er men's thoughts for original production,
and, after all, the greatest critics have been those who, being more
than critics, have shown themselves capable of constructive efforts.

Two statesmen-novelists, Bulwer and Disraeli, are among the most
interesting literary characters of the end of this period. The former of
these, like his French contemporary Victor Hugo, had a remarkable gift
for expressing each successive phase of popular taste. He resembled
Disraeli in acquiring a pre-eminent position in letters in early youth,
which was followed by political success at a later age. Though neither
rose to cabinet rank before a time of life which must with literary men
rank as "middle age," Bulwer had, in the midst of an active
parliamentary career, been an active novelist, in fact the most popular
novelist of his day. Disraeli, on the other hand, only entered
parliament after the close of the period dealt with in this volume, and
it is to this period, while he was still unknown to politics, that the
greater part of his literary work belongs. One other resemblance between
these writers is perhaps not less interesting to the historian than to
the critic. Both made use of literature to establish for themselves a
reputation as "men of the world," an ambition which Bulwer's social
position might easily justify, and without which it would be impossible
to understand the career of Disraeli. Born in 1803 and 1804
respectively, both made their mark with their first novels in 1827,
Bulwer with _Falkland_, Disraeli with a work in which his own career has
been supposed to be foreshadowed--_Vivian Grey_. One other great
novelist had appeared before the close of the reign of William IV. In
1836 Charles Dickens produced _Sketches by Boz_ and began the _Pickwick
Papers_, but he belongs properly to the next reign.

Among the historians of this period the first place undoubtedly belongs
to Henry Hallam. Born in 1788, he produced his _View of the State of
Europe during the Middle Ages_ in 1818, and his _Constitutional History
of England_ in 1827, while his _Introduction to the Literature of
Europe_ began to appear in 1837. Like Macaulay he represents the whig
attitude towards politics, but does so less consciously and less
emphatically than his younger contemporary. There is a sense in which no
constitutional historian has adopted so strictly legal an attitude. It
is not merely that his interest centres on the legal side of the
constitution