XXIII. This was the reason why Mons. du Haillan, a noble French historian, terminated his general history of France with the reign of Charles the seventh; nor have we a trace of his pen, respecting the monarchs who succeeded immediately after that time. But let us hear what Mons. du Haillan says in the prologue to his history, because it is admirably suited to the subject we are upon. He says, _although we must admit Francis the first was a great and an excellent king, nevertheless, because all the histories which speak of him were written in his own time, or in that of his son Henry, the authors of them were more lavish of their eulogiums of him than his merit deserved, or than were consistent with the obligations they owed to truth as historians; and that this is a vice which all those are apt to fall into who write histories of their own times, or of the princes of whom they are the immediate subjects_. Thus we see, those _who write the history of their own times, are agitated by many passions which seduce them to lie openly, either to favour or blazon their own prince and nation, or to misrepresent and blacken their enemies_. XXIV. The saying of Pescenius Niger, to a man who wanted to repeat to him a panegyric which he had written in his praise, is very applicable to this matter: “Compose,” says he, “panegyrics upon Marius, Hannibal, and other great captains who are dead; for blazoning living emperors, from whom you entertain hopes and expectations, or of whom you stand in fear, favours more of banter than encomium.” SECT. X. XXV. What we have said of those who write the history of their own times, may be applied equally to them who relate the affairs of their own country. These are generally believed to be the best informed, but at the same time their impartiality is the most suspected. So that truth navigates the sea of history, always surrounded by the dangerous rocks of ignorance and prejudice. With respect to many things which are of great importance, and incumbent on an historian to relate, he may want information; with regard to those which he takes an interest in, and looks upon as his own, his prejudices induce him to speak against his conviction. Polybius remarks, that Fabius, a Roman historian, and Philenus a Carthaginian one, are so opposite in their accounts of the Punic war, that, according to the first, all is glorious for the Romans, and ignominious to the Carthaginians; and according to the other directly the contrary.