It is really amusing to observe how he proceeds with his narration when he has no better authority than poor Diodorus.

He is compelled to relate something; yet he believes nothing.

He accompanies every fact with a long statement of objections.

His account of the administration of Dionysius is in no sense a history.

It ought to be entitled--"Historic doubts as to certain events, alleged to have taken place in Sicily." This scepticism, however, like that of some great legal characters almost as sceptical as himself; vanishes whenever his political partialities interfere.