is　to　them　utterly　inconceivable。　　If　the　facts　be　undeniable；　they　suppose　some　strange　and　deep　design；　in　order　to　explain　what；　as　every　one　who　has　observed　his　own　mind　knows；　needs　no　explanation　at　all。　　This　is　a　mode　of　writing　very　acceptable　to　the　multitude　who　have　always　been　accustomed　to　make　gods　and　daemons　out　of　men　very　little　better　or　worse　than　themselves；　but　it　appears　contemptible　to　all　who　have　watched　the　changes　of　human　characterto　all　who　have　observed　the　influence　of　time；　of　circumstances；　and　of　associates；　on　mankindto　all　who　have　seen　a　hero　in　the　gout；　a　democrat　in　the　church；　a　pedant　in　love；　or　a　philosopher　in　liquor。　　This　practice　of　painting　in　nothing　but　black　and　white　is　unpardonable　even　in　the　drama。　　It　is　the　great　fault　of　Alfieri；　and　how　much　it　injures　the　effect　of　his　compositions　will　be　obvious　to　every　one　who　will　compare　his　Rosmunda　with　the　Lady　Macbeth　of　Shakspeare。　　The　one　is　a　wicked　woman；　the　other　is　a　fiend。　　Her　only　feeling　is　hatred；　all　her　words　are　curses。　　We　are　at　once　shocked　and　fatigued　by　the　spectacle　of　such　raving　cruelty；　excited　by　no　provocation；　repeatedly　changing　its　object；　and　constant　in　nothing　but　in　its　in…　extinguishable　thirst　for　blood。
  In　history　this　error　is　far　more　disgraceful。　　Indeed；　there　is　no　fault　which　so　completely　ruins　a　narrative　in　the　opinion　of　a　judicious　reader。　　We　know　that　the　line　of　demarcation　between　good　and　bad　men　is　so　faintly　marked　as　often　to　elude　the　most　careful　investigation　of　those　who　have　the　best　opportunities　for　judging。　　Public　men；　above　all；　are　surrounded　with　so　many　temptations　and　difficulties　that　some　doubt　must　almost　always　hang　over　their　real　dispositions　and　intentions。　　The　lives　of　Pym；　Cromwell；　Monk；　Clarendon；　Marlborough；　Burnet；　Walpole；　are　well　known　to　us。　　We　are　acquainted　with　their　actions；　their　speeches；　their　writings；　we　have　abundance　of　letters　and　well…　authenticated　anecdotes　relating　to　them：　yet　what　candid　man　will　venture　very　positively　to　say　which　of　them　were　honest　and　which　of　them　were　dishonest　men？　　It　appears　easier　to　pronounce　decidedly　upon　the　great　characters　of　antiquity；　not　because　we　have　greater　means　of　discovering　truth；　but　simply　because　we　have　less　means　of　detecting　error。　　The　modern　historians　of　Greece　have　forgotten　this。　　Their　heroes　and　villains　are　as　consistent　in　all　their　sayings　and　doings　as　the　cardinal　virtues　and　the　deadly　sins　in　an　allegory。　　We　should　as　soon　expect　a　good　action　from　giant　Slay…good　in　Bunyan　as　from　Dionysius；　and　a　crime　of　Epaminondas　would　seem　as　incongruous　as　a　faux…pas　of　the　grave　and　comely　damsel　called　Discretion；　who　answered　the　bell　at　the　door　of　the　house　Beautiful。
  This　error　was　partly　the　cause　and　partly　the　effect　of　the　high　estimation　in　which　the　later　ancient　writers　have　been　held　by　modern　scholars。　　Those　French　and　English　authors　who　have　treated　of　the　affairs　of　Greece　have　generally　turned　with　contempt　from　the　simple　and　natural　narrations　of　Thucydides　and　Xenophon　to　the　extravagant　representations　of　Plutarch；　Diodorus；　Curtius；　and　other　romancers　of　the　same　class；men　who　described　military　operations　without　ever　having　handled　a　sword；　and　applied　to　the　seditions　of　little　republics　speculations　formed　by　observation　on　an　empire　which　covered　half　the　known　world。　　Of　liberty　they　knew　nothing。　　It　was　to　them　a　great　mysterya　superhuman　enjoyment。　　They　ranted　about　liberty　and　patriotism；　from　the　same　cause　which　leads　monks　to　talk　more　ardently　than　other　men　about　love　and　women。　　A　wise　man　values　political　liberty；　because　it　secures　the　persons　and　the　possessions　of　citizens；　because　it　tends　to　prevent　the　extravagance　of　rulers；　and　the　corruption　of　judges；　because　it　gives　birth　to　useful　sciences　and　elegant　arts；　because　it　excites　the　industry　and　increases　the　comforts　of　all　classes　of　society。　　These　theorists　imagined　that　it　possessed　something　eternally　and　intrinsically　good；　distinct　from　the　blessings　which　it　generally　produced。　　They　considered　it　not　as　a　means　but　as　an　end；　an　end　to　be　attained　at　any　cost。　　Their　favourite　heroes　are　those　who　have　sacrificed；　for　the　mere　name　of　freedom；　the　prosperitythe　securitythe　justicefrom　which　freedom　derives　its　value。
  There　is　another　remarkable　characteristic　of　these　writers；　in　which　their　modern　worshippers　have　carefully　imitated　thema　great　fondness　for　good　stories。　　The　most　established　facts；　dates；　and　characters　are　never　suffered　to　come　into　competition　with　a　splendid　saying；　or　a　romantic　exploit。　　The　early　historians　have　left　us　natural　and　simple　descriptions　of　the　great　events　which　they　witnessed；　and　the　great　men　with　whom　they　associated。　　When　we　read　the　account　which　Plutarch　and　Rollin　have　given　of　the　same　period；　we　scarcely　know　our　old　acquaintance　again；　we　are　utterly　confounded　by　the　melo…　dramatic　effect　of　the　narration；　and　the　sublime　coxcombry　of　the　characters。
  These　are　the　principal　errors　into　which　the　predecessors　of　Mr　Mitford　have　fallen；　and　from　most　of　these　he　is　free。　　His　faults　are　of　a　completely　different　description。　　It　is　to　be　hoped　that　the　students　of　history　may　now　be　saved；　like　Dorax　in　Dryden's　play；　by　swallowing　two　conflicting　poisons；　each　of　which　may　serve　as　an　antidote　to　the　other。
  The　first　and　most　important　difference　between　Mr　Mitford　and　those　who　have　preceded　him　is　in　his　narration。　　Here　the　advantage　lies；　for　the　most　part；　on　his　side。　　His　principle　is　to　follow　the　contemporary　historians；　to　look　with　doubt　on　all　statements　which　are　not　in　some　degree　confirmed　by　them；　and　absolutely　to　reject　all　which　are　contradicted　by　them。　　While　he　retains　the　guidance　of　some　writer　in　whom　he　can　place　confidence；　he　goes　on　excellently。　　When　he　loses　it；　he　falls　to　the　level；　or　perhaps　below　the　level；　of　the　writers　whom　he　so　much　despises：　he　is　as　absurd　as　they；　and　very　much　duller。　It　is　really　amusing　to　observe　how　he　proceeds　with　his　narration　when　he　has　no　better　authority　than　poor　Diodorus。　　He　is　compelled　to　relate　something；　yet　he　believes　nothing。　　He　accompanies　every　fact　with　a　long　statement　of　objections。　　His　account　of　the　administration　of　Dionysius　is　in　no　sense　a　history。　　It　ought　to　be　entitled〃Historic　doubts　as　to　certain　events；　alleged　to　have　taken　place　in　Sicily。〃
  This　scepticism；　however；　like　that　of　some　great　legal　characters　almost　as　sceptical　as　himself；　vanishes　whenever　his　political　partialities　interfere。　　He　is　a　vehement　admirer　of　tyranny　and　oligarchy；　and　considers　no　evidence　as　feeble　which　can　be　brought　forward　in　favour　of　those　forms　of　government。　Democracy　he　hates　with　a　perfect　hatred；　a　hatred　which；　in　the　first　volume　of　his　history；　appears　only　in　his　episodes　and　reflections；　but　which；　in　those　parts　where　he　has　less　reverence　for　his　guides；　and　can　venture　to　take　his　own　way；　completely　distorts　even　his　narration。
  In　taking　up　these　opinions；　I　have　no　doubt　that　Mr　Mitford　was　influenced　by　the　same　love　of　singularity　which　led　him　to　spell　〃island〃　without　an　〃s；〃　and　to　place　two　dots　over　the　last　letter　of　〃idea。〃　　In　truth；　preceding　historians　have　erred　so　monstrously　on　the　other　side　that　even　the　worst　parts　of　Mr　Mitford's　book　may　be　useful　as　a　corrective。　　For　a　young　gentleman　who　talks　much　about　his　country；　tyrannicide；　and　Epaminondas；　this　work；　diluted　in　a　sufficient　quantity　of　Rollin　and　Berthelemi；　may　be　a　very　useful　remedy。
  The　errors　of　both　parties　arise　from　an　ignorance　or　a　neglect　of　the　fundamental　principles　of　political　science。　　The　writers　on　one　side　imagine　popular　government　to　be　always　a　blessing；　Mr　Mitford　omits　no　opportunity　of　assuring　us　that　it　is　always　a　curse。　　The　fact　is；　that　a　good　government；　like　a　good　coat；　is　that　which　fits　the　body　for　which　it　is　designed。　　A　man　who；　upon　abstract　principles；　pronounces　a　constitution　to　be　good；　without　an　exact　knowledge　of　the　people　who　are　to　be　governed　by　it；　judges　as　absurdly　as　a　tailor　who　should　measure　the　Belvidere　Apollo　for　the　clothes　of　all　his　customers。　　The　demagogues　who　wished　to　see　Portugal　a　republic；　and　the　wise　critics　who　revile　the　Virginians　for　not　having　instituted　a　peerage；　appear　equally　ridiculous　to　all　men　of　sense　and　candour。
  That　is　the　best　government　which　desires　to　make　the　people　happy；　and　knows　how　to　make　them　happy。　　Neither　the　inclination　nor　the　knowledge　will　suffice　alone；　and　it　is　difficult　to　find　them　together。
  Pure　democracy；　and　pure　democracy　alone；　satisfies　the　former　condition　of　this　great　problem。　　That　the　governors　may　be　solicitous　only　for　the　interests　of　the　governed；　it　is　necessary　that　the　interests　of　the　governors　and　the　governed　should　be　the　same。　　This　cannot　be　often　the　case　where　power　is　intrusted　to　one　or　to　a　few。　　The　privileged　part　of　the　community　will　doubtless　derive　a　certain　degree　of　advantage　from　the　general　prosperity　of　the　state；　but　they　will　derive　a　greater　from　oppression　and　exaction。　　The　king　will　desire　an　useless　war　for　his　glory；　or　a　parc…aux