the number of those works which should form a part of every complete library,some historical abridgements by a man of letters, capable, if it be possible, of making good abridgements. The favourable reception given by the Commission to these abridgements naturally calls forth some general observations on the manner of writing history.

The methods of writing history are principally two. It may be written with all those more interesting details, which suit the dignity of the subject, after the manner of Rollin, Cuvier, Le Beau, Daniel, Velly, Hume, &c. It may be written with a view only to ge neral facts, such as constitute the causes, the unity, and the result of events, in the manner of Bosuet, Fleury, and Montesquieu, in the "Discourse on Universal History,"

than the advantages of the two ex. tremes. They have either too much detail, or not enough; and they give neither sufficient hold to the memory, nor exercise to the judge

ment.

History, properly so called, that is, with all its details, is peculiarly fit for young people. At their age they have leisure to read, and power to retain. Their time is not absorbed by the cares of life, nor their memory crouded by personal recollections. Accordingly, young people remember only long histo ries: that is, it is that detail of facts which it is the principal business of abridgements to curtail, which makes the most vivid and durable impression on their me mories; and it is upon this propensity to remember detailed and minute facts, that those methods

of

of artificial memory, which hang the most important recollections upon the slight thread of relation betwixt words and ideas, are founded. When we would call to mind a man of whom we have but a slight remembrance or knowledge, it is to the casual relations of time, place, habit, look, gesture, we have recourse, to aid our memory in the act of recollection. To apply this observation: what are those features of the Roman history which are most indelibly impressed on the minds of children? Are they not the foundation of Rome, the rape of the Sabines, the death of Romulus, the combat of the Horatii, the expulsion of the Gauls, the stra. tagems of Hannibal ?-When children come to the end of a long his tory of facts, they regret that it is not still longer, as it was not less pleasing to them than the conversation of an amusing companion. The way to let men remain ignorant of history, would be to make chil. dren read abridgements; and if the history of ancient nations is so often better remembered than that of modern, it is that history, in the infancy of society, is loaded with details, familiar, extraordinary, and often fabulous.

That method of history, which consists in suppressing facts, that may be deemed the body of history, to seize the spirit of it, that is, general causes with their effects, is suited to fully grown men: I say fully grown men, for some men are always children. It is suitable, especially to public men, who ha. ving to fashion others, should themselves be particularly accomplished. At that age, and especially in public life, the cares and business of life, the inquietudes of fortune or

ambition, contracting and confining the efforts of thought to our own persons, our own times, and our own hopes, leave the memory little leisure to recur to periods and his tories no longer interesting. Besides, while the memory is impaired, reflection and judgement strengthen with our years, and incline us rather to that sort of study which may afford the most ample scope to our most perfect energies : may there not, too, be a secret analogy betwixt our state in life and our literary taste? The young man begins his history, and would be acquainted with the details of life; the old man finishes his, and would dwell on its results.-Farther; to children every thing, even fable, is history: to men, even history is fable. Experience and his own vices have taught the latter to appreciate the errors of history, by a knowledge of those passions which corrupt the fidelity, or mislead the judgement of the historian. The child errs from too much credulity; the man from too much distrust. Yet it is true, that history, dubious in its details, is nevertheless certain in its general import, because time, which alters or destroys facts, disCovers or confirms their results.

The young retain every thing, because they have no predominating passions; the advanced in life retain only the portion of history which flatters their own passions, or accords with their own interests. The weak man will turn his eyes from the stoic firmness of Cato; the vain man will admire the oratorical success of Cicero ; the factious man will incline to the audacity of Catiline; and the ambitious man remember only the success of Cæsar.. Abridgement is rather a method of

L3

seizing

seizing the spirit of history than of learning history itself; and he who would imitate Bosuet, in the history of any single people, must have under his eye continually a chronological abridgement of the facts, of which he would catch the substance. Abridgements, therefore, are unsuitable to young people, who should rather furnish their memory than form their judgement. Again; the long narrative of history gives a developement to the mind of young people, by its ordered succession of facts and ideas. Whereas the clipped reflections, the facts, rather hinted at, than narrated, of an abridgement, present such concise forms of style, as at their age would be dangerous models for imitation, and be like the leading-strings of a child who ought rather to have liberty to run and jump. To speak figuratively, I would compare detailed history to a living person, clothed in the richest dress; the opposite method to the same person, stripped of all his garments; and abridgement to a skeleton, which has neither the pomp of accessory ornament, nor the graces of life and natural beauty.

But whatever was the method of writing history, it must at any rate, in the last age, have been philosophical. Without this essential quality, however exact it might be in its relations, methodical in its arrange ments, wise in its reflections, and suitable in style, the eyes of some writers saw nothing in it but a pal try uninteresting Gazette. As philosophy, rightly understood, is the investigation of causes, and the knowledge of their relations with effects, one might suppose that the most philosophical kind of history

would be that which presents the union and thread of facts, developes their causes, marks out their relations, and founds upon such knowledge, general reflections upon the religious and political order of society. No such thing: the philosophical history of that day con. sisted in exceptions to rules, in particular, and isolated facts, or even anecdotes, for which more than one great writer has been accused of searching in his imagina. tion, when his memory could not supply him. Every thing was pointed and personal; nothing general but a spirit of hatred towards modern politics, and modern reli. gion. To write history philosophically, ancient governments were always to be preferred to modern: times of paganism to times of chris. tianity; liberty was always to be found in the old democratic constitutions; perfection in their man. ners; virtue was the only spring of their governments; and if their religion was not reasonable, it was at least politic. In a word, courage, patriotism, character, and importance, were the exclusive pro. perty of the Greeks and Romans: the Christians have always been a people the most ignorant, the most corrupt, the most slavish, degraded by an absurd religion, below Ma hometans, and even Iroquois. Christianity is to blame for all the miseries of the world, its ministers for all the crimes and faults of government. It has been philosophical to accuse her of that ignorance she alone has enlightened, that ferocity she alone has softened.

Above all, it was necessary that the philosophical historian should inveigh against the extravagant pretensions of some popes; and when

2

Peter,