ress of the world terminated her career.

Montesquieu bewails the fate of a monarch, who is oppressed by a
party that prevails after his fall. His enemies are his historians; and
this reflection is employed in mitigation of the crimes imputed to
Tarquin; but, surely, if true, on that occasion, it is no less so with
respect to Carthage. All the historians that give us the character of the
two nations were Romans and of the victorious party; yet most of
them are more equitable than the historians of modern times, for they
had not seen their own country in its last state of degradation and
misery. Those who now make the comparison have proper materials;
and it is the business of the writers of history to free it from the errors
into which cotemporary =sic= authors fall, whether from prejudice, or
from want of knowing those events which happened after their days.

In the case of the Roman historians, the error arose from a
combination of three different causes. In the first place, they compared
Rome in its healthy days and its vigour, to Carthage in its decline.--
They were, next to that, led into an error, by not knowing that all
countries that have been long rich are liable to the same evils as
Carthage. And, last of all, they wrote with a spirit of party, and a
prediliction =sic= in favour of Rome. These three causes are certain;
and, perhaps, there was another. It is possible they did not dare to
speak the truth, if they did know it.

It is true, that the human mind is not proof against the effect pro-[end
of page #36] duced by what is splendid and brilliant; and that success
in all cases diminishes, and, in some, does away the reproach naturally
attached to criminality. It is also to be admitted, that in the Roman
character there was a degree of courage and magnanimity that
commands admiration, though the end to which it was applied was in
itself detestable. Even in individual life (moral principle apart) there is
something that diminishes the horror attendant on injustice and
rapacity, when accompanied with courage and prodigality.

It is no less true, that the manners of commercial men, though their
views are legitimate and their means fair, are prejudicial to them in the
opinion of others. Individuals, gaining money by commerce, may
sometimes have the splendour and magnanimity of princes; but
nations that depend only on commerce for wealth never can. No
nation, while it continues great or wealthy, can rid itself