Such as write the history of some particular great transaction, as confine themselves to one æra, 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 Cyropædia, and his retreat of the ten thousand, are instances of particular histories, where the unity of historical object 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. 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 και γίαν πολυ τι τῆς ἀληθείας ἀπελείποντο προσθὲν, καὶ παραπλήσιον τοῖς ὀνειρώτ τουσιν ἦσαν. ἔννοιαν μὲν γαρ λαβειν απο μέρος των ολων δυνατόν. επιζήμην σε καὶ γνώμην ἀτρεπῆ ἔχειν ἀδύνατον διο παντελῶς βραχυ τι νομιζέον συμβαλλεσθαι τὴν κατὰ μέρος ιςορίαν προς τήν τῶν ὅλων ἐμπιερίαν καὶ πίςιν ἐκ μέν τοιγε τής απαντον προς άλλεγα συμπλοκης καὶ παραθέσεις, ετι δ' ὁμοιότητος καὶ διαφορὰς μόνως ἄν τις ἐφίκοιτο καὶ δυνηθείη κατοπτευσας άμα καὶ το χρήσιμον καὶ το τερπνόν εκ της ίςορίας γαβείν.

* 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 gaiety 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. Θεκυδιδες μεν τοις χρόνοις ἀκολύθων. Ἡρόδοτος δε ταις περιοχαις των πραγμάτων, γιγνεται Θεκυδιδής άσαφης και δυσπαρακολύθητος· πολλον γαρ κατα το αυτο θερος καὶ χειμωνα γεγνωμένων εν διαφοραις τόποις, ἡμιτελείς τας πρότας πράξεις καταλιπών, ετέρων άπτεται των κατά το αυτο θέρος καὶ χειμώνα γιγνομένων πλανώμεθα δη και καθαπε είκος, και δυςκόλως τοις δηλομενοις παρακολυθεμεν. Συμβιβκε Θεκυδιδη μιαν ὑποθέσιν γαβοντι πολλα ποιησαι μερη το εν σωμα. Ηροδότω δε τας πολλας και και δεν ενοχυίας υποθέσεις προειλομένω σύμφωνον εν σώμα πεποιηκεναι With regard to style, Dionysius gives Thucydides the just praise of energy and brevity; but cen sures him, on many occasions, not without reason, for harsh and obscure expression deficient in smoothness and ease.

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 cronological 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 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 be would otherwise have been.

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 their 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 completely 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 established posts, or by ambassadors resident

at distant 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 had no idea of writing for the instruction of foreigners, whom they despised, or of the world in general; and hence, they are less attentive to convey all that knowledge with regard to domestic policy, which we, in distant times, would desire to have learned from them. Perhaps also, though in ancient ages men were abundantly animated with the love of liberty, yet the full extent of the influence of government, and of political causes, was not then so thoroughly scrutinized, as it has been in modern times; when a longer experience of all the different modes of government, has rendered men more enlightened and intelligent, with respect to public affairs.

To these reasons it is owing, that though the ancient historians set before us the particular facts which they relate, in a very distinct and beautiful manner, yet sometimes they do not give us a clear view of all the political causes, which affected the situation of affairs of which they treat. From the Greek historians, we are able to form but an imperfect notion of the strength, the wealth, and the revenues of the different Grecian states; of several of those revolutions that happened in their government; or of their separate connexions and interfering interests. In writing the history of the Romans, Livy had surely the most ample field for displaying political knowledge concerning the rise of their greatness, and the advantages or defects of their government. Yet the instruction in these important articles, which he affords, is not considerable. An elegant writer he is, and a beautiful relator of facts, if ever there was one; but by no means distinguished for profoundness or penetration. Sallust, when writing the history of a conspiracy against the government, which ought to have been altogether a political history, has evidently attended more to the elegance of narration, and the painting of characters, than to the unfolding of secret causes and springs. Instead of that complete information, which we would naturally have expected from him of the state of parties in Rome, and of that particular conjuncture of affairs, which enabled so desperate a profligate as Catiline to become so formidable to government, he has given us little more than a general declamatory account of the luxury and corruption of manners in that age, compared with the simplicity of former times.

I by no means, however, mean to censure all the ancient historians as defective in political information. No historians can be more instructive than Thucydides, Polybius and Tacitus. Thucydides is grave, intelligent, and judicious; always attentive to give very exact information concerning every operation which he relates; and to shew the advantages or disadvantages of every plan that was proposed, and every measure that was pursued. Polybius excels in comprehensive political views, in penetration into great systems, and in his profound and distinct knowledge of all military affairs. Tacitus is eminent for his knowledge of the human heart; is sentimental and refined in a high degree; conveys much instruction with respect to political matters, but more with respect to human nature.

But when we demand from the historian profound and instructive views of his subject, it is not meant that he should be frequently interrupting the course of his history, with his own reflections and specula tions. He should give us all the information that is necessary for o

fully understanding the affairs which he records. He should make us acquainted with the political constitution, the force, the revenues, the internal state of the country of which he writes; and with its interests and connexions in respect of neighbouring countries. He should place us, as on an elevated station, whence we may have an extensive prospect of all the causes that co-operate in bringing forward the events which are related. But having put into our hands all the proper materials for judgment, he should not be too prodigal of his own opinions and reasonings. When an historian is much given to dissertation, and is ready to philosophise and speculate on all that he records, a suspicion naturally arises, that he will be in hazard of adapting his narrative of facts to favour some system which he has formed to himself. It is rather by fair and judicious narration that history should instruct us, than by delivering instruction in an avowed and direct manner. On some occa sions when doubtful points require to be scrutinized, or when some great event is in agitation, concerning the causes or circumstances of which mankind have been much divided, the narrative may be allowed to stand still for a little; the historian may appear, and may with propriety enter into some weighty discussion. But he must take care not to cloy his readers with such discussions, by repeating them too often.

When observations are to be made concerning human nature in general, or the peculiarities of certain characters, if the historian can artfully incorporate such observations with his narrative, they will have a better effect than when they are delivered as formal detached reflec tions. For instance: in the life of Agricola, Tacitus, speaking of Domitian's treatment of Agricola, makes this observation: Proprium humani ingenii est, odisse quem læseris.* The observation is just and well applied; but the form, in which it stands, is abstract and philosophical. A thought of the same kind has a finer effect elsewhere in the same historian, when speaking of the jealousies which Germanicus knew to be entertained against him by Livia and Tiberius: Anxius,' says he, occultis in se patrui aviæque odiis, quorum causæ acriores quia iniquæ.'t Here a profound moral observation is made; but it is made, without the appearance of making it in form; it is introduced as a part of the narration, in assigning a reason for the anxiety of Germanicus. We have another instance of the same kind, in the account which he gives of a mutiny raised against Rufus, who was a Præfectus Castorum,' on account of the severe labour which he imposed on the soldiers. Quippe Rufus, diu manipularis, dein centurio, mox castris præfectus, antiquam duramque militiam revocabat, vetus operis et laboris, et eo immitior quia toleraverat.' There was room for turning this into a general observation, that they who had been educated and hardened in toils, are commonly found to be the most severe in requir ing the like toils from others. But the manner in which Tacitus introduces this sentiment as a stroke in the character of Rufus, gives it much more life and spirit. This historian has a particular talent of intermix

'It belongs to human nature to hate the man whom you have injured.' Uneasy in his mind, on account of the concealed hatred entertained against him by his uncle and grandmother, which was the more bitter because the cause of it was unjust.'

For Rufus, who had long been a common soldier, afterwards a centurion, and at length a general officer, restored the severe military discipline of ancient times. Grown old amidst toils and labours, he was the more rigid in imposing them, because he had been accustomed to bear them.'

359

ing after this manner, with the course of his narrative, many striking sentiments and uesful observations.

Let us next proceed to consider the proper qualities of historical narration. It is obvious, that on the manner of narration, much must depend, as the first notion of history is the recital of past facts; and how much one mode of recital may be preferable to another, we shall soon be convinced, by thinking of the different effects, which the same story, when told by two different persons, is found to produce.

The first virtue of historical narration, is clearness, order, and due connexion. To attain this, the historian must be completely master of his subject; he must see the whole as at one view; and comprehend the chain and dependence of all its parts, that he may introduce every thing in its proper place; that he may lead us smoothly along the track of affairs which are recorded, and may always give us the satisfaction of seeing how one event arises out of another. Without this, there can be neither pleasure nor instruction, in reading history. Much for this end will depend on the observance of that unity in the genera! plan and conduct, which, in the preceding lecture, I recommended. Much too will depend on the proper management of transitions, which forms one of the chief ornaments of this kind of writing, and is one of the most difficult in execution. Nothing tries an historian's abilities more, than so to lay his train beforehand, as to make us pass naturally and agreeably from one part of his subject to another; to employ no clumsy and awkward junctures; and to contrive ways and means of forming some union among transactions, which seem to be most widely separated from one another. In the next place, as history is a very dignified species of composition, gravity must always be maintained in the narration. There must be no meanness nor vulgarity in the style; no quaint nor colloquial phrases ; no affectation of pertness, or of wit. The smart, or the sneering manner of telling a story, is inconsistent with the historical character. I do not say, that an historian is never to let himself down. He may sometimes do it with propriety, in order to diversify the strain of his narration, which, if it be perfectly uniform, is apt to become tiresome. But he should be careful never to descend too far; and, on occasions where a light or ludicrous anecdote is proper to be recorded, it is generally better to throw it into a note, than to hazard becoming too familiar, by introducing it into the body of the work.

But an historian may profess these qualities of being perspicuous, distinct, and grave, and may notwithstanding be a dull writer; in which case, we shall reap little benefit from his labours. We shall read him without pleasure; or, most probably, we shall soon give over reading him at all. He must therefore study to render his narration interesting; which is the quality that chiefly distinguishes a writer of genius and eloquence.

T'wo things are especially conducive to this; the first is, a just medium in the conduct of narration, between a rapid or crowded recital of facts, and a prolix detail. The former embarrasses, and the latter tires us. An historian that would interest us, must know when to be concise, and where he ought to enlarge; passing concisely over slight and unimportant events, but dwelling on such as are striking and considerable in their nature, or pregnant with consequences; preparing beforehand our attention to them, and bringing them forth into the most full and conspicuous light. The next thing he must attend to, is a proper selection of the