But this is not the fault of history：and to convince us that it is not，we need only contrast the true use of history with the use that is made of it by such men as these.We ought always to keep in mind，that history is philosophy teaching by examples how to conduct ourselves in all the situations of private and public life；that therefore we must apply ourselves to it in a philosophical spirit and manner；that we must rise from particular to general knowledge，and that we must fit ourselves for the society and business of mankind by accustoming our minds to reflect and meditate on the characters we find described，and the course of events we find related there.Particular examples may be of use sometimes in particular cases；but the application of them is dangerous.It must be done with the utmost circumspection，or it will be seldom done with success.And yet one would think that this was the principal use of the study of history，by what has been written on the subject.I know not whether Machiavel himself is quite free from defect on this account：he seems to carry the use and application of particular examples sometimes too far.Marius and Catulus passed the Alps，met，and defeated the Cimbri beyond the frontiers of Italy.Is it safe to conclude from hence，that whenever one people is invaded by another，the invaded ought to meet and fight the invaders at a distance from their frontiers？Machiavel's countryman，Guicciardin，was aware of the danger that might arise from such an application of examples.Peter of Medicis had involved himself in great difficulties，when those wars and calamities began which Lewis Sforza first drew and entailed on Italy，by flattering the ambition of Charles the Eighth in order to gratify his own，and calling the French into that country.Peter owed his distress to his folly in departing from the general tenor of conduct his father Laurence had held，and hoped to relieve himself by imitating his father's example in one particular instance.At a time when the wars with the pope and king of Naples had reduced Laurence to circumstances of great danger，he took the resolution of going to Ferdinand，and of treating in person with that prince.The resolution appears in history imprudent and almost desperate：were we informed of the secret reasons on which this great man acted，it would appear very possible a wise and safe measure.It succeeded，and Laurence brought back with him public peace，and private security.As soon as the French troops entered the dominions of Florence，Peter was struck with a panic terror，went to Charles the Eighth，put the port of Leghorn，the fortresses of Pisa，and all the keys of the country，into this prince's hands；whereby he disarmed the Florentine commonwealth，and ruined himself.he was deprived of his authority，and driven out of the city，by the just indignation of the magistrates，and people：and in the treaty which they made afterwards with the king of France，it was stipulated，that Peter should not remain within an hundred miles of the state，nor his brothers within the same distance of the city of Florence.On this occasion Guicciardin observes，how dangerous it is to govern ourselves by particular examples；since to have the same success，we must have the same prudence，and the same fortune；and since the example must not only answer the case before us in general，but in every minute circumstance.This is the sense of that admirable historian，and these are his words --"ésenza dubio molta pericoloso il governarsi con gl'esempi，se non concorrono，non solo in generale，ma in tutti i particulari，le medesime ragioni；se le cose non sono regolate con la medesima prudenza，et se oltre a tutti li altri fondamenti，non，v'ha la parte sua la medesima fortuna."An observation that Boileau makes，and a rule he lays down in speaking of translations，will properly find their place here，and serve to explain still better what I would establish."To translate servilely into modern language an ancient author phrase by phrase，and word by word，is preposterous：nothing can be more unlike the original than such a copy.
It is not to show，it is to disguise the author：and he who has known him only in this dress，would not know him in his own.A good writer，instead of taking this inglorious and unprofitable task upon him，will jouster contre l'original，rather imitate than translate，and rather emulate than imitate；he will transfuse the sense and spirit of the original into his own work，and will endeavor to write as the ancient author would have written，had he written in the same language."Now，to improve by examples is to improve by imitation.We must catch the spirit，if we can，and conform ourselves to the reason of them；but we must not affect to translate servilely into our conduct，if your lordship will allow me the expression，the particular conduct of those good and great men，whose images history sets before us.
