-book a hopeless
bewilderment to the lay reader, and which he regarded on all grounds
with natural antipathy. The book can be read, as one outsider at least
can testify, with strong and continuous interest; though undoubtedly the
reader must be prepared to endure a little strain upon his attention.

There are, indeed, certain drawbacks. In spite of the abundant proofs of
industry and knowledge, there are indications that a little more
literary polish might have been advantageous. Some of the materials are
so crabbed that hardly any skill could have divested them of their
natural stiffness. As Professor Maitland's remarks indicate, Fitzjames
did not love the old period for its own sake. He liked, as I have
noticed, general histories, such as Gibbon's, which give a bird's-eye
view of long periods and, in a sense, codify a great mass of knowledge.
But he had not the imaginative power of reconstructing ancient states
of society with all their picturesque incidents which was first
exemplified by Scott. He was always interested in books that reveal
human nature, and says in the 'History,' for example, that some of the
State Trials are to him 'much more impressive than poetry or
fiction.'[176] But the incidents do not present themselves to him, as
they did to Scott or to Macaulay, as a series of vivid pictures with all
their material surroundings. He shrank, more advisedly, perhaps, from
another tendency which has given popularity to a different school.
Though he gradually became an admirer of Maine's generalisations,
founded upon cautious inquiries and recommended by extraordinary
literary skill, his own intellectual aptitudes did not prompt him to
become a rival. Briefly, his attitude of mind was in the strictest sense
judicial. He asks always for distinct proofs and definite issues. He
applies his canons of evidence to every statement that comes up, and,
after examining it as carefully as he can, pronounces his conclusions,
unequivocally but cautiously. He will not be tempted to a single step
beyond the solid ground of verifiable fact. This undoubtedly gives
confidence to the tolerably patient reader, who learns to respect the
sobriety and impartiality of his guide. But it also fails to convince
the hasty reader that he has seen the event precisely as it happened, or
that he is in possession of a philosophical key to open all historical
problems. I do not wish for a moment to underrate the value of work
which has different