sible; that is, his history should not consist of separate unconnected parts merely, but should be bound together by some connecting principle, which shall make the impression on the mind of something that is one, whole and entire. It is inconceivable how great an effect this, when happily executed, has upon a reader, and it is surprising that some able writers of history have not attended to it more. Whether pleasure or instruction be the end sought by the study of history, either of them is enjoyed to much greater advantage, when the mind has always before it the progress of some one great plan or system of actions; when there is some point or centre, to which we can refer the various facts related by the historian.

In general histories, which record the affairs of a whole nation or empire throughout several ages, this unity, I confess, must be more imperfect. Yet even there, some degree of it can be preserved by a skilful writer. For though the whole, taken together, be very complex, yet the great constituent parts of it form so many subordinate wholes, when taken by themselves : each of which can be treated both as complete within itself, and as connected with what goes before and follows. In the history of a monarchy, for instance, every reign should have its own unity; a beginning, a middle, and an end, to the system of affairs; while, at the same time, we are taught to discern how that system of affairs rose from the preceding, and how it is inserted into what follows. We should be able to trace all the secret links of the chain, which binds together remote, and seemingly unconnected, events. In some kingdoms of Europe it was the plan of many successive princes to reduce the power of their nobles; and during several reigns, most of the leading actions had a reference to this end. In other states, the rising power of the commons influenced for a tract of time the course and connection 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.

This ap

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. pears 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 subject 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 connection; 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 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 pro

* Καθόλον μὲν γὰρ ἔμοιγε δοκοῦσιν οἱ πεπεισμένοι διὰ τῆς κατὰ μερος ἱστορίας μετρίως συνόψεσθαι τὰ ὅλα, παραπλήσιόν τι πάσχειν, ὡς ἂν ἔι τινες ἐμψύχου καὶ καλοῦ σώματος για γονότος διεῤῥιμμενα τὰ μερη θεώμενοι, νομίζοιεν ἱκανῶς αὐτόπται γίγνεσθαι τῆς ἐνέργειας αὐτοῦ τοῦ ζώου καὶ καλλονῆς. εἰ γάρ τις αὐτικα μάλα συνθεὶς, καὶ τελειον αὖθις ἀπεργασάμενος τὸ ζῶον τῷ τε εἴδει καὶ τῇ τῆς ψυχῆς εὐπρεπεια, κάπειτα πάλιν ἐπιδεικνύοι τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἐκείνοις ταχέως ἂν οἶμαι πάντας αὐτοὺς ὁμολογήσει, διότι καὶ λιαν πολύ τι τῆς ἀληθειας ἀπελείποντο πρόσθεν, καὶ παραπλήσιοι τοῖς ὀνειρώττουσιν ἦσαν, ἔννοιαν μὲν γὰρ λαβεῖν ἀπὸ μέρους τῶν ὅλων δυνατόν· ἐπιστήμην δὲ καὶ γνώμην ἀτρεκῆ ἔχειν ἀδύνατων. διὸ παντελῶς βραχύ τι νομιστέον συμβάλλεσθαι τὴν κατὰ μερος ἱστοριαν πρὸς τὴν ὅλων ἐμπειριαν καὶ πιστιν, ἐκ μενταγι τῆς ἁπάντων πρὸς ἄλληλα συμπλοκῆς καὶ παραθέσεως, ἔτι δ' ὁμοιότητος καὶ διαφορᾶς, μόνως ἄν τις έφίκοιτο καὶ δυνηθείη κατοπτεύσας, ἅμα καὶ τὸ χρήσιμου και το τερπνόν, ἐκ τῆς ἱστο ping λaßiñ.-POLYB. Histor. i. 5.

perly 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 forın some connection 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;

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 Lacedæmonian states, for the empire of Greece. Herodotus loves to dwell on prosperous incidents, and retains somewhat of the amus. ing 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 with Thucydides makes

though, in judgment and accuracy, much inferior to Thucydides. With digressions and episodes he abounds; but when these have any connection 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.

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 acquaint

of his subject, are better founded, and his preference of Herodotus, in this respect is not unjust.—Θουκυδίδης μὲν τοῖς χρόνοις ἀκολουθῶν, Ηρόδοτος δὲ ταῖς περιοχες τῶν πραγμάτων. γίλνεται Θουκυδίδης ἀσαφὴς και δυσπαρακολούθητος" πολλῶν γὰρ κατὰ το αὐτὸ θερος και χειμῶνα γιγνομενων ἐν διαφόροις τόποις, ἡμιτελεῖς τὰς πρώτας πράξεις κατα λιπών, έτερων ἅπτεται τῶν κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ θερος και χειμῶνα γιγνομένων. πλανώμεθα διο καθάπερ εἰκὸς, και δυσκολως τοις δηλουμένοις παρακολοθοῦμεν. Συμβεβηκε Θουκυδίδη μέλη μιαν ὑποθεσιν λαβοντι, πολλὰ ποιῆσαι μερη τὸ ἓν σῶμα· Ηροδότω δε, τὰς πολλὰς και οὐδεν εοικυίας ὑποθεσεις προειλομένω, σύμφωνον ἓν σῶμα πεποιηκεναι. De Præcip. Historic. p 208. 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.

ance 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 occur, 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 long 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 the causes of several of those revolutions that happened in their government; or of their separate connections 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