rative,
the skilled limner of character, the persuasive advocate of good, or
other, causes, amounts to a transfer of government, to a change of
dynasty, in the historic realm. For the critic is one who, when he
lights on an interesting statement, begins by suspecting it. He
remains in suspense until he has subjected his authority to three
operations. First, he asks whether he has read the passage as the
author wrote it. For the transcriber, and the editor, and the official
or officious censor on the top of the editor, have played strange
tricks, and have much to answer for. And if they are not to blame, it
may turn out that the author wrote his book twice over, that you can
discover the first jet, the progressive variations, things added, and
things struck out. Next is the question where the writer got his
information. If from a previous writer, it can be ascertained, and the
inquiry has to be repeated. If from unpublished papers, they must be
traced, and when the fountain head is reached, or the track
disappears, the question of veracity arises. The responsible writer's
character, his position, antecedents, and probable motives have to be
examined into; and this is what, in a different and adapted sense of
the word, may be called the higher criticism, in comparison with the
servile and often mechanical work of pursuing statements to their
root. For a historian has to be treated as a witness, and not believed
unless his sincerity is established.[61] The maxim that a man must be
presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proved, was not made for
him.

[Sidenote: CRITICAL STUDY OF EARLIER TIMES]

For us then the estimate of authorities, the weighing of testimony, is
more meritorious than the potential discovery of new matter.[62] And
modern history, which is the widest field of application, is not the
best to learn our business in; for it is too wide, and the harvest has
not been winnowed as in antiquity, and further on to the Crusades. It
is better to examine what has been done for questions that are
compact and circumscribed, such as the sources of Plutarch's
_Pericles_, the two tracts on Athenian government, the origin of the
epistle to Diognetus, the date of the life of St. Antony; and to learn
from Schwegler how this analytical work began. More satisfying because
more decisive has been the critical treatment of the mediaeval writers,
parallel with the new editions, on which incredible labour has been
lavished, and