MISCELLANEOUS CRITICISM.

I. ON SMOLLETT'S HISTORY OF ENGLAND.

[From the Monthly Review, 1757. "A Compleat History of England, deduced from the Descent of Julius Cæsar to the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, 1748. Containing the Transactions of one thousand eight hundred and three years. Smollett, M.D." 4to. 4 vols.]

By T.

WHEN the Historian relates events far removed from the age in which he writes, when evidence is become scarce, and authorities are rendered doubtful, from the obscurities which time has thrown upon them, he ought, above all things, to be careful that his narration be as amply authenticated as the nature of his researches will allow. Strictly speaking, the eye-witness alone should take upon him to transmit facts to posterity; and as for the Historians, the Copyists, the Annotators, who may follow him, if possessed of no new and genuine materials, instead of strengthening, they will only diminish the authority of their guide: for, in proportion as History removes from the first witnesses, it may recede also from truth; as, by passing through the prejudices, or the mistakes of subsequent compilers, it will be apt to imbibe what tincture they may choose to give it. The later historian's only way, therefore, to prevent the ill effects of that decrease of evidence which the lapse of years necessarily brings with it, must be, by punctually referring

to the spring-head from whence the stream of his narration flows; which at once will cut off all appearance of partiality, or misrepresentation. As in law, the rectitude of a person's character is not alone sufficient to establish the truth of a fact, so in history, not merely the writer's testimony, be our opinion of his veracity ever so great, but collateral evidence also is required, to determine every thing of a questionable nature. The fundamental materials for the general history of any country are the public records, ancient monuments, and original historians of that country; and in proportion as they are slighted by the compiler, these venerable originals themselves may fall into neglect, and possibly in the end, even into irretrievable oblivion :—and when they are gone, in vain may we look for an enlightening ray to guide us through the darkness of antiquity: we must then be content with the uncertain gleam with which an erroneous or partial leader is pleased to conduct us.

There were of old, and still are, indolent readers, who turn to an author with the design rather of killing than improving their time; and who, scared at the serious face of instruction, are rather attracted by the lively, florid style of a Florus, than the more substantial disquisitions of a Polybius. With such readers, every step an historian takes towards determining the weight of evidence, or the degrees of credibility, is an excursion into the regions of dulness; but while the writer proceeds in his narrative, without reflection, they continue to read without reflecting, and his history enlightens them just as much as romance would have done; for they are equally unconcerned about truth in either.

Truth should be the main object of the historian's pursuit; elegance is only its ornament: if, therefore, we see a writer of this class plume himself upon his excelling in the last, and at the same time slighting the evidences that ought

to ascertain and support the first, suspicion will naturally arise, and the author's credit will sink in proportion.

With respect to the History now before us, the compiler does not pretend to have discovered any hidden records, or authentic materials, that have escaped the notice of former writers; or to have thrown such lights upon contested events, or disputed characters, as may serve to rectify any mistaken opinions mankind may have entertained with respect to either. His care is rather to disburthen former histories of those tedious vouchers, and proofs of authenticity, which, in his opinion, only serves to swell the page, and exercise the reader's patience. He seldom quotes authorities in support of his representations; and if he now and then condescends to cite the testimony of former writers, he never points to the page, but leaves the sceptical reader to supply any defect of this kind, by an exertion of that industry which the author disdains; and thus on the veracity of the relator are we to rest our conviction, and accept his own word for it that he has no intention to deceive or mislead

us.

That this author, however, has no such design, may be fairly presumed from his declining all attempts to bias by any remarks of his own. Determined to avoid all useless disquisitions, as his plan professes, he steers wide indeed of that danger, and avoids all disquisitions as useless. A brief recital of facts is chiefly what the public is to expect from this performance. But, with submission, we think the ingenious author might have afforded us something more.

He

has undoubted ability; and he well knows that a moderate interspersion of manly and sensible observations must have greatly enlivened his work, and would hardly have been deemed superfluous by such readers as have any turn for reflection.

With respect to the style of this historian, it is in general clear, nervous, and flowing; and we think it impossible for a reader of taste not to be pleased with the perspicuity and elegance of his manner. But what he seems principally to value himself upon, and what his patronizers chiefly mention in praise of his performance, are the Characters he has summed up at the close of every reign. Here, however, we cannot fall in with the ingenious Doctor's admirers :—but we forbear to enlarge, and shall therefore proceed to enable our readers, in some measure, to judge for themselves, by a few specimens, taken from such parts of the History as, we apprehend, the author's friends will think we do him no injustice in selecting. The character of James the First is thus drawn by our historian.

“James was in his stature of the middle size, inclining to corpulency; his forehead was high, his beard scanty, and his aspect mean. His eyes, which were large and languid, he rolled about incessantly, as if in quest of novelties. His tongue was so large, that in speaking or drinking he beslabbered the bystanders. His knees were so weak, as to bend under the weight of his body. His address was awkward, and his appearance slovenly. There was nothing dignified, either in the composition of his mind or person. We have, in the course of his reign, exhibited repeated instances of his ridiculous vanity, prejudices, profusion, folly, and littleness of soul. All that we can add in his favour is, that he was averse to cruelty and injustice; very little addicted to excess, temperate in his meals, kind to his servants, and even desirous of acquiring the love of his subjects, by granting that as a favour which they claimed as a privilege. His reign, though ignoble to himself, was happy to his people. They were enriched by commerce, which no war interrupted. They felt no severe impositions; and the Commons made considerable progress in ascertaining the liberties of the nation."

Character of Charles the First.

"Such was the unworthy and unexampled fate of Charles the First, king of England, who fell a sacrifice to the most atrocious insolence of treason, in the forty-ninth year of his age, and in the twenty-fourth of his reign. He was a prince of a middling stature, robust, and well-proportioned. His hair of a dark colour, his forehead high, his complexion pale, his visage long, and his aspect melancholy. He excelled in riding and other manly exercises; he inherited a good understanding from nature, and had cultivated it with