But it is certain that he did not write with their settled _parti pris_ of making history a vehicle of controversy.
His object was to be a faithful historian, and due regard being had to his limitations, he attained to it.
If we now consider the defects of the _Decline and Fall_--which the progress of historic study, and still more the lapse of time, have gradually rendered visible, they will be found, as was to be expected, to consist in the author's limited conception of society, and of the multitudinous forces which mould and modify it.

We are constantly reminded by the tone of remark that he sees chiefly the surface of events, and that the deeper causes which produce them have not been seen with the same clearness.

In proportion as an age is remote, and therefore different from that in which a historian writes, does it behove him to remember that the social and general side of history is more important than the individual and particular.

In reference to a period adjacent to our own the fortunes of individuals properly take a prominent place, the social conditions amid which they worked are familiar to us, and we understand them and their position without effort.

But with regard to a remote age the case is different.