mons, influenced for a tract of time the course and connexion of public affairs. Among the Romans, the leading principle was a gradual extension of conquest, and the attainment of universal empire. The continual increase of their power, advancing towards this end from small beginnings, and by a sort of regular progressive plan, furnished to Livy a happy subject for historical unity, in the midst of a great variety of transactions. Of all the ancient general historians, the one who had the most exact idea of this quality of historical composition, though, in other respects not an elegant writer, is Polybius. This appears from the account he gives of his own plan in the beginning of his third book; observing that the subject of which he had undertaken to write, is, throughout the whole of it, one action, one great spectacle; how, and by what causes, all the parts of the habitable world became sub ject to the Roman empire. This action,' says he, 'is distinct in its beginning, determined in its duration, and clear in its final accomplishment; therefore, I think it of use, to give a general view beforehand, of the chief constituent parts which make up this whole.' In another place he congratulates himself on his good fortune, in having a subject for history, which allowed such variety of parts to be united under one view; remarking, that before this period, the affairs of the world were scattered, and without connexion; whereas, in the times of which he writes, all the great transactions of the world tended and verged to one point, and were capable of being considered as parts of one system. Whereupon he adds several very judicious observations, concerning the usefulness of writing history upon such a comprehensive, and connected plan; comparing the imperfect degree of knowledge, which is afforded by particular facts, without general views, to the imperfect idea which one would entertain of an animal, who had beheld its separate parts only, without having ever seen its entire form and structure.* Such as write the history of some particular great transaction, as confine themselves to one era, or one portion of the history of a nation, have so great advantages for preserving historical unity, that they are inexcusable if they fail in it. Sallust's histories of the Catilinarian and Jugurthine wars, Xenophon's Cyropodia, and his retreat of the ten thousand, are instances of particular histories, where the unity of historical narration is perfectly well maintained. Thucydides, otherwise a writer of great strength and dignity, has failed much, in this article, in his history of the Peloponnesian war. * Καθύλε μὲν γὰρ ἔμοιγε δοκοῦσιν οι πεπεισμένοι δια της κατα μέρος ισορίας μετρίως συνόψεσθαι τα όλα, παραπλησίον τι πάσχειν, ὡς ἂν ἐι τινες ἐμψύχε και καλά σώματος γεγονότος διεῤῥομένα τα μέρη θεό μενοι, νομίζοιεν ἱκαιῶς αυτόπται γίγνεσθαι της ενεργείας αυτοῦ τε ζώου και καλλονής. ος γὰρ τις αυτίκα μαλα συνθεῖς και τέλειον ἄνθος ἀπεργαςάμενος το ζώον, κῳ τε είδει δε τῇ πῆς ψυχης ευπρεπεία, κάπειτα παλιν επιδεικνυοι τοις αυτοίς εκείνοις, ταχεως ἄν οἶμαι πάντας αυτούς ὁμολογήσειν διο τι και γίαν πολύ τι τῆς ἀληθείας ἀπολείποντο προσθὲν, και παραπλήσιον τοῖς ὀνειρωτλουσιν ἦσαν. ἔννοιαν μὲν γὰς λαβείν απο μερες τῶν ὅλων δυνατόν. ἐπισήμην δε καὶ γνώμην ἀτρεκῆ ἔχειν ἀδύνατον. διο παντελῶς βραχυ τι νομισίον συμβαλλεσθαι τήν κατὰ μέρος ισορίαν προς τῶν τῶν ὅλων Εμπορίαν καὶ πίσιν, ἐκ μέν τοιγε της απαντον προς ἄλληλα συμπλοκής καὶ παραθέσεις, οτι δ' ομοιότητος καὶ διαφορᾶς μόνως ἄν τις ἐφίκοιλο καὶ δυνηθείη κατοπλευσας ἅμα καὶ τι χρήσιμον και το τερπνόν, εκ της ισορίας λαβεῖν. POLYB. Histon Prim. No one great object is properly pursued, and kept in view; but his narration is cut down into small pieces; his history is divided by summers and winters; and we are every now and then leaving transactions unfinished, and are hurried from place to place, from Athens to Sicily, from thence to Peloponnesus, to Corcyra, to Mitylene, that we may be told of what is going on in all these places. We have a great many disjointed parts and scattered limbs, which with difficulty we collect into one body; and through this faulty distribution and management of his subject, that judicious historian becomes more tiresome, and less agreeable than he would otherwise be. For these reasons he is severely censured by one of the best critics of antiquity, Dionysius of Halicarnassus.* The historian must not indeed neglect chronological order, with a view to render his narration agreeable. He must give a distinct account of the dates, and of the coincidence of facts. But he is not under the necessity of breaking off always in the middle of transactions, in order to inform us of what was happening elsewhere at the same time. He discovers no art, if he cannot form some connexion among the affairs which he relates, so as to introduce them in a proper train. He will soon tire the reader, if he goes on recording, in strict chronological order, a multitude of separate transactions, connected by nothing else, but their happening at the same time. Though the history of Herodotus be of greater compass than that of Thucydides, and comprehend a much greater variety of dissimilar parts, he has been more fortunate in joining them together; and digesting them into order. Hence he is a more pleasing writer, and gives a stronger impression of his subject; though, in judgment and * The censure which Dionysius passes upon Thucydides, is, in several articles, carried too far. He blames him for the choice of his subject, as not sufficiently splendid and agreeable, and as abounding too much in crimes and melancholy events, on which he observes that Thucydides loves to dwell. He is partial to Herodotus, whom, both for the choice and the conduct of his subject, he prefers to the other historian. It is true, that the subject of Thucydides wants the gayety and splendour of that of Herodotus; but it is not deficient in dignity. The Peloponnesian war was the contest between two great rival powers, the Athenian and Lacedemonian states, for the empire of Greece. Herodotus loves to dwell on prosperous incidents, and retains somewhat of the amusing manner of the ancient poetical historians; but Herodotus wrote to the imagination. Thucydides writes to the understanding. He was a grave reflecting man, well acquainted with human life; and the melancholy events and catastrophes which he records, are often both the most interesting parts of history, and the most improving to the heart. The critic's observations on the faulty distribution which Thucydides makes of his subject, are better founded, and his preference of Herodotus in this respect is not unjust.—Θεκυδίδης μεν τοις χρόνοις ακολέθων, Ηρόδοτος δε ταις περιοχαις των πραγμάτων, γίγνεται Θεκυδίδης ασαφης και δυσπαρακολοθητος πολλων λας κατά το αυτο θερος καὶ χειμωνα γιγνωμένων εν διαφοραις τόποις, ημιτελείς τας προτας αράξεις καταλίπων, ετέδων απτεται των κατα το αυτο θέρος καὶ χειμωνα γιγνομένων. πλανώμεθα δη καθαπερ εικος, και δυςκόλως τοις δηλωμένοις παρακολεθεμεν. Σημβέβηκε Θεκυδίδη μια ὑποθέειν λαβοντι πολλά ποιηςαι μέρη το εν σωμα. Ηροδότω δε τας πολλας και εδεν ενο κυιας υποθέσεις προειλομένω, συμφωνιν εν σώμα πέποιηκεναι. With regard to style, Dionysius gives Thucydides the just praise of energy and brevity; but censures him on many occasions, not without reason, for harsh and obscure expression, deficient in smoothness and ease. accuracy, much inferior to Thucydides. With digressions and episodes he abounds; but when these have any connexion with the main subject, and are inserted professedly as episodes, the unity of the whole is less violated by them, than by a broken and scattered narration of the principal story. Among the moderns, the President Thuanus has, by attempting to make the history of his own times. too comprehensive, fallen into the same error, of loading the reader with a great variety of unconnected facts, going on together in different parts of the world; an historian otherwise of great probity, candour, and excellent understanding; but through this want of unity, more tedious, and less interesting, than he would otherwise have been. QUESTIONS. WHAT has our author now finished; | tated with much heat, in France? and what has he endeavoured to do? To this day, among men of taste, what What remains to be done? Of this part do we find? What may, therefore, be of the work, what is observed; but of the effect of a few reflections? Whom what is our author sensible? What may we boldly venture to tell, that he will he, therefore, study to do? What has come too late with his discovery? method will he here follow? In former Of the reputation of such writers, what lectures, what has been done; and is observed? What may he be able to what remark follows? On what does point out in their works; and what may our author think it necessary to make he show? But what remark follows? some observations, before he proceeds How is this illustrated? Of matters of farther; and why? Why are these mere reasoning, what is remarked? Acobservations the more necessary; and cording to what, may positions that dewhy may they with propriety be pend upon science, knowledge, and matmade now? What is a remarkable ters of fact, be overturned? For this phenomenon? How is this illustrated? reason, what follows; and what illustraWhat moral causes, for this, are obvi- tion is given? On what does taste deous? But as these have been thought pend? Why is it vain to think of deinadequate to the whole effect, what, ceiving mankind here, as in matters of also, have been assigned; and what has philosophy? Of this remark, what illusbeen done by the Abbé du Bos? But, tration is given? What is it also vain whatever the cause be, what fact is to allege? Of them, what is true? But certain? How many of these happy how came they to gain possession of ages have learned men marked out? colleges and schools? Of the Greek and What is the first, when does it com- Latin, what is observed; and what folmence, and till what time does it ex-lows? To what are the classics not tend? Within this period, whom have indebted for their fame; and in conwe? What is the second; and within sequence of what, did they become the days of whom is it included? Whom classics? What evidence have we of does it afford us? The third age is the this? From this general principle, what restoration of learning, under whom; may we boldly and justly infer? Against and in it, who flourished? The fourth what, however, must we guard? What comprehends what age, and in it, who remark follows? Whatever superiority flourished in France, and in England? the ancients may have had in point of When we speak comparatively of the genius, yet, in what, have the moderns ancients, and the moderns, what do we some advantage? How may the world generally mean by the ancients, and be considered? To what have its imwhat by the moderns? Why must any provements not always been in procomparison between these two classes portion; and why? Yet, when roused of writers, be vague and loose? Upon from this lethargy, what has followwhat is the comparison generally made ed? Some happy genius, arising at to turn? Between whom, was it agi-intervals, would do what? With the advantage of a proper stock of materi-led? What remarks follow? Why als, what can an inferior genius do? ought we, therefore, to read them with Hence, in what have modern philoso a distinguishing eye? After these rephers an unquestionable superiority flections on the ancients and moderns, over the ancients? What is our author to what does our author proceed? What also inclined to think; and to what, is the most general division of the difperhaps, is this owing? Of some studies, ferent kinds of composition? Why do that relate to taste, what is also ob- these require to be separately considerserved? What instance is given? Why ed? With what does our author begin; are we better acquainted with the na- and of what has he already spoken? ture of government? How is this illus- What are the remaining species of trated? Of the more complex kinds of prose compositions; and what shall be poetry, what is observed; and what il-first considered? Of it, what is obserlustration is given? Why do not these ved? What is the office of an historian? points of superiority, extend as far as Of this object, what is remaxed? As might be imagined at first view? To the primary end of history is to record return to our former comparison, what, truth, what are the fundamental qualinot without reason, may be said? What ties of an historian? How is this illusdoes this appear to form? Among the trated? At the same time, what record ancients, what do we find; and what of facts only, is entitled to the name of among the moderns? How is this gene- history? Of the nature of the facts ral remark to be understood; and why? themselves, what is observed? What What is it proper to observe, and what is the great end of history; and for were they? Under what circumstances what is it designed? What remark foldid they return to their own country? lows? What is its object; and what As their knowledge and improvements cost them more labour, what was the consequence? What illustrations follow? Of these testimonies of public regard, what is observed? In our times, how is good writing considered; and what illustration is given? What circumstances have contributed to spread a mediocrity of genius over all writers? What is Sir William Temple's opinion of the effect of the multitude of assistances which we have for all kinds of composition? Repeat the passage here introduced from him. must it not, therefore, be? What are essential characteristics of history; and what should not be employed? What character must the writer sustain? At the same time, with what is historical information not inconsistent? What does it admit; but of it, what is observed? What does historical composition comprehend? Of these, what is remarked? Histories, are of how many kinds; and what are they? In the conduct and management of his subject, what is the first attention requisite in an historian? Of the effect of this, what Among the ancients, for what must is observed; and what remark follows? we look; and to the moderns, for what Where must this unity necessarily be must we have recourse? How do they less perfect? Yet, even there, how does compare in works of taste; and how is it appear, that some degree of it can be this illustrated? In history, what may preserved? How is this remark fully safely be asserted? Of the drama, what illustrated? Of all the ancient general is observed; and of elegies, pastoral historians, who had the most exact idea and lyric poetry, what is said? What of this quality of historical composition? is remarked of the name of Horace? From what does this appear; and in What contributes to render him one of that account, what does he observe? the very few authors whom one never Of this action, what does he say? In tires of reading; and of him, what is another place, on what does he confurther observed? To such as wish to gratulate himself; and what does he form their taste, what is warmly re- remark? Whereupon, he adds what; commended; and for what reason? and what comparison does he introWho has great reason to suspect his duce? Of such as write the history of own taste? And of what is our author some particular great transaction, what persuaded? Who, only, undervalue is observed? What are instances of parthem? At the same time, from what is ticular histories, where the unity of a just and high regard for the prime historical narration is perfectly well writers of antiquity, to be distinguish-maintained? What are the remarks made on Thucydides' history of the 2. ANALYSIS. The ancients and the moderns compared. c. The fallacy of attempting to decry the D. A caution against an implicit veneration for them. E. Favourable circumstances of ancient times. F. Good writing now, not so difficult an attainment. a. The ancient classics recommended. Historical writing. A. The office of an historian. a. Attention to unity. (a.) Instances of its observance. LECTURE XXXVI. HISTORICAL WRITING. AFTER making some observations on the controversy which has been often carried on concerning the comparative merit of the ancients and the moderns, I entered, in the last lecture, on the consideration of historical writing. The general idea of history is, a record of truth for the instruction of mankind. Hence arise the primary qualities required in a good historian, impartiality, fidelity, gravity, and dignity. What I principally considered, was the unity which belongs to this sort of composition; the nature of which I have endeavoured to explain. I proceed next to observe, that in order to fulfil the end of history, the author must study to trace to their springs the actions and events which he records. Two things are especially necessary for his doing this successfully; a thorough acquaintance with human nature, and political knowledge, or acquaintance with government. The former is necessary to account for the conduct of individuals, and to give just views of the character; the latter, to account for the revolutions of government, and the operation of political causes on public affairs. Both must concur, in order to form a complete instructive historian. With regard to the latter article, political knowledge, the ancient writers wanted some advantages which the moderns enjoy; from whom, upon that account, we have a title to expect more accurate and precise information. The world, as I formerly hinted, was more shut up in ancient times, than it is now; there was then less communication among neighbouring states, and, by consequence, less knowledge of one another's affairs; no intercourse by establishing posts, or by ambassadors resident at different courts. The knowledge and materials of the ancient historians, were thereby more limited and circumscribed; and it is to be observed too, that they wrote for their own countrymen only; they |