III. In these same great historians, other critics find out other faults. Plutarch observes, that Herodotus is inviduous and spiteful against Greece. It is a general opinion, that he mixed many fables with his history, which he carried to such a length, that there have been some, who, instead of bestowing on him the magnificent epithet of the Father of History, have called him the inventor of fable. Dionysius Halicarnassus denies the language of Xenophon to be splendid or majestic, adding, that whenever he attempts to elevate his stile, he instantly falls off, and shews himself unable to support it. Vossius remarks, that the stile of Polybius is inaccurate; and Father Rapin, that he frequently interrupts the thread of his narration with moral reflections. The same Vossius arraigns the stile of Thucydides, as harsh and full of hyperboles. Erasmus points out some contradictions in Titus Livius; and Asinius Pollio remarks some Patavinian or provincial expressions in his Latin. Many, and with great reason, blame him as a multiplier of prodigies. Aulus Gellius called Sallust _a coiner of words_[1]; and the illustrious Cæno blames him for suffering himself to be warped by his prejudices and dislikes, and for having concealed many of the glorious actions of Cicero, because he was upon ill terms with him. Charles Sigonius thinks the language of Tacitus was trite; and father Causinus says the same thing in other words; father Bayle also detects Henricus Catherinus, in giving certain relations that were contrary to truth. IV. Who, upon the sight of all this, would, without a trembling hand, take up the pen to write a history? Who, upon seeing all these celebrated historians so arraigned, could think himself qualified to escape censure? SECT. II.