POSTSCRIPT.

Punic.Irish.Nom. A dar, the housean dae, the house, &c.Gen. Mit a dar, of the housemend na daeDat. La dar, with or to the housela daeAcc. A dar, the housean daeVoc. Ya dar, O housea daeAbl. Fa dar, with or by the housefa daeIn several particulars the Irish bears a close affinity to the Hebrew and Greek. It was the custom with the Hebrews, and it still remains with them, to face the east in the act of devotion. From this practice it proceeded, that the same word which signifiedright hand, signified alsosouth; the same withleft handandnorth;beforeandeast;behindandwest. This is the case also in the Irish language.Hebrew.Irish.Jamin,[147]right hand, southdeas, the sameSmol, left hand, norththuaidh, the sameAchor, behind, westtar, the sameCedem, before, eastoir and oithear, the same, or rising sun. Latin,oriensThat the Greeks had an intercourse with the islands of Britain and Ireland, or sent colonies thither, is not impossible; and Dr. Todd, not many years ago, discovered, at Colchester, in Essex, an altar dedicated to the Tyrian Hercules, with an inscription in Greek capitals,ΗΡΑΚΛΗΣ ΤΥΡΕΟ ΔΕΙΟ ΔΟΚΑ ΑΡΧΙΕΡΙΑ.There is a place in Ireland calledAirchil. And it is a remarkable fact, that some fragments of old Irish laws, which, for a long time, puzzled the antiquaries of the nation, are found to be written in a very ancient language, and in the manner which the Greeks calledBoustrophedon; that is, from right to left, and from left to right, in the manner that oxen plow. This was supposed to be an improvement on the Hebrew and Phenician order of writing all the lines from right to left, which Cadmus introduced into Greece. This manner of writing in Greece was prior to Homer, and if the Irish copied from the Greeks, which is not impossible, the fact would prove a very early settlement of Ireland by Greek colonies or their descendants. See Leland's Hist. of Ireland, Prelim. Dis.All these circumstances corroborate the opinion that the Celts came originally from the east, and formed settlements on the shores of the Mediterranean and Atlantic. The affinity between the Phenician, the Punic, the Maltese, the Irish and the British languages, discoverable in a great number of words, makes it probable, that after colonies were settled at Carthage and at Cadiz, some commercial intercourse was carried on between them and the nations at the head of the Mediterranean, and that an emigration from Spain might people Ireland before any settlements had been made there by the Gauls or Britons. It is however more probable that the Punic words in the Irish language might have been introduced into that island by subsequent colonization. At any rate, from the Hebrew, Chaldaic, or Phenician, or the common root of these languages, proceeded the Punic, the Maltese, the Iberian or Spanish, the Gaulish, the British, and the Irish. The order I have mentioned is obvious and natural; and history furnishes us with some facts to strengthen the supposition.[C],page58.Bishop Hickes, in his Saxon Grammar, which is a vast treasure of valuable learning, has preserved a specimen of the language and of the opinions of the English respecting it, in an extract from a manuscript of one Ranulphus Higdenus,de Incolarum linguis, translated by John Trevisa in 1385, and the ninth of Richard II. Trevisa's stile bears some affinity to that of Chaucer, with whom he was cotemporary."As it is knowne how meny maner peple beeth in this land: There beeth also so many dyvers longages and tongues. Nathless, Walschemen and Scotts, that hath nought medled with other nations, holdeth wel nyh his firste langage and speeche: But yif the Scottes that were sometime considerat and woned with the Picts draw somewhat after hir[148]speeche: But yif the Flemynges thatwoneth in the weste side of Wales haveth left her strange speeche and speketh Sexon like now. Also Englishmen, they had from the begynnynge thre maner speeche, northerne, sowtherne, and middel speeche in the middle of the lande, as they come of the maner peple of Germania. Nathless by comyxtion and mellynge[149]; first with Danes and afterwards with Normans, in meny the contray langage is apayred[150]and som useth strong wlafferynge,[4] chiterynge,[4] hartynge[4] and gartynge,[4] grisbayting;[151]this apayryng[152]of the burthe of the tunge is because of tweie thinges: oon is for children in scole, agenst the usage and maner of all other nations, beeth compelled for to leve hire owne langage, and for to consture hir lessons and here[153]thinges in Frenche and so they haveth sethe[154]Normans came firste into England. Also gentilmen children beeth taught to speke Frenche from the tyme that they beeth rokked in hire cradle and conneth[155]speke and play with a childes brache and uplandissche men[156]will likne hymself to gentilmen and fondeth[157]with the greet besynesse for to speke Frenche for to be told of. [Trevisa, the translator remarks here—"This maner was moche used to, for first deth,[158]and is sithe[159]sum del[160]changed. For John Cornwaile, a maister of grammer, changed the lore[161]in grammer scole and construction of Frenche into Englishe. And Richard Peneriche lerned the manere techynge of him as other men, of Penriche. So that now the yere of our Lorde a thousand thre hundred and four score and fyve and of the second king Richard after the conquest, nyne; and alle the grammar scoles of England children lerneth Frenche and construeth and lerneth an Englishe and haveth thereby advantage in oon side, and disadvantage in another side. Here[162]advantage is that they lerneth hir grammer in lasse tyme, than childrenwere wonned to doo. Disadvantage is, that now children of grammer scole conneth na more Frenche than can hirlift heele,[163]and that is harme for hem an they schulle[164]passe the see and travaille in strange londes and in many other places. Also gentilmen haveth now moche left for to teche here children Frenche."]Ranulphus.—Hit seemeth a great wonder how Englishe men and her[165]own longage and tongue is so dyverse of sown in this oon ilande, and the longage of Normandie is comlynge[166]of another lande and hath oon maner soun among all men that speketh hit arigt in England. [Trevisa's remark—"Nevertheless there is as many diverse maner Frenche in the reeme[167]of France, as is dyvers maner Englishe in the reeme of England."]R. Also of the aforesaid Saxon tonge that is deled[168]athree and is abide scarceliche[169]with few uplandishe men, is great wonder. For men of the est with men of the west is as it were under the same partie of hevene accordeth more in sownynge of speeche than men of the north with men of the south. Therefore it is that Mercii, that beeth men of myddel England, as it were, parteners of the endes, understandeth bettrie the side longages than northerne and southerne understandeth either other. All the longage of the Northumbers and specialliche at York, is so scharp, slitting and frotynge and unschape that the southerne men may that longage unnethe[170]understande. I trow that is because that they beeth nyh to strange men and nations, that speketh strongliche, and also because the kinges of Englande woneth[171]alway fer[172]from that contray, for they beeth more turned to the south contray, and yif they goeth to the northe contray, they goeth with great helpe and strengthe. The cause why they beeth more in the southe contray than in the northe, for it may be bettercorn londe, more peple, more noble cities, and more profitable havenes."[173]On this passage we may make the following remarks:1. That the third person singular of the verb is invariably used withpluralas well as singular nouns;theybeeth,haveth. Whereas in Chaucer and Mandeville the same person ends generally inen;they seynforthey say.The same third person was used for the imperative, by the best English writers,"And soft take me in your armes twey,For love of God, and hearkeneth what I sey."Chaucer, Knight's Tale, 2783."And at certyn houres, they seyn to certyn offices,maketh pees;" that is,make peace.—Mandeville, p. 281.2. Thatyifis used forif; a proof thatifis a verb, a contraction ofgiforyif(for they were used promiscuously) the imperative ofgifan, to give.[174]3. That the subjunctive form of verbs was not used afterif;and yif they goeth to the northe contray.4. That there were three principal dialects in the English; thenorthern, which was corrupted by the Scots and Picts, and from which the present Yorkshire language is derived; themiddle, which came from Germany and retained its primitive purity, and is the true parent of modern English; and thesouthern, by whichis meant, either the language of the southern parts which was corrupted by an intercourse with foreigners; or what is more probable, the language spoken in Devonshire, and on the borders of Cornwall, which was mixed with the old British, and is now almost unintelligible.5. That the conquests of the Danes and Normans had corrupted the pure language of the Saxons.6. That this corruption proceeded principally from the teaching of French in schools.7. That country people, (uplandish men) imitated the practice of the polite, and learnt French, as many do now,to be told of.8. That Cornwail and others, in Trevisa's time, had begun to reform this practice.9. That French had almost banished the native Saxon from the polite part of the nation, and that theuplandishor western people alone retained it uncorrupted.10. That the kings of England resided principally in the southern parts of the kingdom, where the land was most fertile, best cultivated, most populous, and most advantageous for commerce.[D],page59.Chaucer's particular patron was John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster. He married Philippa, the sister of Lady Swinford, who before her marriage and after her husband's death, was one of the Duke's family."Grete wellChaucerwhen you mete—Of dittees and of songes glade,The which he——madeThe londe fulfilled is over all."Gower.Gower is said to have been Chaucer's preceptor."My maisterChaucer—chiefe poet of BretayneWhom all this lond should of right preferre,Sith of our language he wasthe lode starre,That made first to dystylle and rayneThe gold dew dropys of speche and eloquenceInto our tungue through his excellence."Lydgate.Chaucer's merit in improving the English language is celebrated by other poets of his time—Occleve, Douglas and Dunbar. They call him thefloure of eloquence, thefader in science, and thefirste fynder of our fayre langage.He died in 1400.It must however be remarked that Chaucer did not import foreign words, so much as introduce them into books and give them currency in writing. It must further be observed that when I speak of the incorporation of Latin words with the English, I would not be understood to mean that words were taken directly from the Roman tongue and anglicised. On the other hand, they mostly came thro the channel of the Norman orProvençal French; and perhaps we may call them with proprietyFrenchwords; for they had lost much of their Roman form among the Gauls, Franks and Normans.The most correct account I have seen of the state of the language in the 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th centuries, is in the first volume of Bell's edition of Chaucer.We have the authority of Ingulphus, a historian of credit, for alleging that the French began to be fashionable in England, before the conquest. Edward the Confessor resided many years in Normandy, and imbibed a predilection for the French manners and language. On his accession to the throne of England, in 1043, he promoted many of his Norman favorites to the first dignities in the kingdom; under the influence of the king and his friends, the English began to imitate the French fashions.But the conquest in 1066, completed the change. The court of William consisted principally of foreigners who could speak no language but French. Most of the high offices and rich livings in the kingdom were filled with Normans, and the castles which, by order of the conqueror, were built in different parts of the country, were garrisoned by foreign soldiers, in whom the king might most safely confide.[175]Public business was transacted in the French, and it became dishonorable or a mark of low breeding, not to understand that language. Indeed under the first reigns after the conquest, it was a disgrace to be called anEnglishman. In this depressed state of the English, their language could not fail to be neglected by the polite part of the nation.But as the body of the nation did not understand French, there must have been a constant effort to root it out and establish the English. The latter however gained ground slowly during the two first centuries of the revolution. But in the reign of king John, Normandy,which had been united with England under the Norman princes, was taken by the French, 1205, and thus separated from the British dominions. In the next reign (Henry III.) some regulations were made between the two kingdoms, by which the subjects of either were rendered incapable of holding lands in the other. These events must have restrained, in some degree, the intercourse between the two kingdoms, and given the English an opportunity to assume their own native character and importance. In this reign the English began to value themselves upon their birth, and a knowlege of the English language was a recommendation, tho not a requisite, in a candidate for a benefice.It appears also by the passage of Higden before quoted, that the practice of construing Latin into French, in the schools, had closed before his time. This, with the other causes before assigned, contributed to root out the French, and make the English reputable; and in the reign of Edward III. produced the act, mentioned in the text, in favor of the English. This act did not produce a total change of practice at once; for we find the proceedings in parliament were published in French for sixty years after the pleas in courts were ordered to be in English, and the statutes continued in French about 120 years after the act, till the first of Richard III.It may be observed that the royal assent to bills was in some instances given in English during the reign of Henry VI.Be it ordained as it is asked: Be it as it is axed.[176]But the royal assent is now declared in French.[E],page66and 34.Sir William Temple's stile, tho easy and flowing,is too diffuse: Every page of his abounds with tautologies. Take the following specimen from the first page that presents itself on opening his third volume."Upon the survey of these dispositions in mankind and these conditions of government, it seems much more reasonable to pity than to envy thefortunesanddignitiesof princes orgreatministers ofstate; and tolessenandexcusetheirvenialfaults, or at least their misfortunes, rather than toencreaseandmake them worsebyill colorsandrepresentations."——Of Pop. Dis.Fortunesanddignitiesmight have been better expressed byelevated rankorhigh stations;greatis superfluous, and so arelessenandmake them worse, and eithercolorsorrepresentationsmight have been omitted."The first safety ofprincesandstateslies in avoiding allcouncilsordesignsof innovation, inancientandestablished formsandlaws, especially those concerning liberty, property and religion (which are the possessions men will ever have most at heart;) and thereby leaving the channel ofknownandcommonjusticeclearandundisturbed." Several words might here be retrenched, and yet leave the author's meaning more precise and intelligible. This is the principal fault in Temple's stile."But men, accustomed to the free and vagrant life of hunters, are incapable of regular application to labor; and consider agriculture as asecondaryandinferioroccupation."—Robertson's Hist. Amer. book 4.Supposingsecondaryandinferiornot to be exactly synonimous, in this sentence one would have answered the purpose."Agriculture, even when the strength of man is seconded by that of the animalswhich he has subjected to the yoke, and his power augmented bythe use of the various instruments with whichthe discovery of metalshas furnished him, is stilla workof great labor."—The same.This sentence is very exceptionable. Isagriculture, a work?Can sodefinitea term be applied to such ageneralidea? But what a group of useless words follow! It was not sufficient to say,the strength of man seconded by that of animals, but the kinds of animals must be specified; viz. such ashe has subjected to the yoke; when every person knows that other animals are never used; and consequently the author's idea would have been sufficiently explicit without that specification. In the subsequent clause, the words,his power augmented by the use of the various instruments of metal, would have been explicit; for thediscovery of metalsmust have been implied. Such expletive words load the mind with a chain of particular ideas which are not essential to the discourse."—And if any one of these prognostics is deemed unfavorable, they instantly abandon the pursuit ofthosemeasures,on which they are most eagerly bent."—The same.Here is an awkward conclusion of the period, and ascribeable to a too nice regard for grammatical rules.They are most eagerly bent on, would perhaps have been better; but a different construction would have been still less exceptionable. There is however a greater fault in the construction. By employingthoseandmost eagerly, the idea is, that savages, on the appearance of unfavorable omens, would abandonthosemeasuresonly, on which they aremost eagerlybent, and not others that they might be pursuing with less earnestness. Why could not the author have said in plain English—"they instantly abandon any measure they are pursuing."This writer's stile likewise abounds with synonims; asstrengthenandconfirm,quickenandanimate; when one term would fully express the meaning. "Strong liquorsawakea savage from historpid state—give a brisker motion to his spirits, andenlivenhim more thoroughly than either dancing or gaming."—Book. 4. What a needless repetition of the same idea! The author is also very liberal in the use ofall—"allthetransportsandfrenzyof intoxication."—"War, which between extensive kingdoms, is carried on with little animosity, is prosecuted by small tribes, withallthe rancor of a private quarrel."In short, the stile of Dr. Robertson, the great, the philosophic historian, is too labored. The mind of the reader is kept constantly engaged in attending to the structure of the periods; it is fatigued with words and drawn from the chain of events.The stile of Kaims, tho not easy and flowing, is precise, and generally accurate. The stile of Blair's Lectures is less correct than that of his Sermons; but at the same time, less formal in the structure of the periods.These remarks, the reader will observe, respect stile only; for the merit of Robertson, as a judicious and faithful historian; and of Kaims and Blair, as critics, is above praise or censure.In no particular is the false taste of the English more obvious, than in the promiscuous encomiums they have bestowed on Gibbon, as a historian. His work is not properly a "Historyof the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire;" but a "Poetico-Historical Description of certain Persons and Events, embellished with suitable imagery and episodes, designed to show the author's talent in selecting words, as well as to delight the ears of his readers." In short, his history should be entitled, "A Display of Words;" except some chapters which are excellent commentaries on the history of the Roman Empire.The general fault of this author is, he takes more pains to form his sentences, than to collect, arrange and express the facts in an easy and perspicuous manner. In consequence of attending to ornament, he seems to forget that he is writing for theinformationof his reader, and when he ought toinstructthemind, he is onlypleasingtheear. Fully possessed of his subject, he describes things and events in general terms or figurative language, which leave upon the mind a faint evanescent impression of some indeterminate idea; so that the reader, not obtaining a clear precise knowlege of the facts, finds it difficult to understand, and impossible to recollect, the author's meaning. Let a man read his volumes with the most laborious attention, and he will find at the close that he can give very little account of the "Roman Empire;" but he will remember perfectly that Gibbon is a most elegant writer.History is capable of very little embellishment;tropesandfiguresare the proper instruments ofeloquenceanddeclamation;factsonly are the subjects ofhistory. Reflections of the author are admitted; but these should not be frequent; for the reader claims a right to his own opinions. The justness of the historian's remarks may be called in question—facts only are incontestible. The plain narrative of the Scripture historians, and of Herodotus, with their dialogues and digressions, is as far superior, considered as pure history, to the affected glaring brilliancy of stile and manner, which runs thro Gibbon's writings, as truth is to fiction; or the vermillion blush of nature and innocence, to the artificial daubings of fashion. The first never fails to affect the heart—the last can only dazzle the senses.Another fault in Gibbon's manner of writing, is, the use ofepithetsortitlesinstead ofnames. "The Cæsar, the conqueror of the east, the protector of the church, the country of the Cæsars, the son of Leda," and innumerable similar appellations are employed, instead of the real names of the persons and places; and frequently at such a distance from any mention of the name, thatthe reader is obliged to turn over a leaf and look for an explanation. Many of the epithets are new; custom has not made us familiar with them; they have never been substituted, by common consent, for the true names; the reader is therefore surprized with unexpected appellations, and constantly interrupted to find the persons or things to which they belong.I am not about to write a lengthy criticism on this author's history; a few passages only will be selected as proofs of what I have advanced. "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," vol. 3, oct. chap. 17: In explaining the motives of the Emperors for removing the seat of government from Rome to the East, the author says—"Romewas insensibly confounded with the dependent kingdoms which had once acknowleged her supremacy; andthe country of the Cæsarswas viewed with cold indifference by a martial prince, born in the neighborhood of the Danube, educated in the courts and armies of Asia, and invested with thepurpleby the legions of Britain." By the author's beginning one part of the sentence withRome, and the other withthe country of the Cæsars, the reader is led to think two different places are intended, for he has not a suspicion of a tautology; or at least he supposes the author usesthe country of the Cæsarsin a more extensive sense thanRome. He therefore looks back and reads perhaps half a page with a closer attention, and finds that the writer is speaking of theseat of empire, and therefore can mean thecity of Romeonly. After this trouble he is displeased that the author has employedfive wordsto swell and adorn his period. This however is not the only difficulty in understanding the author. Who is themartial prince? In the preceding sentence, Dioclesian is mentioned, as withdrawing from Rome; and in the sentence following, Constantine is said to visit Rome but seldom. The reader then is left to collect the author's meaning, by the circumstances of the birth, education and election of this martial prince. If he is possessed of these facts already, he may go on without much trouble.The author's affectation of usingthe purplefor the crown or imperial dignity, is so obvious by numberless repetitions of the word, as to be perfectly ridiculous."In the choice of an advantageous situation, he preferred the confines of Europe and Asia; to curb,with a powerful arm, the barbarians who dwelt between the Danube and Tanais; to watch,with an eye of jealousy, the conduct of the Persian monarch." Here the members of the sentence in Italics, are altogether superfluous; the author wanted to inform his reader, that Dioclesian designed to curb the barbarians and watch the Persian monarch; for which purpose he chose a favorable situation; but it was wholly immaterial to the subject to relate in what manner or degree, the emperor meant to exert his arm or his jealousy. Nay more, these are circumstances which are not reduceable to any certainty, and of which the writer and the reader can have no precise idea."With these views, Dioclesian had selected and embellished theresidence of Nicomedia."—Is Nicomedia a princess, whose residence the emperor selected and embellished? This is the most obvious meaning of the sentence. But Nicomedia, we learn from other passages, was a city, theresidenceitself of the emperor. Yet the author could not tell us this in a few plain words, without spoiling the harmony of the phrase; he chose therefore to leave it obscure and ungrammatical."—But the memory of Dioclesian was justly abhorred by theProtector of the Church; andConstantinewas not insensible to the ambition of founding a city, which might perpetuate the glory of his own name." Who is theprotector of the church? By Constantine's being mentioned immediately after, one would think he cannot be the person intended; yet on examination, this is found to be the case. But why this separate appellation? It seems the author meant by it to convey thisidea; That Dioclesian was a persecutor of the church, therefore his memory was abhorred by Constantine who was its protector; thecauseofConstantine'sabhorrenceis implied, and meant to be unfolded to the reader, in a single epithet. Is this history? I must have the liberty to think that suchtersenessof stile, notwithstanding the authorities of Tacitus and Gibbon, is a gross corruption and a capital fault.In description, our author often indulges a figurative poetical manner, highly improper."The figure of the imperial city (Constantinople) may be represented under that of an unequal triangle. The obtuse point, which advances towards the east, and the shores of Asia, meets and repels the waves of the Thracian Bosphorus." Here the author soars on poetic wings, and we behold theobtuse pointof atriangle,marchingeastward,attackingandrepulsingitsfoes, thewavesof the Bosphorus; in the next line, the author sinks from the heights of Parnassus, and creeps on the plain ofsimple narrative—"The northern side of the city is bounded by the harbor.""On these banks, tradition long preserved the memory of the sylvan reign of Amycus, who defied theson of Ledato the combat of the Cestus." The author takes it for granted that his reader is acquainted with all the ancient fables of Greece and Rome. Suchallusionsto facts or fables make a wretched figure insober history.[177]The author, after the manner of the poets, admits episodes into his descriptions, by way of variety and embellishment. He begins a description of Constantinople; to do justice to the city, he must describe its situation; he therefore gives an account of the Thracian Bosphorus, the Propontus and Hellespont, interspersed with ancient fables, and adorned with poetical imagery. When he arrives at the mouth of the Hellespont, his fancy leads him to the seat of ancient Troy, and hecannot pass it, without telling us from Homer, where the Grecian armies were encamped; where the flanks of the army were guarded by Agamemnon's bravest chiefs; where Achilles and his myrmidons occupied a promontory; where Ajax pitched his tent; and where his tomb was erected after his death. After indulging his fancy on this memorable field of heroic actions, he isqualifiedto describe Constantinople.But it is needless to multiply examples; for similar faults occur in almost every page. Most men, who have read this history, perceive a difficulty in understanding it; yet few have attempted to find the reason; and hardly a man has dared to censure the stile and manner.To what cause then shall we ascribe the almost unanimous consent of the English and Americans, in lavishing praises upon Gibbon's history? In some measure doubtless to the greatness of the attempt, and the want of an English history which should unfold the series of events which connects ancient and modern times. The man who should light a lamp, to illuminate the dark period of time from the 5th to the 15th century, would deserve immortal honors. The attempt is great; it is noble; it is meritorious. Gibbon appears to have been faithful, laborious, and perhaps impartial. It is his stile and manner only I am censuring; for these are exceedingly faulty. For proof of this I appeal to a single fact, which I have never heard contradicted; that a man who would comprehend Gibbon, must read with painful attention, and after all receive little improvement.The encomiums of his countrymen proceed from false taste; a taste for superfluous ornament. Men are disposed to lessen the trouble of reading, and to spare the labor of examining into the causes and consequences of events. They choose to please their eyes and ears, rather than feed the mind. Hence the rage forabridgements, and a display of rhetorical embellishments. Hence the eclat with which "Millot's Elements of General History," is received in the world. This work is no more than anIndex to General History; or a recapitulation of the principal events. It is calculated for two classes of people; for those who, having read history in the original writers, want to revise their studies, without a repetition of their first labors; and for those who have but little time to employ in reading, and expect only a general and superficial knowlege of history.[178]But a man who would know the minute springs of action; the remote and collateral, as well as the direct causes and consequences of events; and the nice shades of character which distinguish eminent men, with a view to draw rules from living examples; such a man must pass by abridgements as trash; he must have recourse to the original writers, or to collections of authentic papers. Indeed a collection of all the material official papers, arranged in the order of time, however dry and unentertaining to most readers, is really thebest, and theonly authentichistory of a country. The philosopher and statesman, who wish to substitute fact for opinion, will generally suspect human testimony; but repose full confidence in the evidence of papers, which have been the original instruments of public transactions, and recorded by public authority.These strictures are contrary to the opinions of most men, especially as they regard the stile of the authors mentioned. Yet they are written with a full conviction of their being well founded. They proceedfrom an earnest desire of arresting the progress of false taste in writing, and of seeing my countrymen called back to nature and truth.POSTSCRIPT.The foregoing remarks were written before I had seen the opinions of that judicious and elegant writer, East Apthorp,M. A.vicar of Croydon, on the same history. The following passage is too directly in point to be omitted. It is in his "Second Letter on the Study of History.""I was disappointed in my expectations of instruction from this book (Gibbon's History) when I discerned that the author had adopted that entertaining but superficial manner of writing history, which was first introduced by the Abbe de Vertot, whose History of the Revolutions in the Government of the Roman Republic, is one of those agreeable and seducing models which never fail of producing a multitude of imitations. There is, in this way of writing, merit enough to recommend it to such readers, and such writers, as propose to themselves no higher aim, than an elegant literary amusement: It piques their curiosity, while it gratifies their indolence. The historian has the advantage, in this way, of passing over such events and institutions as, however essential to the science of history, are less adapted to shine in the recital. By suppressing facts and violating chronology; by selecting the most pleasing incidents and placing them in a striking point of view, by the coloring and drapery of stile and composition, the imagination is gratified with a gaudy spectacle of triumphs and revolutions passing in review before it; while the rapid succession of great events affords a transient delight, without leaving useful and lasting impressions either on the memory or judgement; or fixing those principles which ought to be the result of historic information."Nor is it the worst consequence of this slight and modish way of compiling history, that it affords to supine and unreflecting readers a barren entertainment, to fill up the vacant hours of indolence and dissipation. The historian who gives himself the privilege of mutilating and selecting, and arranging at discretion the records of past ages, has full scope to obtrude on his careless readers any system that suits with his preconceived opinions or particular views in writing."—"The only legitimate study of history is inoriginal historians."The same writer complains of a decline of literature in Great Britain, fixing the "settlement that followed the revolution," as the era of true science and greatness. He remarks that the "aim of modern writers seems to be to furnish their readers with fugitive amusement, and that ancient literature is become rather the ornament of our libraries, than the accomplishment of our minds; being supplanted by the modish productions which are daily read and forgotten."[F],page76.For proof of what I have advanced respecting the sound of c in Rome, I would observe, that the genitive case of the first declension in Latin anciently ended inai, which was probably copied from the Greeks; for it is very evident the Latinæin later writers, was the true representative of the Greekai. ThusMousaiin Greek was translated into the Roman tongue,musæ. Nowcbeforeaihad the sound ofk; for where the Romans wrotecæthe Greeks wrotekai. Thusmusica,musicæin the first declension must have been pronouncedmusika,musikai, notmusisee, as we now pronounce theæ.As a further proof, we may appeal to the laws of the Roman poetry, by which dipthongs were always long, having the sound of two vowels combined.But a decisive proof thatcbefore the vowelsa,o,uand the dipthongs, had the power ofk, is that the Greeks always translated thecinkappa. They wrote Cæsar,Kaisaros, &c.In confirmation of which I may add, that the Germans, among whom the wordCæsarbecame common to all emperors, and now signifiesemperor, spell itKaisar; and in the pronunciation they preserve the true Roman sound ofCæsar.[179]That the Romancbeforeeandihad the force ofchortsh, is probable from the present practice of the Italians, who would be the most likely to retain the pure Roman pronunciation. In modern Italiance,ciare pronouncedche,chi; asdolcemente,Cicero, pronounceddolchemente,Chichero.In this opinion I am supported by Dr. Middleton, who seems to have been thoroughly versed in Roman literature. It may gratify the learned reader to see his own words.De Lat. Liter. pron. differ."Ante vocalesa,o,v[180]eundem olim sonum habuisse ac hodie habet certissimum est: qualem autem ante reliquaseeti, diphthongosqueæ,œ,evhabuerit, haud ita convenit. Angli illam Gallique etiam, haud absdistinguunt, in Cœna, Cæsar, Ceres, cinis, &c. at in iisdem Itali, quod Romanos etiam fecisse olim existimo, eum huic literæ sonum tribuunt, quo noschefferimus, in vocibus nostris,cheek,cherry,cheap, &c. itaque pronunciant Cicero, uti nos Chichester, chicheley, &c. ita tamen ac si antec, cum in medio vocis sequatur vocalem, litera t leviter admodum et subobscure sonanda interponeretur; utCitcero, Chitchester, quam pronuntiandi rationem expressisse plane sculptor quidam videtur, qui in inscriptione veteri contra orthographiæ regulas,tantecinterposuit in nomineVrbitcius."He observes however that Lipsius ridicules this opinion, and contends thatchad in all cases the force ofk. This the Doctor ascribes to his partiality for the pronunciation of his countrymen, the Germans, which, he says, has often led him into errors. For althokbeforea,o,uused frequently to be written forc, asKarcerforCarcer, yet it never took the place ofcbeforeeandi; we never findKarkerforCarcer.But thatchad the sound of ourch, is probable from another fact: In old inscriptions it is found thatcwas often used fortbeforei;condicioforconditio,palaciumforpalatium. Nowchin English have a compound sound, which begins with that oft, and hencetiandciin English have taken the sound ofchorsh. It is evident therefore thatcbeforeihad a great affinity toti; an affinity which is still preserved in the Italian language. These circumstances give us reason to believe thatciandtiincondicioandpalatium, were both pronouncedchi,condichio,palachium. This sound ofciagrees perfectly well with the Saxon sound incild, pronouncedchild;cele, now pronouncedchill, as I have remarked above; text, page72.

In several particulars the Irish bears a close affinity to the Hebrew and Greek. It was the custom with the Hebrews, and it still remains with them, to face the east in the act of devotion. From this practice it proceeded, that the same word which signifiedright hand, signified alsosouth; the same withleft handandnorth;beforeandeast;behindandwest. This is the case also in the Irish language.

Hebrew.Irish.Jamin,[147]right hand, southdeas, the sameSmol, left hand, norththuaidh, the sameAchor, behind, westtar, the sameCedem, before, eastoir and oithear, the same, or rising sun. Latin,oriens

That the Greeks had an intercourse with the islands of Britain and Ireland, or sent colonies thither, is not impossible; and Dr. Todd, not many years ago, discovered, at Colchester, in Essex, an altar dedicated to the Tyrian Hercules, with an inscription in Greek capitals,

ΗΡΑΚΛΗΣ ΤΥΡΕΟ ΔΕΙΟ ΔΟΚΑ ΑΡΧΙΕΡΙΑ.

There is a place in Ireland calledAirchil. And it is a remarkable fact, that some fragments of old Irish laws, which, for a long time, puzzled the antiquaries of the nation, are found to be written in a very ancient language, and in the manner which the Greeks calledBoustrophedon; that is, from right to left, and from left to right, in the manner that oxen plow. This was supposed to be an improvement on the Hebrew and Phenician order of writing all the lines from right to left, which Cadmus introduced into Greece. This manner of writing in Greece was prior to Homer, and if the Irish copied from the Greeks, which is not impossible, the fact would prove a very early settlement of Ireland by Greek colonies or their descendants. See Leland's Hist. of Ireland, Prelim. Dis.

All these circumstances corroborate the opinion that the Celts came originally from the east, and formed settlements on the shores of the Mediterranean and Atlantic. The affinity between the Phenician, the Punic, the Maltese, the Irish and the British languages, discoverable in a great number of words, makes it probable, that after colonies were settled at Carthage and at Cadiz, some commercial intercourse was carried on between them and the nations at the head of the Mediterranean, and that an emigration from Spain might people Ireland before any settlements had been made there by the Gauls or Britons. It is however more probable that the Punic words in the Irish language might have been introduced into that island by subsequent colonization. At any rate, from the Hebrew, Chaldaic, or Phenician, or the common root of these languages, proceeded the Punic, the Maltese, the Iberian or Spanish, the Gaulish, the British, and the Irish. The order I have mentioned is obvious and natural; and history furnishes us with some facts to strengthen the supposition.

[C],page58.

Bishop Hickes, in his Saxon Grammar, which is a vast treasure of valuable learning, has preserved a specimen of the language and of the opinions of the English respecting it, in an extract from a manuscript of one Ranulphus Higdenus,de Incolarum linguis, translated by John Trevisa in 1385, and the ninth of Richard II. Trevisa's stile bears some affinity to that of Chaucer, with whom he was cotemporary.

"As it is knowne how meny maner peple beeth in this land: There beeth also so many dyvers longages and tongues. Nathless, Walschemen and Scotts, that hath nought medled with other nations, holdeth wel nyh his firste langage and speeche: But yif the Scottes that were sometime considerat and woned with the Picts draw somewhat after hir[148]speeche: But yif the Flemynges thatwoneth in the weste side of Wales haveth left her strange speeche and speketh Sexon like now. Also Englishmen, they had from the begynnynge thre maner speeche, northerne, sowtherne, and middel speeche in the middle of the lande, as they come of the maner peple of Germania. Nathless by comyxtion and mellynge[149]; first with Danes and afterwards with Normans, in meny the contray langage is apayred[150]and som useth strong wlafferynge,[4] chiterynge,[4] hartynge[4] and gartynge,[4] grisbayting;[151]this apayryng[152]of the burthe of the tunge is because of tweie thinges: oon is for children in scole, agenst the usage and maner of all other nations, beeth compelled for to leve hire owne langage, and for to consture hir lessons and here[153]thinges in Frenche and so they haveth sethe[154]Normans came firste into England. Also gentilmen children beeth taught to speke Frenche from the tyme that they beeth rokked in hire cradle and conneth[155]speke and play with a childes brache and uplandissche men[156]will likne hymself to gentilmen and fondeth[157]with the greet besynesse for to speke Frenche for to be told of. [Trevisa, the translator remarks here—"This maner was moche used to, for first deth,[158]and is sithe[159]sum del[160]changed. For John Cornwaile, a maister of grammer, changed the lore[161]in grammer scole and construction of Frenche into Englishe. And Richard Peneriche lerned the manere techynge of him as other men, of Penriche. So that now the yere of our Lorde a thousand thre hundred and four score and fyve and of the second king Richard after the conquest, nyne; and alle the grammar scoles of England children lerneth Frenche and construeth and lerneth an Englishe and haveth thereby advantage in oon side, and disadvantage in another side. Here[162]advantage is that they lerneth hir grammer in lasse tyme, than childrenwere wonned to doo. Disadvantage is, that now children of grammer scole conneth na more Frenche than can hirlift heele,[163]and that is harme for hem an they schulle[164]passe the see and travaille in strange londes and in many other places. Also gentilmen haveth now moche left for to teche here children Frenche."]Ranulphus.—Hit seemeth a great wonder how Englishe men and her[165]own longage and tongue is so dyverse of sown in this oon ilande, and the longage of Normandie is comlynge[166]of another lande and hath oon maner soun among all men that speketh hit arigt in England. [Trevisa's remark—"Nevertheless there is as many diverse maner Frenche in the reeme[167]of France, as is dyvers maner Englishe in the reeme of England."]R. Also of the aforesaid Saxon tonge that is deled[168]athree and is abide scarceliche[169]with few uplandishe men, is great wonder. For men of the est with men of the west is as it were under the same partie of hevene accordeth more in sownynge of speeche than men of the north with men of the south. Therefore it is that Mercii, that beeth men of myddel England, as it were, parteners of the endes, understandeth bettrie the side longages than northerne and southerne understandeth either other. All the longage of the Northumbers and specialliche at York, is so scharp, slitting and frotynge and unschape that the southerne men may that longage unnethe[170]understande. I trow that is because that they beeth nyh to strange men and nations, that speketh strongliche, and also because the kinges of Englande woneth[171]alway fer[172]from that contray, for they beeth more turned to the south contray, and yif they goeth to the northe contray, they goeth with great helpe and strengthe. The cause why they beeth more in the southe contray than in the northe, for it may be bettercorn londe, more peple, more noble cities, and more profitable havenes."[173]

On this passage we may make the following remarks:

1. That the third person singular of the verb is invariably used withpluralas well as singular nouns;theybeeth,haveth. Whereas in Chaucer and Mandeville the same person ends generally inen;they seynforthey say.

The same third person was used for the imperative, by the best English writers,

"And soft take me in your armes twey,For love of God, and hearkeneth what I sey."

Chaucer, Knight's Tale, 2783.

"And at certyn houres, they seyn to certyn offices,maketh pees;" that is,make peace.—Mandeville, p. 281.

2. Thatyifis used forif; a proof thatifis a verb, a contraction ofgiforyif(for they were used promiscuously) the imperative ofgifan, to give.[174]3. That the subjunctive form of verbs was not used afterif;and yif they goeth to the northe contray.4. That there were three principal dialects in the English; thenorthern, which was corrupted by the Scots and Picts, and from which the present Yorkshire language is derived; themiddle, which came from Germany and retained its primitive purity, and is the true parent of modern English; and thesouthern, by whichis meant, either the language of the southern parts which was corrupted by an intercourse with foreigners; or what is more probable, the language spoken in Devonshire, and on the borders of Cornwall, which was mixed with the old British, and is now almost unintelligible.5. That the conquests of the Danes and Normans had corrupted the pure language of the Saxons.

2. Thatyifis used forif; a proof thatifis a verb, a contraction ofgiforyif(for they were used promiscuously) the imperative ofgifan, to give.[174]

3. That the subjunctive form of verbs was not used afterif;and yif they goeth to the northe contray.

4. That there were three principal dialects in the English; thenorthern, which was corrupted by the Scots and Picts, and from which the present Yorkshire language is derived; themiddle, which came from Germany and retained its primitive purity, and is the true parent of modern English; and thesouthern, by whichis meant, either the language of the southern parts which was corrupted by an intercourse with foreigners; or what is more probable, the language spoken in Devonshire, and on the borders of Cornwall, which was mixed with the old British, and is now almost unintelligible.

5. That the conquests of the Danes and Normans had corrupted the pure language of the Saxons.

6. That this corruption proceeded principally from the teaching of French in schools.7. That country people, (uplandish men) imitated the practice of the polite, and learnt French, as many do now,to be told of.8. That Cornwail and others, in Trevisa's time, had begun to reform this practice.9. That French had almost banished the native Saxon from the polite part of the nation, and that theuplandishor western people alone retained it uncorrupted.10. That the kings of England resided principally in the southern parts of the kingdom, where the land was most fertile, best cultivated, most populous, and most advantageous for commerce.

6. That this corruption proceeded principally from the teaching of French in schools.

7. That country people, (uplandish men) imitated the practice of the polite, and learnt French, as many do now,to be told of.

8. That Cornwail and others, in Trevisa's time, had begun to reform this practice.

9. That French had almost banished the native Saxon from the polite part of the nation, and that theuplandishor western people alone retained it uncorrupted.

10. That the kings of England resided principally in the southern parts of the kingdom, where the land was most fertile, best cultivated, most populous, and most advantageous for commerce.

[D],page59.

Chaucer's particular patron was John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster. He married Philippa, the sister of Lady Swinford, who before her marriage and after her husband's death, was one of the Duke's family.

"Grete wellChaucerwhen you mete—Of dittees and of songes glade,The which he——madeThe londe fulfilled is over all."

Gower.

Gower is said to have been Chaucer's preceptor.

"My maisterChaucer—chiefe poet of BretayneWhom all this lond should of right preferre,Sith of our language he wasthe lode starre,That made first to dystylle and rayneThe gold dew dropys of speche and eloquenceInto our tungue through his excellence."

Lydgate.

Chaucer's merit in improving the English language is celebrated by other poets of his time—Occleve, Douglas and Dunbar. They call him thefloure of eloquence, thefader in science, and thefirste fynder of our fayre langage.

He died in 1400.

It must however be remarked that Chaucer did not import foreign words, so much as introduce them into books and give them currency in writing. It must further be observed that when I speak of the incorporation of Latin words with the English, I would not be understood to mean that words were taken directly from the Roman tongue and anglicised. On the other hand, they mostly came thro the channel of the Norman orProvençal French; and perhaps we may call them with proprietyFrenchwords; for they had lost much of their Roman form among the Gauls, Franks and Normans.

The most correct account I have seen of the state of the language in the 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th centuries, is in the first volume of Bell's edition of Chaucer.

We have the authority of Ingulphus, a historian of credit, for alleging that the French began to be fashionable in England, before the conquest. Edward the Confessor resided many years in Normandy, and imbibed a predilection for the French manners and language. On his accession to the throne of England, in 1043, he promoted many of his Norman favorites to the first dignities in the kingdom; under the influence of the king and his friends, the English began to imitate the French fashions.

But the conquest in 1066, completed the change. The court of William consisted principally of foreigners who could speak no language but French. Most of the high offices and rich livings in the kingdom were filled with Normans, and the castles which, by order of the conqueror, were built in different parts of the country, were garrisoned by foreign soldiers, in whom the king might most safely confide.[175]Public business was transacted in the French, and it became dishonorable or a mark of low breeding, not to understand that language. Indeed under the first reigns after the conquest, it was a disgrace to be called anEnglishman. In this depressed state of the English, their language could not fail to be neglected by the polite part of the nation.

But as the body of the nation did not understand French, there must have been a constant effort to root it out and establish the English. The latter however gained ground slowly during the two first centuries of the revolution. But in the reign of king John, Normandy,which had been united with England under the Norman princes, was taken by the French, 1205, and thus separated from the British dominions. In the next reign (Henry III.) some regulations were made between the two kingdoms, by which the subjects of either were rendered incapable of holding lands in the other. These events must have restrained, in some degree, the intercourse between the two kingdoms, and given the English an opportunity to assume their own native character and importance. In this reign the English began to value themselves upon their birth, and a knowlege of the English language was a recommendation, tho not a requisite, in a candidate for a benefice.

It appears also by the passage of Higden before quoted, that the practice of construing Latin into French, in the schools, had closed before his time. This, with the other causes before assigned, contributed to root out the French, and make the English reputable; and in the reign of Edward III. produced the act, mentioned in the text, in favor of the English. This act did not produce a total change of practice at once; for we find the proceedings in parliament were published in French for sixty years after the pleas in courts were ordered to be in English, and the statutes continued in French about 120 years after the act, till the first of Richard III.

It may be observed that the royal assent to bills was in some instances given in English during the reign of Henry VI.Be it ordained as it is asked: Be it as it is axed.[176]But the royal assent is now declared in French.

[E],page66and 34.

Sir William Temple's stile, tho easy and flowing,is too diffuse: Every page of his abounds with tautologies. Take the following specimen from the first page that presents itself on opening his third volume.

"Upon the survey of these dispositions in mankind and these conditions of government, it seems much more reasonable to pity than to envy thefortunesanddignitiesof princes orgreatministers ofstate; and tolessenandexcusetheirvenialfaults, or at least their misfortunes, rather than toencreaseandmake them worsebyill colorsandrepresentations."——Of Pop. Dis.

Fortunesanddignitiesmight have been better expressed byelevated rankorhigh stations;greatis superfluous, and so arelessenandmake them worse, and eithercolorsorrepresentationsmight have been omitted.

"The first safety ofprincesandstateslies in avoiding allcouncilsordesignsof innovation, inancientandestablished formsandlaws, especially those concerning liberty, property and religion (which are the possessions men will ever have most at heart;) and thereby leaving the channel ofknownandcommonjusticeclearandundisturbed." Several words might here be retrenched, and yet leave the author's meaning more precise and intelligible. This is the principal fault in Temple's stile.

"But men, accustomed to the free and vagrant life of hunters, are incapable of regular application to labor; and consider agriculture as asecondaryandinferioroccupation."—Robertson's Hist. Amer. book 4.

Supposingsecondaryandinferiornot to be exactly synonimous, in this sentence one would have answered the purpose.

"Agriculture, even when the strength of man is seconded by that of the animalswhich he has subjected to the yoke, and his power augmented bythe use of the various instruments with whichthe discovery of metalshas furnished him, is stilla workof great labor."—The same.

This sentence is very exceptionable. Isagriculture, a work?Can sodefinitea term be applied to such ageneralidea? But what a group of useless words follow! It was not sufficient to say,the strength of man seconded by that of animals, but the kinds of animals must be specified; viz. such ashe has subjected to the yoke; when every person knows that other animals are never used; and consequently the author's idea would have been sufficiently explicit without that specification. In the subsequent clause, the words,his power augmented by the use of the various instruments of metal, would have been explicit; for thediscovery of metalsmust have been implied. Such expletive words load the mind with a chain of particular ideas which are not essential to the discourse.

"—And if any one of these prognostics is deemed unfavorable, they instantly abandon the pursuit ofthosemeasures,on which they are most eagerly bent."—The same.

Here is an awkward conclusion of the period, and ascribeable to a too nice regard for grammatical rules.They are most eagerly bent on, would perhaps have been better; but a different construction would have been still less exceptionable. There is however a greater fault in the construction. By employingthoseandmost eagerly, the idea is, that savages, on the appearance of unfavorable omens, would abandonthosemeasuresonly, on which they aremost eagerlybent, and not others that they might be pursuing with less earnestness. Why could not the author have said in plain English—"they instantly abandon any measure they are pursuing."

This writer's stile likewise abounds with synonims; asstrengthenandconfirm,quickenandanimate; when one term would fully express the meaning. "Strong liquorsawakea savage from historpid state—give a brisker motion to his spirits, andenlivenhim more thoroughly than either dancing or gaming."—Book. 4. What a needless repetition of the same idea! The author is also very liberal in the use ofall—"allthetransportsandfrenzyof intoxication."—"War, which between extensive kingdoms, is carried on with little animosity, is prosecuted by small tribes, withallthe rancor of a private quarrel."

In short, the stile of Dr. Robertson, the great, the philosophic historian, is too labored. The mind of the reader is kept constantly engaged in attending to the structure of the periods; it is fatigued with words and drawn from the chain of events.

The stile of Kaims, tho not easy and flowing, is precise, and generally accurate. The stile of Blair's Lectures is less correct than that of his Sermons; but at the same time, less formal in the structure of the periods.

These remarks, the reader will observe, respect stile only; for the merit of Robertson, as a judicious and faithful historian; and of Kaims and Blair, as critics, is above praise or censure.

In no particular is the false taste of the English more obvious, than in the promiscuous encomiums they have bestowed on Gibbon, as a historian. His work is not properly a "Historyof the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire;" but a "Poetico-Historical Description of certain Persons and Events, embellished with suitable imagery and episodes, designed to show the author's talent in selecting words, as well as to delight the ears of his readers." In short, his history should be entitled, "A Display of Words;" except some chapters which are excellent commentaries on the history of the Roman Empire.

The general fault of this author is, he takes more pains to form his sentences, than to collect, arrange and express the facts in an easy and perspicuous manner. In consequence of attending to ornament, he seems to forget that he is writing for theinformationof his reader, and when he ought toinstructthemind, he is onlypleasingtheear. Fully possessed of his subject, he describes things and events in general terms or figurative language, which leave upon the mind a faint evanescent impression of some indeterminate idea; so that the reader, not obtaining a clear precise knowlege of the facts, finds it difficult to understand, and impossible to recollect, the author's meaning. Let a man read his volumes with the most laborious attention, and he will find at the close that he can give very little account of the "Roman Empire;" but he will remember perfectly that Gibbon is a most elegant writer.

History is capable of very little embellishment;tropesandfiguresare the proper instruments ofeloquenceanddeclamation;factsonly are the subjects ofhistory. Reflections of the author are admitted; but these should not be frequent; for the reader claims a right to his own opinions. The justness of the historian's remarks may be called in question—facts only are incontestible. The plain narrative of the Scripture historians, and of Herodotus, with their dialogues and digressions, is as far superior, considered as pure history, to the affected glaring brilliancy of stile and manner, which runs thro Gibbon's writings, as truth is to fiction; or the vermillion blush of nature and innocence, to the artificial daubings of fashion. The first never fails to affect the heart—the last can only dazzle the senses.

Another fault in Gibbon's manner of writing, is, the use ofepithetsortitlesinstead ofnames. "The Cæsar, the conqueror of the east, the protector of the church, the country of the Cæsars, the son of Leda," and innumerable similar appellations are employed, instead of the real names of the persons and places; and frequently at such a distance from any mention of the name, thatthe reader is obliged to turn over a leaf and look for an explanation. Many of the epithets are new; custom has not made us familiar with them; they have never been substituted, by common consent, for the true names; the reader is therefore surprized with unexpected appellations, and constantly interrupted to find the persons or things to which they belong.

I am not about to write a lengthy criticism on this author's history; a few passages only will be selected as proofs of what I have advanced. "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," vol. 3, oct. chap. 17: In explaining the motives of the Emperors for removing the seat of government from Rome to the East, the author says—"Romewas insensibly confounded with the dependent kingdoms which had once acknowleged her supremacy; andthe country of the Cæsarswas viewed with cold indifference by a martial prince, born in the neighborhood of the Danube, educated in the courts and armies of Asia, and invested with thepurpleby the legions of Britain." By the author's beginning one part of the sentence withRome, and the other withthe country of the Cæsars, the reader is led to think two different places are intended, for he has not a suspicion of a tautology; or at least he supposes the author usesthe country of the Cæsarsin a more extensive sense thanRome. He therefore looks back and reads perhaps half a page with a closer attention, and finds that the writer is speaking of theseat of empire, and therefore can mean thecity of Romeonly. After this trouble he is displeased that the author has employedfive wordsto swell and adorn his period. This however is not the only difficulty in understanding the author. Who is themartial prince? In the preceding sentence, Dioclesian is mentioned, as withdrawing from Rome; and in the sentence following, Constantine is said to visit Rome but seldom. The reader then is left to collect the author's meaning, by the circumstances of the birth, education and election of this martial prince. If he is possessed of these facts already, he may go on without much trouble.

The author's affectation of usingthe purplefor the crown or imperial dignity, is so obvious by numberless repetitions of the word, as to be perfectly ridiculous.

"In the choice of an advantageous situation, he preferred the confines of Europe and Asia; to curb,with a powerful arm, the barbarians who dwelt between the Danube and Tanais; to watch,with an eye of jealousy, the conduct of the Persian monarch." Here the members of the sentence in Italics, are altogether superfluous; the author wanted to inform his reader, that Dioclesian designed to curb the barbarians and watch the Persian monarch; for which purpose he chose a favorable situation; but it was wholly immaterial to the subject to relate in what manner or degree, the emperor meant to exert his arm or his jealousy. Nay more, these are circumstances which are not reduceable to any certainty, and of which the writer and the reader can have no precise idea.

"With these views, Dioclesian had selected and embellished theresidence of Nicomedia."—Is Nicomedia a princess, whose residence the emperor selected and embellished? This is the most obvious meaning of the sentence. But Nicomedia, we learn from other passages, was a city, theresidenceitself of the emperor. Yet the author could not tell us this in a few plain words, without spoiling the harmony of the phrase; he chose therefore to leave it obscure and ungrammatical.

"—But the memory of Dioclesian was justly abhorred by theProtector of the Church; andConstantinewas not insensible to the ambition of founding a city, which might perpetuate the glory of his own name." Who is theprotector of the church? By Constantine's being mentioned immediately after, one would think he cannot be the person intended; yet on examination, this is found to be the case. But why this separate appellation? It seems the author meant by it to convey thisidea; That Dioclesian was a persecutor of the church, therefore his memory was abhorred by Constantine who was its protector; thecauseofConstantine'sabhorrenceis implied, and meant to be unfolded to the reader, in a single epithet. Is this history? I must have the liberty to think that suchtersenessof stile, notwithstanding the authorities of Tacitus and Gibbon, is a gross corruption and a capital fault.

In description, our author often indulges a figurative poetical manner, highly improper.

"The figure of the imperial city (Constantinople) may be represented under that of an unequal triangle. The obtuse point, which advances towards the east, and the shores of Asia, meets and repels the waves of the Thracian Bosphorus." Here the author soars on poetic wings, and we behold theobtuse pointof atriangle,marchingeastward,attackingandrepulsingitsfoes, thewavesof the Bosphorus; in the next line, the author sinks from the heights of Parnassus, and creeps on the plain ofsimple narrative—"The northern side of the city is bounded by the harbor."

"On these banks, tradition long preserved the memory of the sylvan reign of Amycus, who defied theson of Ledato the combat of the Cestus." The author takes it for granted that his reader is acquainted with all the ancient fables of Greece and Rome. Suchallusionsto facts or fables make a wretched figure insober history.[177]

The author, after the manner of the poets, admits episodes into his descriptions, by way of variety and embellishment. He begins a description of Constantinople; to do justice to the city, he must describe its situation; he therefore gives an account of the Thracian Bosphorus, the Propontus and Hellespont, interspersed with ancient fables, and adorned with poetical imagery. When he arrives at the mouth of the Hellespont, his fancy leads him to the seat of ancient Troy, and hecannot pass it, without telling us from Homer, where the Grecian armies were encamped; where the flanks of the army were guarded by Agamemnon's bravest chiefs; where Achilles and his myrmidons occupied a promontory; where Ajax pitched his tent; and where his tomb was erected after his death. After indulging his fancy on this memorable field of heroic actions, he isqualifiedto describe Constantinople.

But it is needless to multiply examples; for similar faults occur in almost every page. Most men, who have read this history, perceive a difficulty in understanding it; yet few have attempted to find the reason; and hardly a man has dared to censure the stile and manner.

To what cause then shall we ascribe the almost unanimous consent of the English and Americans, in lavishing praises upon Gibbon's history? In some measure doubtless to the greatness of the attempt, and the want of an English history which should unfold the series of events which connects ancient and modern times. The man who should light a lamp, to illuminate the dark period of time from the 5th to the 15th century, would deserve immortal honors. The attempt is great; it is noble; it is meritorious. Gibbon appears to have been faithful, laborious, and perhaps impartial. It is his stile and manner only I am censuring; for these are exceedingly faulty. For proof of this I appeal to a single fact, which I have never heard contradicted; that a man who would comprehend Gibbon, must read with painful attention, and after all receive little improvement.

The encomiums of his countrymen proceed from false taste; a taste for superfluous ornament. Men are disposed to lessen the trouble of reading, and to spare the labor of examining into the causes and consequences of events. They choose to please their eyes and ears, rather than feed the mind. Hence the rage forabridgements, and a display of rhetorical embellishments. Hence the eclat with which "Millot's Elements of General History," is received in the world. This work is no more than anIndex to General History; or a recapitulation of the principal events. It is calculated for two classes of people; for those who, having read history in the original writers, want to revise their studies, without a repetition of their first labors; and for those who have but little time to employ in reading, and expect only a general and superficial knowlege of history.[178]But a man who would know the minute springs of action; the remote and collateral, as well as the direct causes and consequences of events; and the nice shades of character which distinguish eminent men, with a view to draw rules from living examples; such a man must pass by abridgements as trash; he must have recourse to the original writers, or to collections of authentic papers. Indeed a collection of all the material official papers, arranged in the order of time, however dry and unentertaining to most readers, is really thebest, and theonly authentichistory of a country. The philosopher and statesman, who wish to substitute fact for opinion, will generally suspect human testimony; but repose full confidence in the evidence of papers, which have been the original instruments of public transactions, and recorded by public authority.

These strictures are contrary to the opinions of most men, especially as they regard the stile of the authors mentioned. Yet they are written with a full conviction of their being well founded. They proceedfrom an earnest desire of arresting the progress of false taste in writing, and of seeing my countrymen called back to nature and truth.

The foregoing remarks were written before I had seen the opinions of that judicious and elegant writer, East Apthorp,M. A.vicar of Croydon, on the same history. The following passage is too directly in point to be omitted. It is in his "Second Letter on the Study of History."

"I was disappointed in my expectations of instruction from this book (Gibbon's History) when I discerned that the author had adopted that entertaining but superficial manner of writing history, which was first introduced by the Abbe de Vertot, whose History of the Revolutions in the Government of the Roman Republic, is one of those agreeable and seducing models which never fail of producing a multitude of imitations. There is, in this way of writing, merit enough to recommend it to such readers, and such writers, as propose to themselves no higher aim, than an elegant literary amusement: It piques their curiosity, while it gratifies their indolence. The historian has the advantage, in this way, of passing over such events and institutions as, however essential to the science of history, are less adapted to shine in the recital. By suppressing facts and violating chronology; by selecting the most pleasing incidents and placing them in a striking point of view, by the coloring and drapery of stile and composition, the imagination is gratified with a gaudy spectacle of triumphs and revolutions passing in review before it; while the rapid succession of great events affords a transient delight, without leaving useful and lasting impressions either on the memory or judgement; or fixing those principles which ought to be the result of historic information.

"Nor is it the worst consequence of this slight and modish way of compiling history, that it affords to supine and unreflecting readers a barren entertainment, to fill up the vacant hours of indolence and dissipation. The historian who gives himself the privilege of mutilating and selecting, and arranging at discretion the records of past ages, has full scope to obtrude on his careless readers any system that suits with his preconceived opinions or particular views in writing."—"The only legitimate study of history is inoriginal historians."

The same writer complains of a decline of literature in Great Britain, fixing the "settlement that followed the revolution," as the era of true science and greatness. He remarks that the "aim of modern writers seems to be to furnish their readers with fugitive amusement, and that ancient literature is become rather the ornament of our libraries, than the accomplishment of our minds; being supplanted by the modish productions which are daily read and forgotten."

[F],page76.

For proof of what I have advanced respecting the sound of c in Rome, I would observe, that the genitive case of the first declension in Latin anciently ended inai, which was probably copied from the Greeks; for it is very evident the Latinæin later writers, was the true representative of the Greekai. ThusMousaiin Greek was translated into the Roman tongue,musæ. Nowcbeforeaihad the sound ofk; for where the Romans wrotecæthe Greeks wrotekai. Thusmusica,musicæin the first declension must have been pronouncedmusika,musikai, notmusisee, as we now pronounce theæ.

As a further proof, we may appeal to the laws of the Roman poetry, by which dipthongs were always long, having the sound of two vowels combined.

But a decisive proof thatcbefore the vowelsa,o,uand the dipthongs, had the power ofk, is that the Greeks always translated thecinkappa. They wrote Cæsar,Kaisaros, &c.

In confirmation of which I may add, that the Germans, among whom the wordCæsarbecame common to all emperors, and now signifiesemperor, spell itKaisar; and in the pronunciation they preserve the true Roman sound ofCæsar.[179]

That the Romancbeforeeandihad the force ofchortsh, is probable from the present practice of the Italians, who would be the most likely to retain the pure Roman pronunciation. In modern Italiance,ciare pronouncedche,chi; asdolcemente,Cicero, pronounceddolchemente,Chichero.

In this opinion I am supported by Dr. Middleton, who seems to have been thoroughly versed in Roman literature. It may gratify the learned reader to see his own words.De Lat. Liter. pron. differ.

"Ante vocalesa,o,v[180]eundem olim sonum habuisse ac hodie habet certissimum est: qualem autem ante reliquaseeti, diphthongosqueæ,œ,evhabuerit, haud ita convenit. Angli illam Gallique etiam, haud absdistinguunt, in Cœna, Cæsar, Ceres, cinis, &c. at in iisdem Itali, quod Romanos etiam fecisse olim existimo, eum huic literæ sonum tribuunt, quo noschefferimus, in vocibus nostris,cheek,cherry,cheap, &c. itaque pronunciant Cicero, uti nos Chichester, chicheley, &c. ita tamen ac si antec, cum in medio vocis sequatur vocalem, litera t leviter admodum et subobscure sonanda interponeretur; utCitcero, Chitchester, quam pronuntiandi rationem expressisse plane sculptor quidam videtur, qui in inscriptione veteri contra orthographiæ regulas,tantecinterposuit in nomineVrbitcius."

He observes however that Lipsius ridicules this opinion, and contends thatchad in all cases the force ofk. This the Doctor ascribes to his partiality for the pronunciation of his countrymen, the Germans, which, he says, has often led him into errors. For althokbeforea,o,uused frequently to be written forc, asKarcerforCarcer, yet it never took the place ofcbeforeeandi; we never findKarkerforCarcer.

But thatchad the sound of ourch, is probable from another fact: In old inscriptions it is found thatcwas often used fortbeforei;condicioforconditio,palaciumforpalatium. Nowchin English have a compound sound, which begins with that oft, and hencetiandciin English have taken the sound ofchorsh. It is evident therefore thatcbeforeihad a great affinity toti; an affinity which is still preserved in the Italian language. These circumstances give us reason to believe thatciandtiincondicioandpalatium, were both pronouncedchi,condichio,palachium. This sound ofciagrees perfectly well with the Saxon sound incild, pronouncedchild;cele, now pronouncedchill, as I have remarked above; text, page72.

Back to Index Next