in unintentional caricature.

In thus ascribing to these great men complementary parts in leading and
shaping the general movement, it is not meant that either is deficient
on the side attributed to the other. Hawke showed by his actions that he
was by no means indifferent to tactical combinations, which is another
way of saying that he appreciated the advantage of form in warfare;
while Rodney, though a careful organizer and driller of fleets, and
patient in effort to obtain advantage before attacking, exhibited on
occasion headlong, though not inconsiderate, audacity, and also
tenacious endurance in fight. Still, it will probably be admitted by the
student of naval biography that to him Hawke suggests primarily the
unhesitating sudden rush--the swoop--upon the prey, while Rodney
resembles rather the patient astute watcher, carefully keeping his own
powers in hand, and waiting for the unguarded moment when the adversary
may be taken suddenly at unawares. Certain it is that, with
opportunities much more numerous than were permitted to Hawke, his
successes would have been far greater but for an excess of methodical
caution. There was a third, who combined in due proportion, and
possessed to an extraordinary degree, the special qualities here
assigned to each. It is one of the ironies of history that the first Sir
Samuel Hood should have had just opportunity enough to show how great
were his powers, and yet have been denied the chance to exhibit them
under conditions to arrest the attention of the world; nay, have been
more than once compelled to stand by hopelessly, and see occasions lost
which he would unquestionably have converted into signal triumphs. In
him, as far as the record goes, was consummated the advance of the
eighteenth century. He was the greatest of the sowers. It fell to
Nelson, his pupil,--in part at least,--to reap the harvest.

Before closing this part of our subject, the necessary preliminary to
understanding the progress of naval warfare in the eighteenth century,
it is pertinent to note the respect in which advance there differs from
that of the nineteenth, and in some degree, though less, from that of
the seventeenth centuries. The period was not one of marked material
development. Improvements there were, but they were slow, small in
ultimate extent, and in no sense revolutionary. Ships and guns, masts
and sails, grew better, as did also administrative processes; it may
indeed be asserted, as an