ctures with the word Goldsmith after his name, whilst he engraved
Painter on his golden crucifixes.

The true historian, therefore, seeking to compose a true picture of the
thing acted, must collect facts, select facts, and combine facts. Methods
will differ, styles will differ. Nobody ever does anything exactly like
anybody else; but the end in view is generally the same, and the
historian's end is truthful narration. Maxims he will have, if he is
wise, never a one; and as for a moral, if he tell his story well, it will
need none; if he tell it ill, it will deserve none.

The stream of narrative flowing swiftly, as it does, over the jagged
rocks of human destiny, must often be turbulent and tossed; it is,
therefore, all the more the duty of every good citizen to keep it as
undefiled as possible, and to do what in him lies to prevent peripatetic
philosophers on the banks from throwing their theories into it, either
dead ones to decay, or living ones to drown. Let the philosophers
ventilate their theories, construct their blow-holes, extract their
essences, discuss their maxims, and point their morals as much as they
will; but let them do so apart. History must not lose her Muse, or 'take
to her bosom doubts, queries, essays, dissertations, some of which ought
to go before her, some to follow, and all to stand apart.' Let us at all
events secure our narrative first--sermons and philosophy the day after.

CHARLES LAMB. {204}

Mr. Walter Bagehot preferred Hazlitt to Lamb, reckoning the former much
the greater writer. The preferences of such a man as Bagehot are not to
be lightly disregarded, least of all when their sincerity is vouched for,
as in the present case, by half a hundred quotations from the favoured
author. Certainly no writer repays a literary man's devotion better than
Hazlitt, of whose twenty seldom read volumes hardly a page but glitters
with quotable matter; the true ore, to be had for the cost of cartage.
You may live like a gentleman for a twelvemonth on Hazlitt's ideas.
Opinions, no doubt, differ as to how many quotations a writer is entitled
to; but, for my part, I like to see an author leap-frog into his subject
over the back of a brother.

I do not remember whether Bagehot has anywhere given his reasons for his
preference--the open avowal whereof drove Crabb Robinson well-nigh
distracted; and it is always rash to find reasons for a faith you do not
share; but probably they partook