CHAP. X.

Reflections on Hiftory-Ancient Historians.

Ir, however, the hiftorian be a compa triot, and especially if he be a contemporary, even though he was no actor in the drama, it is difficult for him not to range himself too uniformly on one fide or the other. The human mind has a strong natural bias to adopt exclufive attachments. Perhaps man may be defined to be an animal that delights in party. Yet we are inclined to believe that an hiftorian, though he may be partial and interested, yet, if he be keenfighted and intelligent as to the facts of which he speaks, is on the whole, a better witness than a more fair and candid, but worfe-informed man; because we may more eafily calculate the degree of allowance to be made for partiality and prejudice, than we can estimate that which is to be made for defect

K 4

defect of information. Of two evils, therefore, we should prefer a prejudiced, but well-informed, to a more impartial, but lefs enlightened narrator.

When materials are fresh, they are more likely to be authentic; but, unfortunately, when it is more eafy to lefs fafe to employ them.

obtain, it is often

When the events are more remote, their authenticity is more difficult to afcertain; and, when they are near, the paflions which they excite are more apt to warp the truth. Thus, what might be gained in accuracy by nearness of pofition, is liable to be loft in the partiality which that very pofition induces. The true point of vifion is attained, when the eye and the object are placed at their due distance. The reader who comes to the perufal of the work, in a more unimpaffioned frame than, perhaps, the author wrote, will beft collect the characters from the narrative, if fairly given.

Care fhould be taken not to extol fhining characters in the grofs, but to point out

their weaknesses and errors; nor fhould the brilliant qualities of illuftrious men be fuffered to caft a veil over their vices, or so to fascinate the young reader, as to excite admiration of their very faults. Even in perufing facred hiftory, we fhould never extenuate, much less justify, the errors of great characters, but make them, at once, a ground for establishing the doctrine of general corruption, and for quickening our own vigilance. The weakneffes of the wisest, and the errors of the best, while they fhould be regarded with candour, must not be held up to imitation. It has been rea fonably conjectured, that many acts of cruelty in Alexander, whofe difpofition was naturally merciful, were not a little owing to one of his preceptors having been early accuftomed to call himself Phoenix, and his pupil Achilles; and thus to have habitually trained him to an imitation even of the vices of this ferocious hero.

A prince must not study hiftory merely to store his memory with amufing narra, tives or infulated events, but with a view to

tracę

trace the dependence of one event upon another. An ordinary reader will be fatiffied with knowing the exploits of Scipio or Hannibal, and will be fufficiently entertained. with the defcription of the riches or beauty. of fuch renowned cities as Carthage or Rome; but a prince (who is alfo a politi cian) ftudies hiftory, in order to obferve how ambition, operating on the breasts of two rival states, led to one war after another between these two states. By what steps the ruin of the one, and the triumph of the other, were haftened or delayed; by what indications the final catastrophe might have been antecedently known, or by what meafures it might have been averted. He is interested not merely when a fignal event arifes, but by the whole fkill of the game; and he is, on this account, anxious to poffefs many inferior circumftances, ferving to unite one event with another, which, to the ordinary reader, appear infignificant and dull. Again, in the case of Pompey and Cæfar, the reflecting politician connects the triumphs of the latter with the political

and

and moral state of Rome. He bears in mind the luxurious habits of the Patricians, who became the officers in Pompey's army; the gradual decay of public fpirit, the licentioufnefs and venality of the capital, and the arts by which Cæfar had prepared his troops, while they were in Gaul, for the contention which he already meditated for the empire of the world. He will, in idea, fee that world already vanquished, when he confiders the profound policy of this conqueror, who, on being appointed to the government of Gaul on both fides the Alps, by exciting the Gauls to folicit the fame privileges with the Italians, opened to himself this double advantage :-the disturbance which this would occafion in Rome, would lift him into abfolute power; while, by his kindnefs and protection to these people, he gained an acceffion of ftrength to overthrow his competitors. The ordinary reader is fatisfied with the battle of Pharfalia for the entertainment it affords, and admires the fplendour of the triumphs, without confidering these things as links that connect the