fice or
their success, the faith which inspired Humphry Gilbert to meet his
death at sea, the patience which enabled John Smith to achieve the
tillage of Virginian soil.

Side by side with these masterly vignettes are full-length portraits of
great rulers such as Alfred, Elizabeth, and Cromwell, and vivid
descriptions of religious leaders such as Cranmer, Laud, and Wesley.
Strong though Green's own views on Church and State were, we do not feel
that he is deserting the province of the historian to lecture us on
religion or politics. The book is real narrative written in a fair
spirit, the author rendering justice to the good points of men like
Laud, whom he detested, and aiming above all at conveying clearly to his
readers the picture of what he believed to have happened in the past. As
a narrative it was not without faults. The reviewers at once seized on
many small mistakes, into which Green had fallen through the uncertainty
of his memory for names and words. To these Green cheerfully confessed,
and was thankful that they proved to be so slight. But when other
critics accused him of superficiality they were in error. On this point
we have the verdict of Bishop Stubbs, the most learned and conscientious
historian of the day. 'All Green's work', he says, 'was real and
original work. Few people beside those who knew him well could see,
under the charming ease and vivacity of his style, the deep research and
sustained industry of the laborious student. But it was so; there was no
department of our national records that he had not studied, and, I think
I may say, mastered. Hence, I think, the unity of his dramatic scenes
and the cogency of his historical arguments.'

Green himself was as severe a critic of the book as any one. Writing in
1877 to his future wife, he says, 'I see the indelible mark of the
essayist, the "want of long breath", as the French say, the jerkiness,
the slurring over of the uninteresting parts, above all, the want of
grasp of the subject as a whole'. On the advice of some of his best
friends, confirmed by his own judgement, in 1874 he gave up contributing
to the _Saturday Review_, in order to free his style from the character
imparted to it by writing detached weekly articles. The composing of
these articles had been a pleasure; the writing of English history was
to be his life-work, and no divided allegiance was conceivable to him.
But we may indeed be thankful that he resisted the views of other