In the eleventh century their power seems to have risen to its utmost height. They now received the pompous titles of Masters of the World, and Universal Fathers. They presided over every council by their legates, assumed the authority of supreme arbiters in all controversies that arose concerning religion or discipline, and maintained the pretended rights of the church against the encroachments and usurpations of kings and princes. Their authority was confined, however, within certain limits; both by sovereign princes, that it might not attain universal civil dominion; and by the bishops who were galled by its spiritual despotism..

From the time of Leo IX. the popes employed every method which the most artful ambition could suggest to pass these limits. We find instances of their giving away kingdoms, and loosing subjects from their allegiance to their sovereigns; among which the history of John, king of England, is very remarkable. At last they plainly affirmed the whole earth to be within their jurisdiction; and, on the discovery of America and the East Indies, granted we know to the Portuguese a right to all the countries lying eastward, and to the Spaniards all those lying to the west of Cape Non in Africa. SECT. VI.-OF VARIOUS SUPERSTITIONS WHICH

PREVAILED, FROM THE FIFTH CENTURY TO
THE REFORMATION.

All this time superstition reigned triumphant over those remains of Christianity which had escaped the corruptions of the first four centuries. In the fifth commenced the invocation of the souls of departed saints. Their assistance was entreated by many fervent prayers, and the images of those who, during their lives had acquired the reputation of sanctity, were honored with worship in several places. A singular and irresistible efficacy was also attributed to the bones of martyrs, and to the figure of the cross, in defeating the attempts of Satan, and removing all sorts of sickness and calamities. The famous Pagan doctrine concerning the purification of departed souls by means of a certain kind of fire, i. e. purgatory, was also fully received and explained.

In the sixth century Gregory the Great advanced an opinion, that all the words of the sacred writings were images of invisible and spiritual things; for which reason he loaded the churches with a multitude of ceremonies the most insignificant and futile that can be imagined hence arose a new and most difficult science, namely, the explication of these ceremonies, and the investigation of the causes and circumstances whence they derived their origin. A new method was contrived of administering the Lord's Supper, with a magnificent assemblage of pompous rites. This was called the canon of the mass. Baptism, except in cases of necessity, was administered only on the great festivals. An incredible number of temples were erected in honor of the saints. The places set apart for public worship were also very numerous, and almost equalled in number by the festivals invented to bring the Christian religion as near the model of paganism as possible. In the seventh

century religion seemed to be altogether buried under a heap of superstitious ceremonies; the worship of the true God and Saviour of the world was exchanged for the worship of bones, bits of wood (said to be of the cross), and the images of saints. The piety of this and some succeeding ages consisted in building and embellishing churches and chapels; in endowing monasteries and basilics; hunting after the relics of saints and martyrs, and treating them with an absurd and excessive veneration; in pilgrimages to those places which were esteemed holy, particularly to Palestine, &c. The genuine religion of Jesus was now utterly unknown both to clergy and people, if we except a few of its doctrines contained in the creed. In this century, also, the superstitious custom of solitary masses had its origin. These were celebrated by the priest alone in behalf of souls detained in purgatory, as well as upon some other occasions. They proved a source of immense wealth to the clergy, though under Charlemagne they were condemned by a synod assembled at Mentz.

A new superstition, however, sprung up in the tenth century. It was imagined, from Rev. xx.1, that Antichrist was about to make his appearance on the earth, and that soon after the world would be destroyed. A universal panic ensued; vast numbers of people, abandoning all their Connexions in society, and giving over to the churches and monasteries all their worldly effects, repaired to Palestine, where they imagined that Christ would descend from heaven to judge the world. Others devoted themselves by a solemn and voluntary oath to the service of the churches, convents, and priesthood, whose slaves they became, in the most rigorous sense of that word, performing daily their heavy tasks; and all this from a notion that the supreme judge would diminish the severity of their sentence, and look upon them with a favorable and propitious eye, on account of their having made themselves the slaves of their minister. When an eclipse of the sun or moon happened to be visible, the cities were deserted, and their miserable inhabitants fled for refuge to hollow caverns, and hid themselves among the craggy rocks, and under the bending summits of steep mountains. The opulent attempted to bribe the saints and the Deity himself by rich donations conferred upon the sacerdotal tribe, who were looked upon as the immediate vicegerents of heaven. In many places temples, palaces, and noble edifices, both public and private were suffered to decay, nay, were deliberately pulled down, from a notion that they were no longer of any use, as the final dissolution of all things was at hand. No language, in a word, is sufficient to express the confusion and despair that tormented the minds of miserable mortals upon this occasion. This terror became one of the accidental causes of the crusades.

That nothing might now be wanting to complete the reign of antichrist in Europe, it was in the eleventh century determined that divine worship should be celebrated in the Latin tongue, though now unknown throughout the continent: and, during a great part of this century, Christians were employed in rebuilding and ornamenting

:

About the beginning of the sixteenth century, the Roman pontiffs enjoyed the utmost tranquillity; nor had they, according to the appearance of things at that time, any reason to fear opposition to their authority. The commotions which had been raised by the Waldenses, Albigenses, &c., were now entirely suppressed, and the world bowed to their power. We must not however conclude, from this apparent security of the pontiffs and their adherents, that their measures were universally applauded. Not only private persons, but also the most powerful princes and sovereign states, exclaimed loudly against the yranny of the popes, and the unbridled licentiousness of the clergy. They demanded, therefore, a reformation of the church in its head and members, and a general council to accomplish it. But these complaints and demands produced little effect; they came from persons who never entertained the least doubt about the supreme authority of the pope; and who of consequence, instead of attempting themselves to bring about that reformation which was so ardently desired, remained entirely inactive, or looked only for redress to those who were interested in perpetuating abuses.

While the so much desired reformation seemed to be at the greatest distance, it suddenly rose, however, from a quarter whence it was not at all expected. Martin Luther, a monk of the order of St. Augustine, ventured to oppose himself to the whole torrent of papal power and despotism. This bold attempt was first made public on the 30th of September 1517; and, notwithstanding all the efforts of the pope and his adherents, the doctrines of Luther continued daily to gain ground. Others, encouraged by his success, lent their assistance in the work of reformation; which at last produced new churches, founded upon principles quite different from that of Rome, and which still continue. But for an account of the transactions of the reformers, and the more modern history of the church, see LUTHER and REFORMATION.

PART III.

OF THE COMPOSITION OF HISTORY. Having thus furnished the reader with a sketch of the two great practical views of our subject, we may advert to the art of composing history, as it has been treated by Cicero and others.

The requisites mentioned by that great writer may be arranged under four heads, Truth, Subject, Order, and Style.

SECT. I.-OF HISTORICAL TRUTH. Truth is the basis and foundation of history. It is the life and soul of it, and that by which it is distinguished from fable or romance. An historian therefore ought not only to be a man of probity, but void of all passior or bias. He must have the steadiness of a philosopher, joined with the vivacity of the poet and orator. Without the former, he will be insensibly swayed by some passion to give a false coloring to the actions or characters he describes, as favor or dislike to parties or persons affects his mind. And, without the latter, his descriptions will be flat and

cold.

But historical truth consists of two parts, one is, Not to state any thing we know to be false. Nor is it sufficient to excuse an historian, in relating a falsehood, that he did not know it to be so when he wrote, unless he first used all the means in his power to inform himself of the truth. We are informed of Thucydides, that when he wrote his history of the Peloponnesian war, he did not satisfy himself with the best accounts he could obtain from his countrymen the Athenians, fearing they might be partial in their own cause; but spared no expense to inform himself how the same facts were related by their enemies the Lacedæmonians. And Polybius travelled into Africa, Spain, Gaul, and other parts of the world, to write his history of the Roman affairs.

The other branch of historical truth is, Not to omit any thing that is true, and necessary to set the matter treated of in a clear and full light. In the actions of past ages or distant countries, wherein the writer has no personal concern, he can have no great inducement to break in upon this rule. But, where interest or party is engaged, it requires no small candor, as well as firmness of mind, constantly to adhere to it. Affection to some, aversion to others, fear of disobliging the friends of those in power, &c., will often interpose and try his integrity. Besides, an omission is less obnoxious to censure than a false assertion; for the one may be easily ascribed to ignorance or forgetfulness; whereas the other will, if discovered, be commonly looked upon as design. He, therefore, who in such circumstances, from a generous love to truth, is superior to all motives to betray or stifle it, justly deserves the character of an honest historian.

Polybius says on this head, 'A good man ought to love his friends and his country, and to have a like disposition with them, both towards their friends and enemies. But when he takes upon him the character of an historian they must all be forgot.' Integrity is undoubtedly the principal qualification of an historian; when we

can depend upon this, other imperfections are more easily passed over. Suetonius is said to have written the lives of the twelve Cesars as free from external influence as they themselves lived. What better character can be given of a writer?

Sometimes, indeed, a judgment may be formed of the veracity of an author, from his manner of expressing himself, and a certain candor and frankness, always uniform and consistent, that runs through his writings.

Thus, where things are uncertain because of their being reported various ways, it is partiality in an historian to give the most unfavorable account, where others are as well known and equally credible. Again, it is a proof of the same bad spirit when the facts themselves are certain and evident, but the design and motives of those concerned in them are unknown and obscure, to assign some ill principle, such as avarice, ambition, malice, interest, or some other vicious habit, as the cause of them.

SECT. II. OF THE SUBJECT OF HISTORY. By the subject of history we mean facts themselves, together with such matters as are either connected with them, or may at least is requisite to set them in a just and proper light. But, although the principal design of history is to record facts, yet all facts do not merit the regard of an historian; but such only as may be thought of use in regulating human conduct. Nor is it allowable for him, like the poet, to form the plan and scheme of his work as he pleases. His business is to report things as he finds them, without coloring or disguise.

Some histories afford more entertainment than others, from the nature of the events which they record; and it may be esteemed the happiness of an historian to meet with such a subject, but it is not his fault if it be otherwise. Thus Herodotus begins his history with showing, that the barbarians gave the first occasion to the wars between them and the Greeks, and ends it with an account of the punishment which, after some ages, they suffered from the Greeks on that account. Such a relation must not only have been agreeable to his countrymen the Grecians, for whose sakes it was written; but likewise very instructive, by informing them of the justice of Providence in punishing public injuries in this world, wherein societies, as such, are only capable of punishment. On the other hand, Thucydides begins his history with the unhappy state of his countrymen the Athenians; and in the course of it plainly intimates, that they were the cause of the calamitous war between them and The Lacedæmonians: Whereas, had he been more inclined to please and gratify his countrymen than to convey the truth, he would have endeavoured to make their enemies appear the aggres

sors.

Cicero observes, justly, that history 'is conversant in great and memorable actions.' For this reason an historian should always keep posterity in view; and relate nothing which does not seem worth the notice of after ages. To descend to trivial and minute matters, such as frequently occur in the common affairs of life, is below the

dignity of historical composition. Pliny the younger has some fine reflections upon this subject: You advise me,' says he, 'to write a history; and not you only, for many others have done the same, and I am myself inclined to it. Not that I believe myself qualified for it, which would be rash to think till I have tried it; but because I esteem it a generous action not to suffer those to be forgotten whose memory ought to be eternised; and to perpetuate the names of others, together with one's own. For there is nothing I am so desirous or ambitious of, as to be remembered hereafter; which is a thing worthy of a man, especially of one who, conscious of no guilt, has nothing to fear from posterity.' And when Dion Cassius has mentioned some things of less moment in the life of Commodus, chiefly indeed filled up with cruelty and folly, he thus apologises for himself:-'I would not have it thought that I descend below the gravity of history in writing these things: for, as they were the actions of an emperor, and I was present and saw them all, and both heard and conversed with him, I did not think it proper to omit them.' He seems to think those actions, when performed by an emperor, might be worth recording, which, if done by a person of inferior rank, would not have deserved notice.

But, although facts in general are the proper subject of history, they may be differently considered with regard to the extent of them, as they relate either to particular persons or communities of men. And from this consideration history has been distinguished into three sorts, biography, and particular and general history. Writing the lives of single persons is called biography. By particular history is meant that of particular states, whether for a shorter or longer space of time. And general history contains an account of several states existing together in the same period of time.

The general subject, or argument of history, in its several branches, may be reduced to narration, reflection, speeches, and digressions.

1. By narration is meant a description of facts or actions, with such things as are necessarily connected with them; namely, persons, time, place, design, and event.

But an accuratè historian goes still further, and considers the causes of actions, and what were the designs and views of those who were principally concerned in them. Some, as Polybius has well observed, are apt to confound the beginnings of actions with their springs and causes, which ought to be carefully separated. For the causes are often very remote, and to be looked for at a considerable distance from the actions themselves. Thus, as he tells us, some have represented Hannibal's besieging Saguntum in Spain, and passing the Ebro, contrary to a former agreement between the Romans and Carthaginians, as causes of the second Punic war. But these were only the beginnings of it. The true causes were the jealousies and fears of the Carthaginians from the growing power of the Romans; and Hannibal's inveterate hatred to them, with which he had been impressed from his infancy.

Again, the true springs and causes of actions

are to be distinguished from such as are only feigned and pretended. For, generally, the worse designs men have in view, the more solicitous they are to cover them with specious pretences. It is the historian's business, therefore, to lay open and expose to view these arts of politicians. So, as the same judicious historian remarks, we are not to imagine Alexander's carrying over his army into Asia to have been the cause of the war between him and the Persians. Philip, his father, made preparations for it, but did not live to execute it. That was left for his son. But, as Philip could not have done this without first bringing the other states of Greece into his design, his pretence to them was only to avenge the injuries they had suffered from the Persians. Lastly, an historian should relate the issue and event of the actions he describes. This is undoubtedly the most useful part of history; since the greatest advantage arising from it is to teach us experience from what has happened. When we learn from the examples of others the happy effects of wisdom, prudence, integrity, and other virtues, it naturally excites us to imitate them, and to pursue the same measures in our own conduct. Polybius therefore observes, that he who takes from history the causes, manner, and end of actions, and omits to take notice whether the event was answerable to the means made use of, leaves nothing in it but a bare amusement, without any benefit or instruction.'

2. Reflections made by the writer have been both extravagantly applauded and unreasonably condemned. If the philosopher is allowed to draw inferences from his precepts, and their effects on society, why should not the historian have an equal right to make reflections upon the facts he relates? The reader is equally at liberty to judge for himself in both cases: we therefore find, that the best historians have taken this liberty. Thus Livy makes a very beautiful observation upon the ill conduct of Hannibal in quartering his army in Capua after the battle of Canna. Those,' says he, who are skilled in military affairs reckon this a greater fault in the general, than his not marching his army immediately to Rome after his victory at Cannæ; for such a delay might have seemed only to defer the victory, but this ill step deprived him of the power to gain it.'-Lib. xxiii. c. 18.

Lord Gardenstone, on the other hand, remarks of Mr. Hume, that his account of the house of Stuart is not the statement of an historian, but the memorial of a pleader in a court of justice.' -Gard. Miscell. p. 305.

3. Speeches inserted by historians are of two sorts, namely, oblique and direct. The former are such as the historian recites in his own person, and not in that of the speaker. Of this kind is that of Hannibal in Justin, by which he endeavours to persuade king Antiochus to carry the seat of the war against the Romans into Italy. It is rather a narrative of the operations of Hannibal's mind.

In direct speeches, the person himself is introduced as addressing his audience; and therefore the words as well as the sense are suited to his character. Such is the speech of Eumenes, one of Alexander's captains and successors, made

to his soldiers when they had traitorously bound him in chains, to deliver him up to his enemy Antigonus, in the same author.

After all, this is a matter on which critics are divided; whether any, or what kind of speeches, ought to be allowed in history. Some think all should be excluded, as breaking the thread of the discourse. Others only object to what have been called direct speeches, as generally any thing but real ones. Thus when Livy, for example, gives us the speeches of Romulus, the Sabine women, Brutus, and others, in the first ages of the Roman state, both the things themselves are imaginary, and the language wholly incongruous with the times in which the parties lived. However, there is scarcely an ancient historian now extant, either Greek or Latin, who has not inserted several speeches in his works, both oblique and direct.

4. Digressions, if properly managed, afford the reader both pleasure and advantage. Like speeches, they should neither be too long nor frequent; lest they interrupt the course of the history, and divert the reader from the main design. But now and then to introduce a beautiful description, or some remarkable incident, which may throw light on the subject, is so far from an interruption, that it is rather a relief to the reader, and excites him to go on with greater pleasure and attention. See ORATORY.

SECT. III.-OF ORDER.

As most histories consist of an introduction, and the body of the work, in each of which some order is requisite, we shall treat of them separately.

1. The design, of the introduction is the same here as in orations. For the historian proposes three things by his introduction, which may be called its parts: 1. To give his reader some general view of the subject; 2. To engage his attention, and to possess him with a favorable opinion of himself and his performance. Livy's introduction has been very much applauded by the learned, as a master-piece. It gives the following account of his design: Whether,' says he,

it may answer any valuable end for me to write the history of the Roman affairs from the beginning of the city, I neither am certain, nor, if I was, should I venture to declare it.' He then endeavours to prepare the reader's attention, by representing the grandeur and usefulness of the subject. Either I am prejudiced in favor of my subject, or there never was any state greater, more virtuous, or more fruitful of good examples, or in which avarice and luxury had a later admittance, or poverty and thriftiness were either more highly or longer esteemed.' And then he proceeds to ingratiate himself with his readers.

Although my name is obscure, in so great a number of writers, yet it is a comfort that they cloud it by their fame and character. For I shall gain this advantage by my labor, that I shall be diverted for a time from the prospect of those evils which the present age has seen; while my mind is wholly intent upon former times, and free from all that care which gives the writer uneasiness, though it cannot bias him against the truth. Sallust is greatly blamed by Quintilian.

on account of his introductions, which are so general, that they might suit other histories as well as those to which they are prefixed. Introductions should likewise be proportioned to the length of the work. We meet with some few histories, in which the writers immediately enter upon their subject, without any introduction; as Xenophon in his Expedition of the younger Cyrus, and Cæsar in his Commentaries of the Galic and Civil Wars. But the latter does not profess to write a history; and therefore left himself more at liberty, as well in this respect as in some others.

2. But order is principally to be regarded in the body of an historical work. And this may be managed two ways; either by attending to the time in a chronological series, or the different nature and circumstances of the things contained in the history.

In a general history the order of time cannot always be preserved; though, where the actions of different communities have respect to one as the principal, they should all, as far as possible, be referred to the transactions of that state. But even here the several affairs of those different states ought to be related separately, which will necessarily occasion the anticipating some things, and postponing others, so that they cannot all stand in the exact order of time in which they were performed. However, Velleius Paterculus says very justly, Every entire action, placed together in one view, is much better apprehended than if divided by different times.' In this case, therefore, for better preserving the chronology, it is usual with historians, when they have finished any particular narrative, in passing to the next, to express the time by some short and plain

transition.

The division of histories into books was designed for the better distinction of the subject, and ease of the reader. The dividing these books into chapters is rather a practice of modern editors, founded on similar reasons, than countenanced by the example of ancient authors.

SECT. IV. OF STYLE.

An historical style is said to be of a middle nature, between that of a poet and orator, differing from both, not only in the ornamental parts, but also in the idioms and forms of expression. Cicero observes (De Clar. Orat. c. 75) that nothing is more agreeable in history than brevity of expression, joined with purity and perspicuity. Purity indeed is not peculiar to history, but yet is absolutely necessary; for nobody will think him fit to write a history, who is not master of the language in which he writes: when Albinus, therefore, had written a history of the Roman affairs in Greek, and apologised for any improprieties that might be found in the language upon the account of his being a Roman, Cato called him a trifler, for choosing to do that which, after he had done it, he was obliged to

ask pardon for doing. Nor is perspicuity less requisite in an historical style. The nature of the subject plainly directs to this; for, as history consists principally in narration, clearness and perspicuity is no where more necessary.

Cicero again, treating of an historical style (De Orat. lib. ii. c. 15, 20), says, 'It ought to be fluent, smooth, and even; free from that harshness and poignancy which is usual at the bar.' The historian has no necessity for the variations of the declaimer. It is his province to espouse' no party, to have neither friend nor foe, but to appear disinterested and indifferent to all ; his language, therefore, should be smooth and equal.

Dionysius (Epist. ad. Cn. Pompeium) makes decency a principal virtue in an historian;' which he explains by saying, that he ought to preserve the characters of the persons and dignity of the actions of which he treats.' To do this it is necessary, that an historical style should be animated with a degree of life and vigor; with out which neither the characters of eminent persons, nor their remarkable actions, can be duly represented: for even things in themselves great and excellent, if related in a cold and lifeless way, will not affect us in a degree suitable to their importance. Whence it appears, that painting and imagery make up no small part of the historian's province, though his colors must not be so strong and glittering as those of either the poet or the orator.

As to dignity in the use of tropes and figures, the same author says,History should be embellished with such figures as are neither vehement, nor carry in them the appearance of art.' This is agreeable to what Cicero observes, in comparing Xenophon and Callisthenes: Xenophon the Socratic,' he says, " I was the first philosopher, and after him Callisthenes, the scholar of Aris totle, who wrote a history: the latter is almost a rhetorician; but the style of the former is more moderate, and has not the force of an orator; i is less vehement, perhaps, but in my opinion, more sweet and agreeable.' The difference be tween these two writers, with regard to their style, consisted chiefly in the choice of their fi gures. An historical style admits indeed of end less varieties, according to the nature and dignity of the subject. The lives of particular persons do not require such strength and majesty of expression, nor such ornaments of language, as a history of the Roman empire. And accordingly we find the style of Nepos and Suetonius very different from that of Livy. The former is smooth and easy; but the latter often approaches near to the sublime; other historians again have kept a medium between these. Upon the whole, therefore, we may conclude, that the middle style is generally the proper one for history: but a variety and flexibility of style is not only requisite in different subjects, but likewise in different parts of the same work