composed not three centuries ago, but yesterday--or even to-morrow; so
modern is its note.

Hearken to these weighty words:

"Portraiture of characters and events should take the form of one
gentleman conversing with another, in the easy tone of good society.
The author who sets out to address a crowd defeats his own object; he
eliminates the essence of good writing--frankness. You cannot be frank
with men of low condition. You must presuppose a refined and congenial
listener, a man or woman whom you would not hesitate to take by the
hand and lead into the circle of your own personal friends. If this
applies to literature of every kind, it applies to history in a
peculiar degree.

"History deals with situations and figures not imaginary but real. It
demands therefore a combination of qualities unnecessary to the poet or
writer of romance--glacial judgment coupled with fervent sympathy. The
poet may be an inspired illiterate, the romance-writer an uninspired
hack. Under no circumstances can either of them be accused of wronging
or deceiving the public, however incongruous their efforts. They write
well or badly, and there the matter ends. The historian, who fails in
his duty, deceives the reader and wrongs the dead. A man weighted with
such responsibilities is deserving of an audience more than usually
select--an audience of his equals, men of the world. No vulgarian can be
admitted to share those confidences. . . .

"The Greeks figured forth a Muse of History; they dared express their
opinions. Genesis, that ancient barrier, did not exist for them. It
stands in the way of the modern historian; it involves him in a