has inclined many to believe that the greater part of them had no meaning at all, but were employed merely to give a greater flow to the compofition. But, though they certainly have that effect, I cannot believe that a people of fo correct a taite as the Greeks would employ words, and fo many of them too, merely for the fake of the found, without any meaning, especially in their profe compofitions, and in their orations, where they were fpeaking to the people upon bufinefs of the greateft importance. The learned world, therefore, I think, are much obliged to the German profeffor Hoegenville, who has en deavoured, and I think for the greater part fuccefsfully, to give a meaning to every one of them.

"Being obliged, for the reafon I have mentioned, to write in Englifh, it often grieves me that I cannot give, both to my words and matter, the connection which the Greeks give by the means of thefe particles, fo that my fentences, do what I can, are often as much unconnected, as if there were no connection in the matter.

If what I have faid of the Greek compofition be true, 'how wonderful muft the orations of Demofthenes have been, spoken by himself, with all the graces of action and pronunciation? For, befides his action, in which he is al. lowed to have excelled, what pleafure to the ear muft have given the melody and rhythm of his language, both much ftudied by him -the variety alfo of his artificial arrangement, his periods divided into members of different lengths, and containing matter of different kinds, and which, therefore, must have been fpoken, as I have obferved, with changes of tone-his tile too, adorned with figures very different

from the figures now used, which fick out of the work and alter quite the colour of the stile, fuch as ex clamation, much used even by Cicero, and fuch as epithets which are the distinguishing characteristic of the poetic ftile, but of which the ftile of Demofthenes is almoft entirely free, (for I have read whole orations of his, where there is not a fingle epithet), the figures he ufes being fuch as efcape the attention of the unlearned, and, though the learned perceive that they give an unusual caft to the file, yet they do not know what name to give them?When I confider all these things, I fay again that the orations of mofthenes, pronounced by himself, not read even by Efchines, who, as he was a very good pleader, I fuppofe, was also a good reas der, must have been a most wonderful thing, and of beauty fo tranfcendent, that we cannot have any idea of it; or, if we could form an idea of it, we fhould not be able to imitate it, even in writing, much lefs in fpeaking, not having the materials upon which he wrought. In other arts, fuch as ftatuary, though we have the materials, yer all connoiffeurs acknowledge that no modern artist has equalled the beauty of the antient Greek statues ; but, when a modern language is the materials upon which the writ ing artist must work, it is by nature impoffible to equal the beauty of the Greek compofition, as impoffi ble as it would be to build a fine palace of rough unhewn pebbles.

length, fuch as the political reflections of Salluft upon the Roman ftate, in his introduction to Cataline's confpiracy, or his-philofophical, obfervations on human nature, in his, preface to his Jugurthine war; both which might have been proper, if he had been writing a fytem of morals or politics, or might have been more excufable, if he had been writing a general history of the Roman ftate, but, I think, are very foreign to the hiftory of fingle events in a nation, fuch as the confpiracy of Cataline, or the war of Jugurtha. "But by what I have faid, I would not be understood to mean, that the explanation of particular customs and manners of the nation whofe hiftory you write, is improper in history; but, on the contrary, I think it is extremely proper; and I regret very much, that the Roman hiftorians have not been at more pains to explain feveral things of that kind. Their excufe is, that fuch explications were quite unneceffary to thofe for whom they wrote. But they fhould have confidered, that they were writing for pofterity, and for men of other nations, who knew nothing of the Roman customs and manners. And, indeed, this defect in them would have made the Roman history hardly intelligible to us, if it had not been fupplied by the Greek hiftorians, particularly by the Halicarnaffian and Polybius; who, writing for their own countrymen, have been at pains to inform us of many things concerning the customs of the Romans both in peace and war, and the nature of their government, which otherwise we could not have unde flood. It appears, therefore, that hiftory may have fomething of the didactic ftile in it.

"But what fall we fay of the rhetorical ftile, I mean the file of

the fpeeches in the antient hiftories? Are they foreign to the subject? And I fay they are not, but, on the contrary, very proper; for they not only vary the ftile moft agree. ably, and relieve the reader from the difguft of hearing nothing but facts without reafon or argument; but they are a part, and a material part of the hiftory of nations, where the public bufinefs was carried on chiefly by fpeaking; for, in fuch a nation, the fpeeches are to be confidered as matters of fact: and accordingly Thucydides tells us, that the fpeeches he has given us, many and long as they are, were really fpoken, at least in fubftance, he himself having heard them, or being informed by them who heard them. And, even where the hiftorian could have no fuch knowledge, which is the cafe of Livy and the Halicarnaffian, with respect to the fpeeches which they put into the mouths of the perfonages of the firft ages of the Roman itate; yet, as we are fure that public bufinefs was then carried on by fpeaking, as well as in later times, they are not at all improper, more efpecially as they give the hiftorian an opportunity of explaining the counfels and motives of actions, without digreffing or letting his story ftand fill. Such speeches, therefore, are not to be confidered as epifodes, but as parts, not ornamental merely, but very ufeful, of the history.

"And here the author has an opportunity of bringing into his work, without violating the rules of hiftory, political, and even philofophical reflections, and likewife a good deal of the hiftory of other nations, by way of example, and of the fame nation in more antient times.

"And it appears, that hiftory is a moft pleafant and various compofition, taking in not only the nar

rative but the didactic and rhetorical files, and even fomething of the philofophy of morals and politics, together with examples from the hiftory of other nations and of other times.

"It remains therefore only to be inquired; whether history does not partake of the poetical ftile, as well as of the other ftiles I have mentioned and I fay it does not; and that history is as different from poetry, as it is from painting; for, as Horace fays, uti pictura poefis. And the chief difference betwixt poetry and painting is the inftru ment of imitation, painting imitat ing by lines and colours, poetry by words. And hence comes the difference betwixt the ftile of poetry and history. One of the chief characteristics of the poetical file is epithets, by which the object is reprefented to the imagination, as it is by painting to the eyes; and it is for this reafon, that Homer a bounds fo very much in epithets, bestowing them not only on perfons, but on things; and even the moft common things, such as earth and water, which in that manner may be painted or reprefented to the imagination in poetry, as to the eye in painting. But in hiftory, even perfons the moft illuftrious, ought not to be defcribed in that way, I condemn therefore in history the defigning perfons by epithets, fuch as the brave prince, the gallant warrior, the philofophic fage, and the like; though I know fuch expreffions are reckoned ornaments of the hiftorical ftile by thofe who cannot make the proper diftinction betwixt the ftile of poetry and of history And as to things, I fay there ought never an adjective to be applied to any fubftantive, merely for the fake of adorning it, or exciting any paffion in us, which is the proper definition of an epithet, but only for

the purpose of narrative or argument. Then there is the ufe of fimilies, by which a thing that may not be fo confpicuous in itfelf, is made more confpicuous by compari fon with another thing. This fi gure very much ornaments the stile; by defcriptions of beautiful things in nature, or art and accordingly the fimilies of Homer are the most ornamented parts of his poems. Then there is the frequent use of metaphors in poetry, which are fhort fimilies and, laftly, there is a particular and a minute defcription of things, called by the antient critics Two by which things are fo circumftantially and accurate. ly defcribed, that a painter may reprefent them in colours, by exactly copying the defcription given of them. Of this kind are many de. fcriptions in Homer, and particularly one in the Odyffey, where he paints as much, as is poffible for words to do, an event molt interefting, as all of the kind in poetry are; I mean the difcovery of Ulyf fes by his old nurfe, when fhe was washing his feet, an event upon which his whole fortune and the catastrophe of the poem depended. Now, fuch painting does not bes long even to oratory, as I have elfewhere fhown, but much lefs to hiftory. The reafon of which is, that the chief end of poetry is to move the paffions; whereas, the bufinefs of history is to inftruct by a faithful narrative, accurate and circumftantial enough to make the things be perceived by the understanding, but not fo minute, or fo much coloured, as to make them an object of the imagination. Such being therefore the difference betwixt poetry and hiftory, I blame the file of every hiftory whichrabounds with epithets and fimilies, or makes much ufe of metaphors that are not common in the language, or which

by a particular description of things, applies itself to the imagination and paffions.

The file of history, as well as every other ftile, confifts of two things, the choice of words, and the compofition of thefe words: The last of which is acknowledged by all the mafters of the art to be the most difficult part, as well as that which gives the greatest beauty to ftile, when well executed. As to the choice of words in hiftory, they fhould be all the common words of the language, but of the best kind, that is, fuch as are used by the politeft and best educated men, fpeaking or writing with gravity and dignity upon fubjects of importance. Of metaphors and other tropes none should be used but fuch as are common and familiar, nor any words that are obfolete and antiquated. In this particular, Salluft, as I have obferved elfewhere, is very faulty; for he abounds with obfolete words and phrafes, which are an ornament to poetry, if judicioufly employed; and, accordingly, they are much ufed by Homer, in whom it is not difficult to difcern two languages, the language of his own time, and that of times much more antient. And, I think, it is a very great beauty in the best rhyming poetry we have in English, I mean Mr. Thomfon's Cafile of Indolence. But I hold them to be improper both in hiftory and rhetoric, or in any other kind of writing or fpeaking, the fubject of which is the ordinary affairs of life.

"The compofition, therefore, is that by which the hiftorical file is chiefly to be diftinguished from any other. How much the ftile in Greek and Latin may be varied and diftinguished from common fpeech by a different arrangement of the words,

I have more than once observed in the courfe of this work. But I have also observed, that the ftinted genius of our language, fo defective in its grammar, and wanting that variety of flection, and thofe numbers and genders, by which words, at a distance from one another in pofition, are joined together in fyntax, does not admit of that beautiful variety of arrangement, which, at the fame time that it pleafes the car, conveys the fenfe more emphatically. Neither does the fimple fyntax of our language admit of all that variety of figures of conftruction, with which Thucydides has adorned his ftile fo much, that, as the Halicarnaffian has obfervéd, the grammarians have not names for them all. These figures, though they be what the antient critics call

honors, that is, having the appearance of folicifms, yet, if they be not intemperately ufed, or so as to produce an obfcurity in the fense, which is often the cafe in Thucydides, are a beauty of fìile, but such as our language does not admit. The only way therefore remaining, by which our hiftorical file in English can be diftinguished from common fpeech, is by compofition in periods. And, indeed, it is the greatest beauty of all compofition, whether in learned or unlearned languages, in profe or in verfe. I have faid a good deal upon this fubject elsewhere in this volume, which I will not hare repear. In volume third, I have given definitions of a period from Ariftotle and Cicero, and have shown how much better the philofopher has defined it than the orator; I have alfo illutrated what I have faid upon the subject by examples from Demofthenes, Cicero and Milton, I will only add here, that whoever is not fenfible of the beauty of a period, does

not