75
wild, rambles out of the precimfts of nature, andtells of heroes and giants, fairies and enchanters,of events and of phenomena repugnant to uni-verfal experience, to our cleareft and moft diftindtideas, and to all the known laws of nature, reafondoes not connive a moment ; but, far from re-ceiving fuch narrations as hiftorical , fhe rejedtsthem as unworthy to be placed even among thefabulous. Such narrations therefore cannot makethe flighted momentary impreffions on a mindfraught with knowledge, and void of fuperflition.Impofed by authority, and affifted by artifice,the delufion hardly prevails over common fenfe;blind ignorance almoft fees, and ralh fuperflitionliefitates : nothing lefs than enthufmfm and phrenzycan give credit to fuch hiftories, or apply fuchexamples. Don Q,u ixote believed; but evenSan cho doubted.
What I have faid will not be much contro-verted by any man who has read Amadis of Gaul,or has examined our ancient traditions withoutprepoffeffion. The truth is, the principal differencebetween them feems to be this. In Amadis ofGaul, we have a thread of abfurdities that areinvented without any regard to probability, andthat lay no claim to belief: ancient traditions area heap of fables, under which fome particulartruths, infcrutable, and therefore ufelefs to man-kind, may lie concealed; which have a juft‘pre-tence to nothing more, and yet impofe themfelvesupon us, and become, under the venerable name ofancient hiftory, the foundations of modern fables.