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], page 66 and 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 the
_fortunes_ and _dignities_ of princes or _great_ ministers of _state_;
and to _lessen_ and _excuse_ their _venial_ faults, or at least their
misfortunes, rather than to _encrease_ and _make them worse_ by _ill
colors_ and _representations_."----Of Pop. Dis.
_Fortunes_ and _dignities_ might have been better expressed by
_elevated rank_ or _high stations_; _great_ is superfluous, and
so are _lessen_ and _make them worse_, and either _colors_ or
_representations_ might have been omitted.
"The first safety of _princes_ and _states_ lies in avoiding all
_councils_ or _designs_ of innovation, in _ancient_ and _established
forms_ and _laws_, especially those concerning liberty, property and
religion (which are the possessions men will ever have most at heart;)
and thereby leaving the channel of _known_ and _common_ justice _clear_
and _undisturbed_." 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
a _secondary_ and _inferior_ occupation."--Robertson's Hist. Amer. book
4.
Supposing _secondary_ and _inferior_ not 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 animals _which he has subjected to the yoke_, and his power
augmented by _the use of the various instruments with which_ the
discovery of metals has furnished him, is still _a work_ of great
labor."--The same.
This sentence is very exceptionable. Is _agriculture, a work?_ Can
so _definite_ a term be applied to such a _general_ idea? 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 as _he 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 the _discovery of metals_ must 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 of _those_ measures, _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 employing _those_ and _most eagerly_, the idea is,
that savages, on the appearance of unfavorable omens, would abandon
_those_ measures _only_, on which they are _most eagerly_ bent, 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; as _strengthen_
and _confirm_, _quicken_ and _animate_; when one term would fully
express the meaning. "Strong liquors _awake_ a savage from his _torpid
state_--_give a brisker motion to his spirits_, and _enliven_ him 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
of _all_--"_all_ the _transports_ and _frenzy_ of intoxication."--"War,
which between extensive kingdoms, is carried on with little animosity,
is prosecuted by small tribes, with _all_ the 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 "_History_ of 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 the _information_ of his reader,
and when he ought to _instruct_ the _mind_, he is only _pleasing_ the
_ear_. 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; _tropes_ and _figures_
are the proper instruments of _eloquence_ and _declamation_; _facts_
only are the subjects of _history_. 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 of _epithets_
or _titles_ instead of _names_. "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, that the 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--"_Rome_ was
insensibly confounded with the dependent kingdoms which had once
acknowleged her supremacy; and _the country of the Cæsars_ was 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 the _purple_ by the legions of Britain." By the author's beginning
one part of the sentence with _Rome_, and the other with _the 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 uses _the country of the Cæsars_ in a more
extensive sense than _Rome_. He therefore looks back and reads perhaps
half a page with a closer attention, and finds that the writer is
speaking of the _seat of empire_, and therefore can mean the _city
of Rome_ only. After this trouble he is displeased that the author
has employed _five words_ to swell and adorn his period. This however
is not the only difficulty in understanding the author. Who is the
_martial 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 using _the purple_ for 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 the
_residence 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, the _residence_ itself 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 the _Protector
of the Church_; and _Constantine_ was not insensible to the ambition
of founding a city, which might perpetuate the glory of his own name."
Who is the _protector 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 this idea;
That Dioclesian was a persecutor of the church, therefore his memory
was abhorred by Constantine who was its protector; the _cause_ of
_Constantine_'s _abhorrence_ is implied, and meant to be unfolded to
the reader, in a single epithet. Is this history? I must have the
liberty to think that such _terseness_ of 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 the _obtuse point_ of a _triangle_, _marching_ eastward,
_attacking_ and _repulsing_ its _foes_, the _waves_ of the Bosphorus;
in the next line, the author sinks from the heights of Parnassus, and
creeps on the plain of _simple 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 the _son of Leda_ to 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. Such _allusions_ to
facts or fables make a wretched figure in _sober 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
he cannot 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 is _qualified_ to 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 for _abridgements_, 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 an _Index 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 the _best_, and the _only authentic_ history
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 proceed from
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 in _original
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], page 76.
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 in _ai_, which was probably copied from the Greeks;
for it is very evident the Latin _æ_ in later writers, was the true
representative of the Greek _ai_. Thus _Mousai_ in Greek was translated
into the Roman tongue, _musæ_. Now _c_ before _ai_ had the sound of
_k_; for where the Romans wrote _cæ_ the Greeks wrote _kai_. Thus
_musica_, _musicæ_ in the first declension must have been pronounced
_musika_, _musikai_, not _musisee_, as we now pronounce the _æ_.
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 that _c_ before the vowels _a_, _o_, _u_ and the
dipthongs, had the power of _k_, is that the Greeks always translated
the _c_ in _kappa_. They wrote Cæsar, _Kaisaros_, &c.
In confirmation of which I may add, that the Germans, among whom
the word _Cæsar_ became common to all emperors, and now signifies
_emperor_, spell it _Kaisar_; and in the pronunciation they preserve
the true Roman sound of _Cæsar_.[179]
That the Roman _c_ before _e_ and _i_ had the force of _ch_ or _tsh_,
is probable from the present practice of the Italians, who would be the
most likely to retain the pure Roman pronunciation. In modern Italian
_ce_, _ci_ are pronounced _che_, _chi_; as _dolcemente_, _Cicero_,
pronounced _dolchemente_, _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 vocales _a_, _o_, _v_[180] eundem olim sonum habuisse ac
hodie habet certissimum est: qualem autem ante reliquas _e_ et _i_,
diphthongosque _æ_, _oe_, _ev_ habuerit, haud ita convenit. Angli illam
Gallique etiam, haud ab _s_ distinguunt, in Coena, Cæsar, Ceres, cinis,
&c. at in iisdem Itali, quod Romanos etiam fecisse olim existimo,
eum huic literæ sonum tribuunt, quo nos _ch_ efferimus, in vocibus
nostris, _cheek_, _cherry_, _cheap_, &c. itaque pronunciant Cicero,
uti nos Chichester, chicheley, &c. ita tamen ac si ante _c_, cum in
medio vocis sequatur vocalem, litera t leviter admodum et subobscure
sonanda interponeretur; ut _Citcero_, Chitchester, quam pronuntiandi
rationem expressisse plane sculptor quidam videtur, qui in inscriptione
veteri contra orthographiæ regulas, _t_ ante _c_ interposuit in nomine
_Vrbitcius_."