The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• Preface
• Key to Abbreviations and References
• Introduction
• 1.: The Manuscript
• 2.: The Lectures
• 3.: Considerations Concerning the First Formation of Languages
• 4.: Rhetoric and Literary Criticism
• 5.: System and Aesthetics
• Bibliographical Note
• Lectures On Rhetoric and Belles Lettres: Lecture 2D.
• Lecture 3D.: Of the Origin and Progress of Language 1
• Lecture 4tha
• Lecture 5. A
• Lecture 6.THA: Of What Is Called the Tropes and Figures of Speech. B
• Lecture. 7. A
• Lecture. 8. A
• Lecture. 9tha
• Lecture. 10tha
• Lecture. 11 a
• Lecture. 12.THA: Of Composition
• Lecture. 13 a
• | Lecture. 14 a
• Lecture 15tha
• Lecture. 16th. a
• Lecture XVII. A
• Lecture Xviii a
• Lecture. Xixth. a
• Lecture. XX.THA
• Lecture Xxist. a
• Lecture Xxiida
• Lecture Xxiiida
• Lecture Xxivtha
• Lecture XXV. A
• Lecture Xxvitha
• Lecture Xxvii a
• Lecture Xxviiitha
• Lecture Xxix a
• Lecture. Xxx a
• Considerations Concerning the First Formation of Languages,&c. &c.1
• Appendix 1 (see P. 32) the Bee, Or Literary Weekly Intelligencer, For Wednesday, May 11, 1791.
• Appendix 2 Table of Corresponding Passages

Lecture XVIII ^a

Friday Jan.^ry 7. 1763

{The order in which I proposed to treat of historicall Composition was first to treat of the End; next of the means of accomplishing that End, of [of] the Materialls of hi<s>tory; next of the arrangement of these materials; next of the Expression; and lastly of those who have most excelled in this Subject} ^b

The next thing in order that comes to be considered with regard to historicall composition is the arangement in which the severall parts of the narration are to be placed. In generall the narration is to be carried on in the same order ^c as that in which the events themselves happened. The mind naturally conceives that the facts happened in the order they are related, and when they are by this means suited to our naturall conceptions the notion we form of them is by that means rendered more distinct. This rule is quite evident and accordingly few Historians have tresspassed against it.

But when severall of the events that are to be related happened in different places at the same time, the difficulty ^din this case is to determine in what order they are^d to be related:—The best method is ^e to observe the connection of place, that is ^f relate those that happen’d in the same place for some considerable succession of time | 32 without interrupting the thread of the narration by introducing those that happened in a different place. ’Tis in this manner that Herodotus after having followed the course of events in one Country to some remarkable Æra passes on to those that happend during a Period nearly of the same length in another country, Resuming afterwards the former by itself where he had left it off.

But tho the connection of time and place are very strong, yet they are not to be so invariably observed as to supercede the observance of all others. There is another connection still more striking than any of the former, I mean that of cause and Effect. ^g There is no connection with which we are so much interested as this of cause and effect; we are not satisfied when we have a fact told us which we are at a loss to conceive what it was that brought it about. Now there is often such a connection betwixt the facts that have happend at different ^h times in different | 33 countries ⁱ that the one can not be explaind distinct from the other. They would appear altogether unintelligible unless those which produced them were also understood. The Difficulty of Accommodating the explaining the causes that have produced the different events with the distinctness which is necessary to give one a clear notion of any one series of events, has lead different authors into error in ^j both the distinctness of events and the connection of causes with events. Diodorus 1 of Halicarnassus {accuses Thucidides} ^k of having adhered so much to the connection of time that the different events he relates to have happen’d in different places at the same time are so jumbled together that it is impossible to form a distinct notion of what passed in any one place. This observation ^l of the Halicarnassian is not perhaps altogether just with regard to Thucydides. The History he writes is that of a war; and the events of one campaign in each place he narrates by themselves; this period is not so short but one may form a distinct enough | 34 notion of the Events that happen’d in each place. The Criticism may however serve to shew what disadvantages would attend the writing a history with too close an attention to the connection of time. Had Thycydides chosen much shorter periods, as a month, which the compilers of the history of Europe 2 a work publishd some Years ago did, no one could form any conception of the events any more than from a chronologicall table.

Mr Rapin 3 on the other hand having adhered too much to the connection of Place has often rendered the causes of the events altogether obscure. In his account of the Saxon Heptarchy, he relates the whole affairs of each of those seperate states by themselves, in one continued account from their first establishment till their subversion by the West Saxons. The transactions that pass in any of these are so connected with what passed | 35 at the same time or a little befor<e> in another part of England that one can not perceive by what means they were brought about unless he is before informed of what passed in the neighbouring states. So that one can not form any notions of the history of any one of these till he has read thro the whole severall times and that with no small attention. The same may be observed of his account of the disputes betwixt the people and King Charles the 1^st. which for distinctness sake as he says he relates in the same manner, and the obscurity and incoherence ^m that follows it is still greater as the affairs are still more nearly connected. {For distinctness sake says he I will relate separately the affair of the Bishops, of the Militia and of the Earl of Stafford. These are unluckily so Interwoven that to understand what is done in one of them we must know what is doing in the others} ⁿ

The best method therefore is to adhere to the succession of time as long as it does not introduce an inconvenience from the want of connection; and that when there are a number of simultaneous events to be related we should relate by themselves those that happen’d in each place, recapitulating under each those concerning the others so | 36 far as is necessary to keep up the connection betwixt the Cause and the event, and place the former always in order before the latter.

I shall only observe two things farther with regard to the arangement of the narration; the 1^st Is, That there is an other way of keeping up the connection besides the two abovementioned; That is, the Poeticall method, which connects the different facts ^o by some slight circumstances which often had nothing in the bringing about the series of the events, or by some relation that appears betwixt them. ^p This is the method which Livy generally has made use of, and to such good purpose that he has never been condemned for want of connection. {Thucydides ^q on the other hand never observes any sort of connection in the circumstances he brings in. Those mentioned in his description of the battle in the night 4 would do equally well in whatever order they were placed ^r . Tacitus 5 describing the distress an army was in says; They were without tents and in want of bandages.— — —}

The 2^d is that, We should never leave any chasm ^s or Gap in the thread of the narration even tho there are no remarkable events to fill up that space. The very notion of a gap makes us uneasy for what should have happened in that time. Taci| 37tus is often guilty of this fault. He tells us that the army of Germanicus ^t being attacked in their camp gained a great victory over the enemy; this is in the middle of Germany and in the next sentence we find them across the Rhine, supported by the assiduity and Care of Agrippina when they were in the utmost hazard.— — —

I shall now proceed to make some observations on the Manner in which the narration is to be expressed and the difference betwixt the didactick ^u , oratoricall and the Historicall Stile.

An historian as well as an orator may excite our love or esteem for the persons he treats of ^v , but then the methods they take are very different. The Rhetorician will not barely set forth the character of a person as it realy existed but will magnify every particular that may tend to excite the Strongest emotions in us. He will also seem to be deeply affected with | 38 that affection which he would have us feel towards any object. He will exclaim, for example, on the amiable Character, the sweet temper and behaviour of the man towards whom he would have us to feel those affections. The Historian on the conterary can only excite our affection by the narration of the facts and setting them in as interesting a view as he possibly can. But all exclamations in his own person would not suit with the impartiality he is to maintain and the design he is to have in view of narrating facts as they are without magnifying them or diminishing them.—An historian in the same way may excite grief or compassion but only by narrating facts which excite those feelings; whereas the orator heightens every incident and pretends at least to be deeply affected by them himself, often exclaiming on the wretched condition of those he talks of etc.—{I could almost say damn it} ^w

| 39 ^x Few historians accordingly have run in this error. Tacitus indeed has a ^y passionate exclamation in the latter part of his character of Agricola. 6 The Elder Pliny too has severall times been guilty of this foolish affectation as it certainly is in him who in other respects is a very grave author, and the more so on the subject he writes on, which is naturall history, a subject which tho’ it may be very amusing does not appear ^z to be very animating. ^a Besides these there is no historian who has used them unless it be Valerius maximus, 7 and Florus (if he deserves the name of a historian) who is full of them from the beginning to the end.

As ^b the historian is not to make use of the Oratoricall Stile so neither has he any occ[c]asion for the didactick. It is not his business to bring proofs for propositions but to narrate facts. The only thing he can be under any | 40 necessity of proving is the events he relates. The best way in this case is not to set a labourd and formall demonstration but barely mentioning the authorities on both sides, to shew for what reason ^c he had chosen to be of the one opinion rather than of the other. Long demonstrations as they are no part of the historians province are seldom made use of by the ancients. The modern authors have often brought them in. Historicall truths are now in much greater request than they ever were in the ancient times. One thing that has contributed to the increase of this curiosity is that there are now severall sects in Religion and politicall disputes which are greatly dependent on the truth of certain facts. This it is that has induced almost all historians for some time past to be at great pains in the proof of those facts on which the claims of the parties they favoured depended. These proofs however besides that they are inconsistent with the historicall stile, are likewise of bad con| 41sequence as they interrupt the thread of the narration, and that most commonly in the ^d parts that are most interesting. They withdraw our attention from the main facts, and before we can get thro them they have so far weaken<ed> our concern for the issue of the affair that was broke off that we are never again so much interested in them.

| v.39 {The Dissertations which are everywhere interwoven into Modern Histories contribute among other things and that not a little to render them less interesting than those wrote by the Antients. To avoid a dissertation about the Truth of a Fact a Historian might first Relate the Event according to the most likely opinion and when he had done so give the others by saying that such or such a Circumstance had occasiond such or such a mistake or that such a ^e misrepresentation had been propagated by such a person for such Ends. This would be making a fact of it. The Truth and Evidence of Historicall facts is now in much more request and more critically Examined than among the Antients because of all the Numerous Sects among us whether Civil or | v.40 Religious, there is hardly one the reasonableness of whose Tenets does not depend on some historicall fact} ^f

Besides no fact that is called in question interests us so much or makes so lasting impression, as those of whose truth ^g we are altogether satisfied. Now all proofs of this sort show that the matter is somewhat dubious; so that on the whole it would be more proper to narrate these facts without mentioning the doubt, than to bring in any long proof.

The same objections that have been mentioned against Long Demonstrations hold equally against Reflexions and observations that exceed the length of too or three sentences. If one was to point out to us some interesting spectacle, it would surely be very disagreable in the most engaging part to interupt us and turn our attention from it by desiring us to attend | 42 to the fine contrivance of the parts of the object or the admirable exactness with which the whole was carried on. We would be uneasy by being thus withdrawn from what we were so much concerned in. The historian who brings in long reflections acts precisely in the same manner, he withdraws us from the most interesting part of the narration; and in such interruptions we [we] always imagine that we lose some part of the transaction; Tho’ the narration is broken off we cannot conceive that the action is interrupted. The short Reflexions and observations made use of by The Cardinal de Rhetz and by Tacitus are not liable to the same objections. Of these Two ^h Tacitus has evidently the superiority; his observations do not stand out from the narration but often appear to make a part of it, whereas those of the Cardinall, tho not too long are intirely separate from the narration.

{I saw, says the Cardinall, 8 the whole extent of my danger and I saw nothing but what was terrible. There is in great dangers a Certain charm etc. etc.} ⁱ

Speeches interspersed in the narration do not appea<r> | 43 so faulty (tho they may be of considerable length) as long observations or Rhetoricall declamations. The Stile inde<e>d is altogether different from that of the Historian as they are oratoricall compositions; But then they are not in the authors own person, and therefore do not contradict the impartiality he is to maintain. Neither do they interrupt the thread of the narration as they are not considered as the authors, but make a part of the facts related. They give also an opportunity of introducing those observations and reflections which we observed are not so properly made in the person of the writer. Livy often makes this use of them; Thus he introduces his reflection on the hazard, the importance and generosity of the undertaking of the Fabii 9 not in his own person but by making their design the subject of ^j Debate in the Senate; which also adds to the sentiments he would inspire us with.

The only objection then that can be made against the using speeches in this manner is, That tho they be represented as facts, they are not genuine ones. But ^k neither does <he> desire you to consider | 44 them as such, but only as being brought in to illustrate the narration.

{Not a word more can I remember} ^l

[a]MS XVII

[b]Hand B

[c]replaces manner

[d–d]numbers written above change original order is to determine in what order they are, in this case

[e]to relate those then deleted

[f]that is replaces and

[g]Hand B replacing Hand A’s Event

[h]or at the deleted

[i]replaces times in the catchword on 32

[j]MS is

[1 ]For Dionysius. The comparison of Thucydides and Herodotus is in the Epistula ad Pompeium, ch. iii (The Three Literary Letters, ed. W. R. Roberts: on the order of events, pp. 111 131: cf. On Thucydides, 9 (The Critical Essays, LCL, 1974: i.480 ff.).

[k]inserted by Hand B above the line

[l]replaces criticism

[2 ]Not identified.

[3 ]Paul de Rapin Thoyras (1661–1725): Histoire d’Angleterre, i (1724), 147 275, 475 525 (Bk 3. the Heptarchy; and ‘Dissertation sur le Gouvernement . . . des Anglo–Saxons’); viii (1725), I 724 (Bks 20–21, from 1640 to 1649).

[m]last three words replace and confusion

[n]Hand B

[o]different facts replaces events

[p]last eight words added vertically in margin

[q]Hand B replacing Hand A’s Tacitus (deleted)

[4 ]See ii.23 n.5 above.

[r]In an other place he says describing deleted

[5 ]Annales, I.lxv: ‘non tentoria manipulís, non fomenta sauciis’. The army of Germanicus: I.lxviii–lxix.

[s]in added to chas in different ink

[t]inserted by Hand B in blank left

[u]inserted by Hand B above the line

[v]but we deleted

[w]Hand B(?) at foot of 38

[x]An historian again never enters into deleted

[y]MS an, n deleted; passionate added above the line

[6 ]‘Bonum virum facile crederes, magnum libenter’ (Agricola, xliv, quoted at i.199 above); or ‘consulari ac triumphalibus ornamentis praedito quid aliud adstruere fortuna poterat?’

[z]to me deleted

[a]Hand B replacing Hand A’s interesting (deleted)

[7 ]Valerius Maximus wrote (c.ad 31) a handbook of moral and philosophical examples drawn from history for the use of rhetoricians. Lucius Annaeus Florus compiled an Epitome of Roman history up to Augustus, derived mainly from Livy; cf. i.83 n.4 above.

[b]replaces In

[c]this deleted

[d]MS these, se deleted

[e]mistake h deleted

[f]Hand B, v.39 (top)–v.40

[g]of whose truth replaces that

[h]those deleted

[8 ]Je voyois le peril dans toute son étendue, et je n’y voyois rien qui ne me parut affreux. Les plus grands dangers ont leurs charmes, pour peu que l’on aperçoive de gloire dans la perspective des mauvais succés; les mediocres dangers n’ont que des horreurs, quand le perte de la réputation est attachée á la mauvaise fortune’: Retz, Mémoires (1723), 152, under Sept. 1648—italicized as an ‘observation’ separate from the narration. Quoted in a loose translation in TMS I.iii.2.11.

[i]Hand B

[9 ]II.xlvii–xlviii: cf. ii.29 n.11 above.

[j]the deleted

[k]then deleted

[l]Hand A in small writing in next line