is so plain to Plutarch and Appian, that it is hard to understand how earlier critics deceived themselves. Although Niebuhr acknowledges himself indebted to Heyne on this subject (vol. ii. p. 133, trn.), yet from Niebuhr's language elsewhere, the opinion has gone abroad that he originated this view, and that it need the deep insight of a rare genius.
I will not conceal, that my strong difference from the conclusions of Niebuhr has been a great impulse to the publication of this small volume: but if I were writing in Germany and not in England, no apology would be needed for the avowal. Niebuhr's erudition and untiring ingenuity have given a vast impulse to inquiry: Roman history is better written, in consequence of his labours: but his successors are very far from tying themselves to his results.
Niebuhr often expresses much contempt for mere incredulous criticism and negative conclusions; and he probably would little value the compliment, that he has aided us to get rid of fable and false theory. Yet, wisely to disbeleive, is our first grand requisite, in dealing with materials of mixed worth. When this has been accomplished, a hypothesis to connect and complete the events which remain, may be ventured, and is often convincing. But while we hold
