THE WEST LODGE.
_12 March, 1889._
Your long letter was very welcome. When I wrote I must have been in a
bad temper and after I had written I wished to recall my letter. But
now I no longer regret what has brought from you so pleasant an answer.
Really I have no fear at all about the success of your book, if I had
I would expatriate myself. But it stands thus:--Introductions are of
"critical importance," by which I mean that they are of importance to
critics, being often the only parts of a book which casual reviewers
care to read. As a matter of prudence therefore I put into an
Introduction a passage about the book which I mean critics to copy,
and they catch the bait--it saves them trouble and mistakes. But your
"philosophy of history," I mean philosophy of historiography, will not
lend itself to such ready treatment and may give occasion to remarks as
obvious and as foolish as mine were. But I hope for better things. All
that you say about Stubbs and Seebohm and Maine is, I dare say, very
true if you regard them as European, not merely English, phenomena and
attribute to them a widespread significance--and doubtless it is very
well that Englishmen should see this--still looking at England only and
our insular ways of thinking I see Stubbs and Maine as two pillars of
conservatism, while as to Seebohm I think that his book is as utterly
devoid of political importance, as, shall I say Madox's _History of
the Exchequer_? But you are cosmopolitan and I doubt not that you are
right. You are putting things in a new light--that is all--if "the
darkness comprehendeth it not," that is the darkness's fault.
And now as to Essay I. I have nothing to withdraw or to qualify. I
think it superb, by far the greatest thing done for English legal
history. I am looking forward with the utmost anxiety to Essay II.