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 kingdoins 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 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 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 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.*

* Καθύλι μὲν γας έμοιγε δοκοῦσιν οι πεπεισμένοι διὰ της κατα μέρος ισορίας μετρίως συνόψέσθαι τὰ ὁλα, παραπλησίον τι πάσχειν, ὡς ἂν εἴ τινες εμψύχε και καλό σώματος διεῤῥομένα τα μέρη θεώ μενοι, νομίζοιεν ἱκαιως αυτόπται γίγνεσθαι της ενεργείας αυτοῦ το ζώου και καλλονης, εἰ γὰρ τις αυτίκα μαλα συνθείς και τέλειον αυθις ἀπεργασαμενος το ζῶν, τῷ τε εδει δε τῇ της ψυχής ευπρε πέρα, κάπειτα παλιν επιδείκνυοι τοις αυτόις εκείνοις, ταχέως ἄν οἶμαι πάντας αυτούς ὁμολογήσειν διο τι και γίαν του τι τῆς ἀληθείας ἀπέλειπαιτε προσθέν, και παραπλήσιον τοῖς ὀνειρώτλουσιν ἔσαν.

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 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, Dyonysius 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

ἔννοιαν μὲν γὰρ λαβεῖν απο μέρος τῶν ὅλων δυνατόν. ἐπισήμην δε καὶ γνώμην ἀτρεκὴ ἔχειν ἀδύνατον. δύο παντελῶς βραχυ τι νομιςὲον συμβάλλεσθαι τὴν κατὰ μέρος ισορίαν προς τῶν τῶν ὅλων ἐμπειρίαν καὶ πισιν, ἐκ μὲν τοιγε τής απαντον προς άλληλα συμπλοκής καὶ παραθέσεως, ετι δ ̓ ὁμοιότητος καὶ διαφορᾶς μόνως ἄν τις ἐφίκοιλο καὶ δυνηθείη κατεπλευσας ἄμα και το χρήσιμον και το τερπνόν, εκ της ισορίας γαβεῖν. POLYB. Histor. Prim.

* 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 ἀκολόθων, Ηρόδοτος δε ταις περιοχαις των πραγματων, γίγνεται Θεκυδίδης ασαφής και δυσπαρακολύθητος πολλών γαρ κατά το αυτο θέρος καὶ χειμώνα γιγνωμενων εν διαφοραίς τόποις. ἡμιτελείς τας πρίτας αράξεις καταλιπων, ετέρων απτεται των κατά το άκτο θέρος καὶ χειμώνα γιγνομένων. πλανωμεθα δη καθαπερ είκος, και δύσκολος τοῖς δηλωμένοις παρακολυθεμεν. Σημβέβηκε Θεκυδίδη μιαν υπόθεσιν λαβοντι πολλα ποιησαι μέρη το εν σωμα. Ηροδότω δε τας πολλάς και εδεν ενόκυίας υποθέσεις προειλομένω, σύμφωνον εν σώμα πέποι· 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 anti obscure expression, deficient in smoothness and ease

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 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.

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 acquaintaince 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 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 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 of 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 show 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 speculations. He should give us all the information that is necessary for our

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 philosophize 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 occasions, 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 reflections. 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." 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. 64 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 requiring 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, afterward 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."