army

and pursues his march, when surrounded by Jugurtha, is the last proof left us of Roman skill and ingenuity in the field of action." What does the General make of the campaigns of Cæsar, and even of inferior generals who succeeded him? Mr. Hayley's short character of Sallust contains sound criticism-

"Sententious Sallust leads the lofty train,
"Clear, though concise, elaborately plain,
"Poising his scale of words with frugal care,
"Nor leaving one superfluous atom there!
"Yet well displaying, in a narrow space,
"Truth's native strength, and nature's easy grace;
"Skill'd to detect, in tracing action's course,
"The hidden motive, and the human source."

The history of Livy is certainly a most magnificent work. It is written in a style of grand and flowing, perhaps unequal eloquence. His descriptions, that of the battle of Cannæ for instance, are bold and striking. Yet I confess Livy, with all these excellencies, is no favourite of mine. His gross and glaring partiality disgusts; and his long and complex periods, and his tedious and declamatory orations tire. General Andreossi holds in little estimation his military knowledge; indeed accuses him of

such gross ignorance, that he says, "He even forgets that military tactics had undergone a revolution, and most awkwardly confounds the practice of his own time with that of the Scipio's."

As you have seen the dark side of the question, however, it is but just to lay before you the opinion of a critic more favourable to Livy

"In bright pre-eminence that Greece might own, "Sublimer Livy claims th' historic throne;

"With that rich eloquence, whose golden light

Brings the full scene directly to the sight;

"That zeal for truth, which interest cannot lend,
"That fire which freedom ever gives her friend.
"Immortal artist of a work supreme!

"Delighted Rome beheld, with proud esteem,
"Her own bright image of Colossal size,
"From thy long toils in purest marble rise."

HAYLEY,

From what I have said, you will perceive that the Roman historians have furnished us with examples of two very different forms of style in narrative composition; of the concise, compressed and sententious in Sallust; and afterwards in a still superior writer, Tacitus ;

and of the flowing and rhetorical in Livy. Which of these ought to be pursued must depend on the genius and disposition of the writer, and in part on the nature of the subject. Every writer ought however to adopt a uniform style, which, after some practice, will almost come of course, if he writes from himself, and is not content to be a servile imitator of others. I once knew a person who, from habits of imitation, could not avoid at length writing, in some degree, in the style of the author he read last. One ill effect, however, attends the tribe of imitators, that they generally copy the faults, and not the excellencies of their models.

Though a part of the great work of Tacitus bears the modest name of annals, yet it is properly history; for it has not the character of annals. That part which he calls his history was written first, though there is every reason to believe that he meant the whole to form a connected chain, comprehending the history of the Roman empire from the age of Augustus to his own time. There never was a genius more happily adapted to the writing of history than that of Tacitus. He was a statesman and an orator, and master of all the learning of his

age. His discernment and knowledge of hu man nature are unrivalled. He draws a picture with more animation than I think any other writer; of this a fine instance will be found in the latter part of the second, and beginning of the third book, which describes the latter moments of Germanicus, and the events which immediately succeeded his death. His remarks are keen and profound. General Andreossi says of him-" The man who is called upon to defend his fellow soldiers, whose conduct is to influence the fate of his country, will acquire every information by studying Tacitus." Like his master Sallust, who is evidently in a great degree his model, Tacitus is eminent for his skill in drawing characters.

With Tacitus I may safely close my view of the eminent historians of antiquity, for it is only necessary in such a sketch to notice those who particularly excelled. With the writers of the middle ages I am little acquainted. You will find in Mr. Hayley some very pretty lines on the Princess Anna Comnena, and on De Thou, as well as on Guicciardini and Davila. De Thou I have read in part, but found him dry and tedious, though he occasionally draws

a character in a striking manner.

It was how

ever not my intention in this letter to run through the whole catalogue of historical writers, but to point your attention to a few who ought to be studied as models; to give a sort of history of history. I shall therefore pass to those of our own country, for I cannot help subscribing to the honest and impartial testimony of General Andreossi-That "the best historians, at least for the last century, have been English."

In the rapid survey which I am compelled to make of British historians, I shall pass over such works as Raleigh's History of the World, and Knolles's History of the Turks, as productions long since consigned to the libraries of the curious, and little attractive to the eye of taste, though neither of those which I have mentioned are destitute of merit. Burnet, Ludlow, &c. will be noticed under another head. But I cannot overlook the excellence of one of our early writers, I mean the learned, the manly, the much injured Buchanan. Whether we regard his clearness, his spirit, his love of freedom, or his pure latinity, his history will deserve to rank with some of the best that issued