Page:English Historical Review Volume 35.djvu/73

 1920 FRANCIS HAVERFIELD 65 should leave the collection of that evidence entirely to others. ' Some writers have urged ', he wrote, ' as the late Professor Freeman used to urge, that it is no business of the historian to prepare his own materials. ... It is not so. No historian can really understand materials at which he has not himself to some extent worked, just as no scholar can understand textual criticism unless he has himself collated at least a few manuscripts,' ^ By 1891 Haverjfield had established his reputation as an epigraphist. In that year he was brought back from Lancing to Oxford in order to teach ancient history as a student of Christ Church. To his work as a college tutor he brought his experience as a schoolmaster, and it is not surprising that he made a most successful lecturer. He lectured lucidly and with authority. He had a remarkable gift for popularization. He believed in teaching history from maps and by pictorial illustration : even his Ford lectures on Roman Britain were a magic-lantern show adapted to the requirements of a university audience. Many features united to make his lectures memorable ; his mannerisms — the side-long glance — ^the jest which was often a gibe ; the wit whose salt sometimes smarted but never lacked savour. Many found him dogmatic. But his dogmatism was founded in caution : it was the dogmatism of incredulity. Sciolism aroused in him an irritability amounting to petulance ; but he never failed to help an inquirer. Perhaps the best testimonial to his capacity as a teacher is to be found in the faith that he inspired among younger archaeologists. His shrewd judgement and disconcerting common sense furnished a touchstone by which their novel theories might be tested ; and those who worked in the same field felt the necessity of submitting to that test. He was equally well known as a lecturer outside Oxford and within the university. As a nation we are antiquarians by bent rather than historians. In our provincial towns and outside educational circles archaeological societies alone carry on the study of the past. Haverfield was an active member of many of them. With the exception of Freeman, probably no Oxford professor within the last hundred years has had such repute among local archaeologists. He never wearied of giving them guidance and encouragement. He gave up much of his time to corresponding with archaeological workers all over England. He shared their studies and took part in their excavations. Lack of excavation he regarded as fatal. ' To-day ', he said, ' the spade is mightier than the pen ; the shovel and pick are the revealers of secrets.' During his early years at Oxford he used to pay visits every summer to Cumberland, usually ' AnU, xix. 89. VOL. XXXV. —NO. CXXXVII. F