Of the other men selected as representative of this early period, Ainsworth and James, though younger than Marryat, claim treatment first, because their work is more closely connected with the novels of the preceding period. They were direct imitators of Scott, as Scott himself perceived in the case of Ainsworth at least;[2] and criticism of one side of their work could not be better expressed than in his words. The great novelist compares himself to Captain Bobadil, who trained up a hundred gentlemen to fight very nearly, if not quite, as well as himself. He goes on: 'One advantage, I think, I still have over all of them. They may do their fooling with a better grace; but I, like Sir Andrew Aguecheek, do it more natural. They have to read old books and consult antiquarian collections to get their knowledge; I write because I have long since read such works, and possess, thanks to a strong memory, the information they have to seek for. This leads to a dragging-in of historical details by head and shoulders, so that the interest of the main piece is lost in minute descriptions of events which do not affect its progress.' [Sidenote: William Harrison Ainsworth (1805-1882).] Little or nothing need be added about the historical novels of William Harrison Ainsworth. What Scott says is strictly true of _The Tower of London_ (1840), reputed to be Ainsworth's masterpiece, of _Old St. Paul's_ (1841), and of _St. James's, or the Court of Queen Anne_ (1844). The censure is indeed too mildly expressed. Ainsworth had another side. Like Lytton, he showed a kind of perverse regard for interesting criminals. _Rookwood_ (1834), with its famous description of Turpin's ride to York, and _Jack Sheppard_ (1839), are studies of the highwayman. The latter was severely criticised as demoralising in tendency, and the censure induced Ainsworth to abandon this species of story. [Sidenote: George Paine Rainsford James (1801-1860).] George Paine Rainsford James was even more prolific than Ainsworth. He is said to have written more than one hundred novels, besides historical books and poetry. No wonder therefore that the name of James became a by-word for conventionality of opening and for diffuse weakness of style. More perhaps than Ainsworth he has suffered from time, because he remains more constantly on a dead level of mediocrity. James trusted, and in his own day trusted not in vain, to adventure; but unless there is some saving virtue of style, or of thought, or of character, each generation insists on making its own adventures. James has sunk under the operation of this law, and he is not likely to be revived. [Sidenote: Frederick Marryat (1792-1848).]