who made history, rather than upon the men who wrote it. They devote pages to Founders, to Prelates, and to Politicians—chiefly to Prelates—and they dismiss the Poets and the Prosists with a line, when they mention them at all.
Very rarely does it happen in the colleges themselves that anything but traditional records exist as to personal locality; and in most of these cases, particularly in the cases of the older men, tradition, by some grubber after facts, is proved, generally,to be absolutely wrong. Oxford's ignorance of Oxford is, in many respects, phenomenal and startling; and a volume might easily be written about "What Oxford Does Not Know About Oxford!" In too many trying, exasperating instances the only difference between the authorities and the local, personally conducting guides is the fact that the authorities know less, at no pecuniary expense to the inquirer, than do the guides know for the regulation fees. But, while the authorities are generally, and frankly, uncertain, the guides are almost universally incorrect. The authorities rarely assert. The guides invariably invent!
Nevertheless, all acknowledgment is due to the unfailing politeness and to the courtesy of these surprised authorities, who cannot comprehend why the questions should be asked at all; but who try to answer them as best they can. The present
