which we have lost or rejected for ourselves.  Yet it has been a fatal mistake with the critics.  They found themselves off the recognized ground of Romance and Paganism, and they failed to see the same principles at work, though at work with new materials.  In the records of all human affairs, it cannot be too often insisted on that two kinds of truth run for ever side by side, or rather, crossing in and out with each other, form the warp and the woof of the coloured web which we call history.  The one, the literal and external truths corresponding to the eternal and as yet undiscovered laws of fact:  the other, the truth of feeling and of thought, which embody themselves either in distorted pictures of the external, or in some entirely new creation; sometimes moulding and shaping real history, sometimes taking the form of heroic biography, of tradition, or popular legend; sometimes appearing as recognized fiction in the epic, the drama, or the novel.  It is useless to tell us that this is to confuse truth and falsehood.  We are stating a fact, not a theory, and if it makes truth and falsehood difficult to distinguish, that is nature’s fault, not ours.  Fiction is only false, when it is false, not to fact, else how could it be fiction? but when it is—­to law.  To try it by its correspondence to the real is wretched pedantry; we create as nature creates, by the force which is in us, which refuses to be restrained; we cannot help it, and we are only false when we make monsters, or when we pretend that our inventions are fact, when we substitute truths of one kind for truths of another; when we substitute,—­and again we must say when we intentionally substitute;—­whenever persons, and whenever facts seize strongly hold of the imagination, (and of course when there is anything remarkable in them they must and will do so,) invention glides into the images as they form in us; it must, as it ever has, from the first legends of a cosmogony, to the written life of the great man who died last year or century, or to the latest scientific magazine.  We cannot relate facts as they are, they must first pass through ourselves, and we are more or less than mortal if they gather nothing in the transit.  The great outlines alone lie around us as imperative and constraining; the detail we each fill up variously according to the turn of our sympathies, the extent of our knowledge, or our general theories of things, and therefore it may be said that the only literally true history possible, is the history which mind has left of itself in all the changes through which it has passed.

Suetonius is to the full as extravagant and superstitious as Surius, and Suetonius was most laborious and careful, and was the friend of Tacitus and Pliny; Suetonius gives us prodigies, when Surius has miracles, but that is all the difference; each follows the form of the supernatural which belonged to the genius of his age.  Plutarch writes a life of Lycurgus with details of his childhood, and of the trials and vicissitudes of his age; and the existence of Lycurgus is now quite as questionable as that of St. Patrick or of St. George of England.