the weakness
or wickedness of, say, Robespierre. This sort of thing is pardonable
only when the exposure of some historical character is offensive to the
reigning government, as was the case with the early volumes of Lanfrey's
_Napoleon_. About probably knows the truth about the men of '92 and '93
as well as anybody, but he thinks it desirable that the illusions
respecting them should continue. They are, he says, an important
political factor. Whereas Taine, like the late MM. Lanfrey and De
Tocqueville, loving truth for its own sake, slashes away without caring
for the practical result. I was told by an intimate and lifelong friend
of both men that it had required the most persistent efforts of persons
situated like himself to prevent About's sharply attacking Taine in his
paper (since the appearance of _La Revolution_ the radicals have favored
its author with the epithet of "reactionnaire"); in which case a rupture
would have been unavoidable.

Taine does not like German historians nor German methods of working up
history, and he absolutely denies what, to my mind, is their greatest
and most unrivalled excellence--their relative impartiality. Mommsen was
the subject of unsparing denunciation, as having used Roman history as a
mannikin by which he could illustrate certain views on contemporary
German politics. Mommsen is an author of whom I know little, but there
is another German historian, Von Sybel, who seems to me the most
admirable writer in this department with whom I am acquainted; and as
his great work partially covers the same period to which Taine has
recently devoted himself, I ventured to mention his name in this
connection. But I might as well have stirred up a hornet's nest. "Von
Sybel," said Taine, "wrote his book to prove that Prussia was perfectly
right in taking part in the partition of Poland, and some other things
of like nature." He seemed to think this assertion (admitting its truth)
settled Von Sybel's place in literature as definitely as if he had said
he had written a book to prove Friedrich II. to have been the son of
Jupiter or that the Prussians were God's chosen people. One would have
supposed that the fact of a man's holding such an opinion in regard to
the partition of Poland sufficient evidence for sending him to a lunatic
asylum, although most people believe it to be a perfectly established
historic truth. Taine would not even admit the excellence of Von Sybel's
style--well enough, he s