_TIMES._—‘ONE OF THE MOST ENDURING AND ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT LITERARY MONUMENTS OF THE TIME IN WHICH WE LIVE. Indeed, it is no hyperbole to say that the Dictionary is much more than this. In many respects it is unique—in its immense bulk and scope, in the high standard of excellence it maintains throughout, in the literary eminence and scholarly reputation of so many of its contributors, in the amazing regularity of its appearance from first to last.’ _SPECTATOR._—‘A WORK OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE. It will by degrees and in course of years correct a great national fault—the tendency to forget men who are worthy of remembrance.... No statue will recall an eminent individual as this Dictionary of Biography will recall them all. It is more than a great monument to the eminent, for it is also what a monument can seldom be—a record of their deeds. As a whole the work, which involved an infinity of labour, much judgment, and some shrewd insight into character, has been marvellously well done, so that the great book will probably never be superseded, and will possibly for centuries give the first impress to the judgment of the inquirer into the history and doings of all English notables.’ _LITERATURE._—‘The inception of the work, its steady and business-like execution, and its reception by the public mark something like AN EPOCH IN ENGLISH LITERARY HISTORY. Few publications even in an age when collaboration is the fashion, have brought together so many distinguished writers; none certainly have done more to organise research and turn it to a practical use.’ _EDINBURGH REVIEW._—‘A Dictionary of Biography on this scale is A HISTORY OF OUR RACE. The biographies of sovereigns, and statesmen, and warriors, written as they are in these volumes with great fulness, do in fact contain the annals of their lives. There is not in existence a more complete history of England than is to be found in these volumes.’ _ATHENÆUM._—‘IN FULNESS, IN THOROUGHNESS, AND IN GENERAL ACCURACY IT LEAVES LITTLE OR NOTHING TO BE DESIRED. It compares very favourably with its two foreign models in most essential points; and in one, at least, it is distinctly superior. Neither the German nor the Belgian Dictionary indicates the sources from which the matter in the text has been drawn with equal completeness and precision. A careful bibliographical note is appended to even the shortest of the articles; and in some of the longer ones this note becomes nothing less than an exhaustive critical digest, the utility of which can scarcely be rated too highly.’