stance is exceedingly calculated to deceive: and that is true, and it is equally true, not only that fictitious history gains credit and belief by the skilful use of circumstance, but that true History, also, may derive much additional interest from the same source.

In general, however, historical facts are to be related with rather a close and exclusive regard to such, and such only as are important.

The art of Historical composition owes its origin to the institutions of Political Freedom. Under the despotism of the Ganges and the Indus, poetry flourished with oriental luxuriance, from the earliest times; but in the immense compass of that rich, primeval literature, there is no History, in the high sense of that term. The banks of the Nile were crowded with historical monuments and memorials, stretching back into the remotest antiquity; and recent researches have discovered historical records of the Pharaohs in the scrolls of papyrus, some of them as ancient as the books of Moses. But in all these, there is no history composed according to the principles of art. In Greece, the Epic Song, founded on traditionary legends, long preceded historical composition. I remember when I thought it the greatest wonder in the world, that the poems of Homer should have been written at a period so remote, that the earliest Grecian History should have given no probable account of their author. I did not then know, or had not then considered, that poetical writings, hymns, songs, accounts of personal adventures like those of Hercules and Jason, were, in the nature of things, earlier than regular Historical narratives. Herodotus informs us, that Homer lived four hundred years before his time. There is, neverthe

less, something very wonderful in the poems of the old Ionian.

In general, it is true of the languages of nations, that in their earlier ages, they contain the substantial bone and sinew characteristic of their idiom, yet that they are rough, imperfect, and without polish. Thus Chaucer wrote English, but it is what we call old English, and, though always vigorous and often incomparably sweet, far remote from the smoothness and fluency belonging to the style of Pope and Addison. And Spenser wrote English, but, though rich, sonorous and gorgeous, it has not the precision and accuracy of those later writers. It would seem, seem, that many books must be written and read, and a great many tongues and pens employed, before the language of a country reaches its highest polish and perfection. Now, the wonder is, how a language should become so perfect, as was the Greek of Homer, at the time when that language could have been very little written. Doubtless, in succeeding ages, the compass of the Greek tongue was enlarged, as knowledge became more extended, and new things called for new words; but, within the sphere of Grecian knowledge, as it existed in the time of Homer, it can scarce be questioned, that his style is quite as perfect and polished, as that of any of his successors, and perhaps more picturesque. The cause of this apparent anomaly is, that the language had not only been spoken for many centuries, by a people of great ingenuity and extraordinary good taste, but had been carefully cultivated by the recitation of poetical compositions, on a great variety of religious and festive occasions.

It was not until the legislation of Solon had laid the foundation of free political institutions, and these insti

tutions had unfolded a free and powerful and active political life, in the Athenian Republic; until the discussion of public affairs, in the Senate and the popular Assembly, had created deliberative eloquence, and the open administration of Justice in the Courts, and under the Laws established by Solon, had applied to the transactions between the citizens all the resources of refined logic, and drawn into the sphere of civil rights and obligations the power of high forensic oratory: it was not until these results of the legislative wisdom of Solon had been attained, that the art of history rose and flourished in Greece. With the decline of Grecian liberty began the decline in the art of Historical Composition. Histories were written under the Grecian Kings of Egypt; and a long line of writers flourished under the Byzantine Emperors; but the high art of historical composition, as perfected in the master-works of Herodotus, Thucydides and Xenophon, had perished in the death of political freedom.

The origin, progress, and decline of History, as an Art, were nearly the same in Rome. Sallust and Livy flourished at the close of the Republic and the commencement of the Empire. The great works of Tacitus himself are thought by many to betray the beginning of decline in the Art, and later writers exhibit its fall.

The art of History again revived with the rise of the Italian Republics; and since the revival of literature, at the close of the middle ages, it will probably be found that three things naturally rise into importance together; that is to say, Civil Liberty, Eloquence, and the art of Historical Writing.

Other foundation is not to be laid for authentic his

3

tory than well authenticated facts; but, on this foundation, structures may be raised of different characteristics, historical, biographical, and philosophical. One writer may confine himself to exact and minute narration; another, true to the general story, may embellish that story with more or less of external ornament, or of eloquence in description; a third, with a deeper philosophical spirit, may look into the causes of events and transactions, trace them with more profound research to their sources in the elements of human nature, or consider and solve, with more or less success, the most important question, how far the character of individuals has produced public events, or how far on the other hand public events have produced and formed the character of individuals.

Therefore one history of the same period, in human affairs, no more renders another history of the same period useless, or unadvisable, than the structure of one temple forbids the erection of another, or one statue of Apollo, Hercules, or Pericles, should suppress all other attempts to produce statues of the same persons.

But, gentlemen, I must not dwell upon these general topics. We are Americans. We have a country all our own; we are all linked to its fates and its fortunes; it is already not without renown; it has been the theatre of some of the most important human transactions, and it may well become us, to reflect on the topics and the means furnished for historical composition in our own land. I have abstained, on this occasion, Gentlemen, from much comment on histories composed by European writers of modern times; and, for obvious reasons, I abstain altogether from remarks upon the writers of our own country.

Works have been written upon the History of the United States, other works upon the same subject are in progress, and, no doubt, new works are contemplated, and will be accomplished.

A

It need not be doubted, that what has been achieved by the great men who have preceded our generation, will be properly recorded by their successors. country, in which highly interesting events occur, is not likely to be destitute of scholars and authors, fit to transmit those events to posterity. For the present, I content myself with a few general remarks on the subject.

In the History of the United States there are three epochs. The first extends from the origin and settlement of the Colonies, respectively, to the year 1774. During this, much the longest period, the history of the country is the history of separate communities and governments, with different laws, and institutions, though all were of a common origin; not identical indeed, yet having a strong family resemblance, and all more or less reference to the constitution, and common law of the parent country.

In all these Governments the principle of popular representation more or less prevailed. It existed in the State Governments, in counties, in large districts, and in townships and parishes. And it is not irrelevant to remark, that, by the exercise of the rights enjoyed under these popular principles, the whole people came to be prepared, beyond the example of all others, for the observance of the same principles in the establishment of national institutions, and the administration of sovereign powers.

The second period extends from 1774, through the