In his historical method Macaulay suggests Gibbon.  His own knowledge of history was very great, but before writing he read numberless pages, consulted original documents, and visited the scenes which he intended to describe.  Thackeray’s remark, that “Macaulay reads twenty books to write a sentence and travels one hundred miles to make a line of description,” is, in view of his industry, a well-warranted exaggeration.

As in his literary essays, he is fond of making heroes, and he throws himself so heartily into the spirit of the scene he is describing that his word pictures almost startle us by their vivid reality.  The story of Monmouth’s rebellion, for instance, or the trial of the seven bishops, is as fascinating as the best chapters of Scott’s historical novels.

While Macaulay’s search for original sources of information suggests the scientific historian, his use of his material is much more like that of a novelist or playwright.  In his essay on Machiavelli he writes:  “The best portraits are perhaps those in which there is a slight mixture of caricature, and we are not certain that the best histories are not those in which a little of the exaggeration of fictitious narrative is judiciously employed.  Something is lost in accuracy, but much is gained in effect."[243] Whether this estimate of historical writing be true or false, Macaulay employed it in his own work and made his narrative as absorbing as a novel.  To all his characters he gives the reality of flesh and blood, and in his own words he “shows us over their houses and seats us at their tables.”  All that is excellent, but it has its disadvantages.  In his admiration for heroism, Macaulay makes some of his characters too good and others too bad.  In his zeal for details he misses the importance of great movements, and of great leaders who are accustomed to ignore details; and in his joy of describing events he often loses sight of underlying causes.  In a word, he is without historical insight, and his work, though fascinating, is seldom placed among the reliable histories of England.

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS.  To the reader who studies Macaulay’s brilliant essays and a few chosen chapters of his History, three things soon become manifest.  First, Macaulay’s art is that of a public speaker rather than that of a literary man.  He has a wonderful command of language, and he makes his meaning clear by striking phrases, vigorous antitheses, anecdotes, and illustrations.  His style is so clear that “he who runs may read,” and from beginning to end he never loses the attention of his readers.  Second, Macaulay’s good spirits and enthusiasm are contagious.  As he said himself, he wrote “out of a full head,” chiefly for his own pleasure or recreation; and one who writes joyously generally awakens a sense of pleasure in his readers.  Third, Macaulay has “the defect of his qualities.”  He reads and remembers so much that he has no time to think or