differing from those of Mr. Long. And I venture to hope that from
the advantage I have had in being able to compare the works of two
writers, one of whom has well-nigh exhausted the theories as the
other has the facts of the subject, I have succeeded in giving a more
consistent and faithful account of the leaders and legislation of the
revolutionary era than has hitherto been written. Certainly there
could be no more instructive commentary on either history than the
study of the other, for each supplements the other and emphasizes
its defects. If Mommsen at times pushes conjecture to the verge of
invention, as in his account of the junction of the Helvetii and
Cimbri, Mr. Long, in his dogged determination never to swerve from
facts to inference, falls into the opposite extreme, resorting to
somewhat Cyclopean architecture in his detestation of stucco. But
my admiration for his history is but slightly qualified by such
considerations, and to any student who may be stimulated by the
volumes of this series to acquire what would virtually amount to an
acquaintance first-hand with the narratives of ancient writers, I
would say 'Read Mr. Long's history.' To do so is to learn not only
knowledge but a lesson in historical study generally. For the writings
of a man with whom style is not the first object are as refreshing as
his scorn for romancing history is wholesome, and the grave irony with
which he records its slips amusing.

A.H.B.




CONTENTS.