poet started as he was, in his ordinary
garments, with unpowdered hair, wearing his little skull-cap and felt
shoes. The meeting was therefore most dramatic. The dancing almost
ceased when Napoleon advanced to meet his visitor, for the company
crowded in a wide circle to look on and catch what they might hear.
But the conversation was in a low tone.

Wieland would never tell or write what was said, and we know only
enough to feel that the great soldier's words were worthy both of his
genius and of the occasion. He had treated the German nobility with
haughtiness; this plain scholar he treated as an equal. Speaking of
the ancients, and defending the Caesars against Tacitus, he discussed
the rise of Christianity and emphasized the value of all religions in
conserving morals. The poet replied, when needful, in broken French,
but soon felt at his ease, for the Emperor seemed disposed to engross
the conversation, and in the manner of the times proposed questions.
"Which of your works do you prefer?" Wieland disclaimed merit for any,
but, under urgency, confessed that he liked best his "Agathon" and
"Oberon." Then Napoleon asked the stock query which he so often put to
scholars and men of letters: "Which has been the happiest age of
humanity?" "Impossible to give a reply," said the poet; "good and
evil, virtue and vice, continually alternate; philosophy must
emphasize the good and make the evil tolerable." "Admirable!
admirable!" said Napoleon; "it is not just to paint everything dark,
like Tacitus. He is certainly a skilful artist, a bold, seductive
colorist, but above all he aims at effect. History wants no illusions;
it should illuminate and instruct, not merely give descriptions and
narratives which impress us. Tacitus did not sufficiently develop the
causes and inner springs of events. He did not sufficiently study the
mystery of facts and thoughts, did not sufficiently investigate and
scrutinize their connection, to give posterity a just and impartial
opinion. History, as I understand it, should know how to catch men and
peoples as they would appear in the midst of their epoch. It should
take account of external circumstances which would necessarily
exercise an important influence on their actions, and clearly see
within what limits that influence wrought. The Roman emperors were not
so bad as Tacitus describes them. Therefore I am forced to prefer
Montesquieu; he is more just, and his criticism is closer to the
truth.