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. XIX^th. ^a

Monday Jan.^ry 10 1763

Having in the preceding lectures given ye an account of the principall things necessary to be observed in the writing of history, I proceed to ^bthe History of Historians.

The Poets were the first Historians of any. They recorded those accounts that were most apt to suprise and strike the imagination such as the mythological history and ^c adventures of their Deities. We find accordingly all the most ancient ^d writings were ballads or Hymns in honour of their Gods recording the most amazing parts of their conduct. As their Subject was the marvellous so they naturally expressed themselves in the Language of wonder, that is in Poetry, for in that Stile amazement and | 45 surprise naturally break forth.

Of the actions of men, again, military exploits [as they] would be the first subject of the Poets as they are most fraught with adventures that are fit to amaze and gratify the desire men have especially in the early periods for what is marvellous. Homer accordingly has recorded the most remarkable ^e war that his countrymen had been engaged in before those days. All the other poets he mentions, for he mentions no writers but what were poets, had also followed the same plan; they related the most surprising adventures and warlike exploits of the great men in or before their time. In all Countries we find poetry has been the first Species of writing, as the marvellous is that which first draws the attention of unimproved men. The oldest originall Writings in Latin, Italian, French, English and Scots, are all poets. There are indeed other | 46 writings perhaps as old as any of these Poems, that are wrote in Prose; but these are only Monkish Legends or others of that sort; which as they are wrote in a foreign Language, and in a different way from that naturally to the country, are evidently copied from the works of authors of an other Country. {and are not to be numbred with the Productions of that Country} ^f

The next Species of Historians were Poets in every respect except the form of the Language. Their language was prose but their Subject altogether Poeticall—Furies, Harpys, Animalls half ^g men and half Bird, or snake, Centaurs, and others half fish and half man that were bread in Tartarus and swam about in the Sea; The intercourse of Gods with Women, and Goddesses with men, and the Heroes that Sprung from them, and their exploits, were the subject of their Works according to Dionys<ius> of Halic<arnassus>. 1 When one reads his account it will immediately put him in mind of the Geoffry of Monmouth 2 and the other earlier | 47 writers, their Elves and Fairies, Dragons, Griffins and other monsters with the accounts of which the greatest part of their Books were filled, The Creatures of an imagination engendered by the terror and Superstitious fear which is allways found in the ruder state of Mankind. These writers that followed this method amongst the ancients confined their accounts to the memorable Stories of some one country or province; and in the same manner the monkish legends are confin’d to one town or perhaps to one monastery.

The first author who formed the Design of extending the plan of history was Herodotus. He chose for this reason a period of 240 Years before his time, and comprehends the history not only of all the Grecian States but also of all the Barbarous nations. These he has connected together in such an easy and naturall manner, as to leave no gap nor | 48 chasm in his narration. The stile is gracefull and easy; his narration Crowded with memorable facts and those the most extraordinary that happened in each country. He does not however confine himself to those that produced any memorable change or alteration in each country but chooses out whatever is most agreable. He has ^h not near so many of those fabulous and marvellous accounts as we are told the authors who preceded him had but then he has still a good number scattered in his work. His design inde<e>d seems to have been rather to amuse than to instruct. This is confirmed by the long period he has chosen and the wide tract of Country which he has ⁱ made the Subjects of his history; by this means his ^j facts could be more easily rendered amusing and he has accordingly picked from the history of each country those which are most intertaining whether they be of importance or not. We can ^k learn from him rather ^l the Customs of the different nations and the | 49 series of events, than any account of the internall government or the causes that brought about the events he relates; but in this way too we may learn a great deal.

History continued in the same state as Herodotus left it till Thucydides undertook a history of the Peloponesian war. His design was different from that of former historians, and was that ^m which is the proper design of ⁿ historicall writing. He tells us that he undertook that work that by recording in the truest manner the various incidents of that war and the causes that produced <it>, posterity may learn how to produce the like events or shun others, and know what is to be expected from such and such circumstances. In this design he has succeeded better perhaps than any preceding or suc<c>eeding writer. His Stile is Strong and Nervous, his narration crouded with the most important events. The Subject of his work is the history of a war which he relates in the distinctest manner, giving the history of each campaign by itself so as that we have a compleat notion | 50 of the progress of the war in each place. He never introduces any circumstances that do not some way contribute to the producing some remarkable change in the affairs of the two contending states; This is a fault most other historians are often guilty of. Tacitus and many others introduce all those circumstances which give them an opportunity of displaying their Eloquence. Thus Tacitus in one place stops short to describe a Temple Titus happen’d to visit, and in another the particular circumstances of the disorder in Verres army. 3 The only place where Thucydides is guilty of it is in describing the concern of the Soldiers at the recall of a favourite generall, and for this too he makes an apology acknowledging that such matters are not the subject of a history. His Events are all chosen so as to be of consequence to the narration, and in his account of them he abundantly satisfies his design, accounting for every | 51 event by the externall causes that produced <it>, pointing out what circumstances of time, place, etc. in the side of either party determin’d the success of the enterprize they were engaged in. {He renders his narration at the same time interesting by the internall effects the events produced as in that before mention’d of the Battle in the night, and also by the great number of speeches he introduces into his works, and by which he opens up the different circumstances of the affairs at each time.} His narration is by this means very crouded and tho perhaps it is not so amusing as that of Herodotus, yet (as he ^o himself says) 4 one who de[r]sires to know the truth and the causes of the different success of the war will be pleased with it. He gives a good deal more of the Politicall and Civill History of the two States engaged in the war than Herodotus, but neither does he seem to have had it much in his view.

{Thucydides is the first who pays any attention at all to Civill History, all who preceded him had attached themselves merely to the military} ^p

The next author we come to is Xenophon. His Stile is easy and agreable ^q , not so strong as that of Thucydides but perhaps more pleasant; Nor is <his> narration so crouded as he often condescends to intermix circumstances that do not tend much to the chief events in the history. His retreat of the Ten thousand Grecians 5 is com| 52monly Compared to Cæsar’s Commentaries as they are the accounts of the ^r conduct of two generalls wrote by themselves without the least ostentation. In this point indeed they bear a great resemblance, but in other matters they differ very widely. The Plainness of Xenophon is [is] very different from that of Cæsar, and displays an ingenuity and openness of heart that does not appear in the writings of the other. Cæsars Stile is constantly crouded, he hurrys from one fact of importance to another without touching on anything that is not of importance betwixt them. It is not easy to convey a notion of Xenophons beauties, there are no passages which taken by themselves could shew his manner, and his peculiar excellencies {as he uses but a few circumstances in comparison of Thucidides in his description} {The precedent is always so much connected with every passage that we cannot enter into the beauties of any passage unless we are acquainted with what precedes} ^s He must be read through to perceive his beauties and enter into his manner. In his Expedition Of Cyrus he is at pains in all the circumstances of the narration which would | 53 otherwise often have been of little consequence, <that> tended to conciliate the affections of the Soldiers to their commander, and by this means he engages us so much in his favour that we are no less affected by the description he gives of the fate of the battle, tho’ it be very plain and void of ornament, than we would have been by one of the most interesting of those drawn by Thucydides, with all the circumstances he brings in of the effect the ev<e>nts had on the actors both in the action and afterwards. By thus drawing us gradually on he becomes one of the most engaging tho not one of the most passionate and interesting of authors. {To Speak in the Painters Stile; tho neither the Lines nor the Colouring or expression be very strong yet the ordonnance of the piece is such that it is on the whole very engaging and attractive.} He does not raise those violent emotions that Thucydides does but he pleases and engages fully as much. It is evident from this that no one passage can make us acquainted with his beauties. On the other hand there are many passages in Cæsar which will give us a compleat notion of his | 54 manner and his beauties. As all the events he describes are important, he is often induced to describe them in a striking and interesting manner. Xenophon too has ^t given us severall descriptions of characters in his works, not indeed of set purpose but by the circumstances he mentions of the persons that occur in the Course of his history. This he does particularly in his treatise of the Grecian ^u affairs, 6 in which he takes up the history where Thucydides left it off, and by this means he gives us more insight into Politicall affairs of Gree[e]ce than the fore–mentioned historians do.

The first writer however who enters into the Civill history of the Nations he treats of is Polybius. This author tho inferior to Herodotus in Grace, and to Thucydides in Strength and Xenophon in Sweetness; and tho his manner be not very interesting; Yet by the distinctness and ac| 55curacy with which he has related a series of events, which would by their importance have been interesting tho handled by a less able author; as well as by the views he has given us of the Civill constitution of the Romans, is rendered not only instructing but agreable.

Dio ^v7

| 56 Of all the Latin historians Livy is without doubt the best; and if to be agreable were the chief view of an author he would merit the chief Rank amongst the whole number. He does not indeed enter deeply into the causes of things, in the same manner as the Greek historians do; but ^w on the other hand he renders his descriptions extremely interesting by the great number of affecting circumstances he has thrown together, and that not without any connection, as is the method of Thucydides, but in an order naturall to the times in which they happend and the circumstances themselves. The circumstances mentiond in the night battle are narated in such a manner as if they had all happened at the same time; but those Livy relates in the Confusion at Rome after the battle 8 of ^x are all related in the order they must have succeded.

{But that which is the peculiar excellency of Livy’s Stile is the Grandeur and majesty which he maintains thro’ the whole of his works and in which he excells all other historians tho’ perhaps he is inferiour in many other respects. Tis probably to keep up this gravity, that he pays so much attention to the ceremonies of Religion and the omens and Portents, which he never omitts. 9 For it is not to be supposed that he had any belief in them himself in an age when the vulgar Religion was altogether ^y dissregarded except as a Political Institution by the wiser Sort. And of this he gives a hint in} ^z

Livy is generally accused of | 57 being very inaccurate in his accounts of military affairs, but I imagine he is not so faulty in this respect as ^a common fame reports. He gives us too a very good account of the Roman constitution not indeed so particular as that of the Halicarnassian; but there is enough thro the work to make us tollerably acquainted with it. It is to be co[r]nsidered too that Livy wrote to Romances to whom it would have been impertinent to give ^b a minute account of their own Customs; Whereas Dion<ysius> of Halicarn<assus> wrote for Greeks unacquainted with those matters.

Livy is ^c compared by Quintilian 10 with Herodotus and Sallust with Thucydides. But Livy without question far excells Herodotus and Sallust on the other hand falls no less short <of> Thycidides. He resembles him indeed in the conciseness of his manner and the suddeness of his transitions but then he has neither his strength nor his accuracy. Nor is narration so crouded in the Cataline conspiracy (induced perhaps by the subject which | 58 furnished him with no very wide field), he has thrown <in> severall digressions of considerable length very little connected with his subject. In both the works that are now remaining he is very defective in his descriptions, his circumstances are often so far from being adapted to the matter in hand that they are what we may call common place and such as would do equally well in any account of the same nature tho the State of the affairs were considerably different.—His Description of the battle with Jugurtha 11 would in allmost all the circumstances suit equally to any other battle; it signifies indeed nothing more than that there was a great confusion. Thucydides ^d in his description of the night battle, tho he represents nothing more than the confusion, yet it is such a confusion as in no other place, nor in no other conditions could possibly have [have] happened. That described by Sallust is such as happen in every battle. In the same way the circumstances by which | 59 he represents 12 the Luzury of the Romans and their depraved moralls are such as attend ^e Luxury in every country. But those by which Thucyd<ides> points ^f out the effe<c>ts of the S<edition> ^g in Greece are such as no other sort of sedition, no other state of a country could have occasioned. Besides this, his conciseness which it is plain he copied from Thucy<dides> is rather apparent than real. For tho his sentences are always very short, Yet the one signifies nothing more than was implied ^h by the former and in the following one. In the Description of the battle abovementioned the first Sentence implies all the following ones. He supports (however) his ⁱ narration by the aptness of his expression in which perhaps he surpasses all the other historians, and by the variety of his Spee[e]ches which as well as those of Thucydides shall be considered when we come to Deliber<erative> Eloquence. | 60 But from his descriptions, one would imagine that he had enquired rather into the events, than into the different Circumstances, with any accuracy. And as, by this means, he was necessitated to contrive Incidents, he would naturally fall upon Common–place ones such as would occur in every affair of the same Sort . . . . ^j

[a]MS XVIIIth

[b]give you some account of deleted

[c]genea deleted

[d]Poets deleted

[e]replaces illegible word rer . . . . ped

[f]Hand B

[g]MS have

[1 ]On Thucydides, 6 (The Critical Essays, LCL, i.476 ff.). He quotes the historian’s own defence of his avoidance of legend however attractive, in favour of attested fact (I.xxii.4). In his Roman Antiquities he attacks Greek myths as opposed to Roman piety and religion, and finds legends misleading for ordinary people, as to the intervention of the gods in human affairs (II.lxviii ff.; II.xx; V.liv).

[2 ]Geoffrey of Monmouth’s early twelfth–century History was first published in Paris in 1508 as Britannie utriusque regum et principum origo et gesta insignia. No edition appeared in Britain till J. A. Giles’s Historia Britonum in 1844, but Smith’s contemporaries knew it in A. Thompson’s translation The British History (1718) ‘from the Latin of Jeffrey of Monmouth’. It is generally now referred to as the Historia Regum Britanniae, as in J. Hammer’s 1951 edition.

[h]much fewer, greatly, deleted

[i]chosen deleted

[j]choice of deleted

[k]replaces may

[l]replaces chiefly

[m]of writing deleted

[n]design of (wri deleted) replaces ly called a

[3 ]While in Cyprus Titus visits the famous temple of Paphian Venus and consults the oracle; an account of the history of the cult and the treasures of the temple follows: Historiae, II.ii–iv. Annales, I.lxi is a flashback to the defeat and death of Varus (not Verres) when Germanicus visits the spot six years later. The Thucydides passage is unidentified.

[o]numbers written above change original order says himself

[4 ]Thucydides (I.xxii.4) defines his aim as appealing, through an investigation of the facts, to readers who wish to have a clear view of what happened and may in human probability happen again, in the same or a similar way. He is not composing a prize essay to be heard once only.

[p]Hand B

[q]replaces pleasant

[5 ]Anabasis, II.vi; cf. ii.24 n.6 above.

[r]expedi deleted

[s]this sentence added later than as he uses . . . description

[t]oft deleted

[u]replaces military

[6 ]Hellenica, the history of his own times, 411–362, starting where Thucydides left off.

[v]The scribe has anticipated the name Dionysius of Halicarnassus and failed to cancel Dio. After Dio the rest of 55 is blank

[7 ]Cf. ii.57 below.

[w]at the deleted

[8 ]Cf. ii.29 n.11 above.

[x]blank of six letters in MS; Cannae is intended. Livy XXII.liv.

[9 ]Livy dwells on the political and social motives behind the arrangements of the Roman cults: I.xx–xxi (Numa), IV.xxx.9–11 and XXV.i.12 (only Roman gods to be worshipped and in the traditional way).

[y]unrelated catchword con– at foot of v.55

[z]interpolation on v.55–v.56 breaks off here; gap of four letters in MS after in

[a]the deleted

[b]MS gave

[c]Generally deleted

[10 ]X.i.101.

[11 ]Bellum Iugurthinum, xcvii–xcix. The reference below, in the description of the battle in which the troops of Marius were surprised by Jugurtha and Bocchus, must be to the sentence whose remarkable syntactic pattern re–enacts the confusion in which the Roman soldiers, ‘trepidi improviso metu’, fought: ‘pars equos ascendere, obviam ire hostibus, pugna latrocinio magis quam proelio similis fieri, sine signis, sine ordinibus equites peditesque permixti cedere alii, alii obtruncari, multi contra advorsos acerrume pugnantes ab tergo circumveniri; neque virtus neque arma satis tegere . . .’ (xcvii.5).

[d]again deleted

[12 ]Bellum Catilinae, i–xiii (cf. ii.21 n.4 above); Thucydides, III. lxxxii–lxxxiii. on the social disintegration following war.

[e]the deleted

[f]MS paints

[g]rest of word supplied conjecturally: blank in MS of seven letters

[h]replaces said

[i]MS this, 1 deleted

[j]So in MS