of that sublime dramatic series from King John to Henry VIII,
another series of equal rank, from Edward VI to the Landing of
William of Orange. This is the only historical development of Europe
which unites in itself all vital elements, and which we might look upon
without overpowering pain. The tragedy of St. Elizabeth shows that
Kingsley can grapple, not only with the novel, but with the more severe
rules of dramatic art. And Hypatia proves, on the largest scale, that he
can discover in the picture of the historical past, the truly human, the
deep, the permanent, and that he knows how to represent it. How, with
all this, he can hit the fresh tone of popular life, and draw humourous
characters and complications with Shakspearian energy, is proved by
all his works. And why should he not undertake this great task? There
is a time when the true poet, the prophet of the present, must bid
farewell to the questions of the day, which seem so great because they
are so near, but are, in truth, but small and unpoetical. He must say to
himself, "Let the dead bury their dead"--and the time has come that
Kingsley should do so.'
A great deal has been written on mistakes which Kingsley was
supposed to have made in these Lectures, but I doubt whether these

criticisms were always perfectly judicial and fair. For instance,
Kingsley's using the name of Dietrich, instead of Theodoric, was
represented as the very gem of a blunder, and some critics went so far
as to hint that he had taken Theodoric for a Greek word, as an adjective
of Theodorus. This, of course, was only meant as a joke, for on page
120 Kingsley had said, in a note, that the name of Theodoric, Theuderic,
Dietrich, signifies 'king of nations.' He therefore knew perfectly well
that Theodoric was simply a Greek adaptation of the Gothic name
Theode-reiks, theod meaning people, reiks, according to Grimm,
princeps {p1}. But even if he had called the king Theodorus, the
mistake would not have been unpardonable, for he might have appealed
to the authority of Gregory of Tours, who uses not only Theodoricus,
but also Theodorus, as the same name.
A more serious charge, however, was brought against him for having
used the High-German form Dietrich, instead of the original form
Theodereiks or Theoderic, or even Theodoric. Should I have altered
this? I believe not; for it is clear to me that Kingsley had his good
reasons for preferring Dietrich to Theodoric.
He