That pedantic charge of inaccuracy, with which I have already dealt in another place, in connection with another and perhaps a greater man, is not applicable to Froude.  He was hasty, and in his historical work the result certainly was that he put down things upon insufficient evidence, or upon evidence but half read; but even in his historical work (which deals remember, with the most highly controversial part of English history) he is as accurate as anybody else, except perhaps Lingard.  That the man was by nature accurate, well read and of a good memory, appears continually throughout this book, and the more widely one has read one’s self, the more one appreciates this truth.

For instance, there is often set down to Disraeli the remark that his religion was “the religion of all sensible men.” and upon being asked what this religion might be, that Oriental is said to have replied, “All sensible men keep that to themselves.”  Now Disraeli could no more have made such a witticism than he could have flown through the air; his mind was far too extravagant for such pointed phrases.  Froude quotes the story (page 205 of this book) but rightly ascribes it to Rogers, a very different man from Disraeli—­ an Englishman with a mastery of the English language.

Look again at this remark upon page 20, “The happy allusion of Quevedo to the Tiber was not out of place here:—­the fugitive is alone permanent.’” How many Englishmen know that Du Bellay’s immortal sonnet was but a translation of Quevedo?  You could drag all Oxford and Cambridge to-day and not find a single man who knew it.

Note the care he has shown in quoting one of those hackneyed phrases which almost all the world misquotes, “Que mon nom soit fletri, pourvu que la France soit libre.”  Of a hundred times that you may see those words of Danton’s written down, you will perhaps not see them once written down exactly as they were said.

So it is throughout his work.  Men still living in the Universities accuse him vaguely of inexactitude as they will accuse Jowett of ignorance, and these men, when one examines them closely, are found to be ignorant of the French language, to have read no philosophy between Aristotle and Hobbes, and to issue above their signatures such errors of plain dates and names as make one blush for English scholarship and be glad that no foreigner takes our historical school seriously.

There is always left to any man who deals with the writings of Froude, a task impossible to complete but necessarily to be attempted.  He put himself forward, in a set attitude, to combat and to destroy what he conceived to be—­in the moment of his attack—­the creed of his countrymen.  He was so literary a man that he did this as much by accepting as by denying, as much by dating from Elizabeth all we are as by affirming unalterable material sequence and the falsity of every transcendental acceptation.  His time smelt him out even when he flattered it most.  Even when he wrote of the Revenge the England of his day—­luckily for him—­thought him an enemy.