XVIII. _For the purpose of preserving nice order in a history_ (says the before-quoted Archbishop of Cambray), _it would be necessary that the writer, before he takes pen in hand, should have the whole scope of the undertaking collected together in his imagination; that he should be able to discern the whole extension of it at a glance; and that he should turn it over and over in his mind, till he can fix on the just point of view in which to exhibit it. All this, to the end that he may preserve its unity, and derive, as from one source only, all the principal events of which it is composed._ And a little lower he says: _A historian of genius, out of twenty stations, will chuse the most opportune wherein to introduce a fact, so that by being placed in that situation, it will throw a light upon many others. Sometimes, by anticipating the relation of an event, you will facilitate the understanding of others, which preceded it in point of date; and at other times, another will appear to better advantage, by the account of it being postponed._ This is all very well observed, and all tends to shew the great difficulties there are in writing a history with propriety. SECT. VIII. XIX. But the most arduous part lies in ascertaining what is of the most importance of all, which is the truth. A great modern critic said, very justly, that it is very frequent for historical truth to be as impenetrable as philosophical. The last lies hid in the well of Democritus; the first is either buried in the sepulchre of oblivion, is obscured by the clouds of doubt, or has retired behind the shoulders of fable. I believe we may apply to history the remark of Virgil upon fame, for they are nearly allied, and the first, very frequently, the child of the latter. _Tam facti, pravique tenax, quam nuntia veri._ XX. From hence, some have taken occasion to distrust the best attested histories, and others have had the audacity to doubt the most certain informations. That famous philosopher Campanela said, he doubted whether there ever was such an emperor in the world as Charles the fifth; and Charles Sorrel not only denied that Pharamond conquered the kingdom of France, but also doubted his existence. In the republic of letters, they give an account of a man who had assured Vossius, that he had wrote a treatise, in which he had proved with invincible arguments, that all Cæsar said in his Commentaries, relating to his wars in Gaul, was false; for that he had incontestably demonstrated, that Cæsar never passed the Alps. An anonymous writer, before a hundred years had elapsed after the death of Henry the third of France, had the rashness to affirm, in a book, intitled “la Fatilité de Saint Cloud,” that Jacob Clement did not put that prince to death. Such monstrous instances of distrust, and audacity, does the uncertainty of history produce. SECT. IX.