HISTORICAL TALENT.

History, generally speaking, is the most difficult composition that an author can undertake, or one of the most difficult. It requires a great judgment, a noble, clear and concise stile, a good conscience, a

perfect probity, many excellent materials, and the art of placing them in good order, and above all things, the power of resisting the instinct of a religious zeal, which prompts us to cry down what we think to be false, and to adorn and embellish what we think to be true. I know some persons, who could wish we had some histories of the reformation, written neither by a Roman Catholic, nor by a Protestant. They fancy that party-interest, zeal for his cause, and, much more, hatred of the contrary religion, engage a writer to exaggerate, or to suppress, or extenuate, or disguise things according as they may serve, or prejudice the honour of his party. They wish therefore, that a Thucydides, or a Livy, might have given us the history of the great event, not so much on account of their eloquence and great judgment, as because they were Heathens, and might have been neuters between the several sects of Christianity; so that they would have related without any prejudice or partiality, what was to be praised or blamed in the conduct of the Papists, Lutherans, and Calvinists. But I do not know whether they could have kept an exact neutrality; for Popery being more agreeable to Paganism than the Protestant religion, they might have been prepossessed against Luther and Calvin. An historian can never stand too much upon his guard; and it is almost impossible for him to be altogether free from prejudices. There are some forms of government, and some moral and political maxims, which he likes or dislikes. This moves him to favour one party rather than another, even when he writes the history of an ancient nation, or of a remote country. Suppose a man write in our days the history of an Indian king, who died two or three hundred years ago, after he had been dethroned, you will be apt to believe that no interest can hinder him from being a sincere writer; and yet if he be an enemy to monarchy, and approve the rebellion of subjects, he will use a thousand shifts and disguises to render the memory of that monarch odious, and to justify the civil wars which pulled him down from the throne. An historian, who is an enemy to rebellion, would take quite a contrary course; which is the reason why there are so few histories wherein the naked truth appears, and that are free from some marks of the historian’s anger or discontent, or from his satirical strokes against some living persons. He meets with them in his way, whilst he writes the history of the Indies. All readers cannot guess whom he means; but some guess at it, and he knows very well that some will do so. You may judge whether we can trust the modern historians, since Livy himself could not be altogether impartial between the Protestants and the Catholics, by reason of a certain general conformity. The best advice that can be given to zealous Catholics, is to continue to write controversial books, wherein an author may be allowed to appear passionate; and not set up for a historian. I am likewise of opinion, that a zealous Huguenot should be advised not to write the history of Calvinism, or Lutheranism, or that of the edict of Nantes, or any such like. They should be told, you are exasperated, you have conceived a great hatred against the persecutors, you are full of an ardent zeal for your cause, you would give us not a history, but a piece like an advocate’s plea; you would only blame the contrary party, and praise or justify your own; this you could not do without omitting several things, and publishing many falsities. Write therefore some other book, if you design to do something that way for the public good.

But here is another reason why so few men can write a good history. They who are able to overcome all prejudices, and reject all the tricks of art,

cannot appear altogether impartial without exposing themselves to the indignation of the people; (the word people has a large extent, and takes in a great many persons of rank and title) they would be looked upon as false brethren, prevaricators, and perfidious men. Was not la Popelinière like to be crushed to pieces, for having related some things in his history of the troubles under Charles IX, otherwise than he should have done in the opinion of many? Several people could wish that a historian of their party would imitate those that play at piquet, who keep only good cards, and lay out the bad ones.

Perhaps some will wonder that I should assert that an upright conscience, and a perfect probity, are necessary to a historian; and it will be said that an ingenious man may write a good history as well as a good speech, and a good tragedy, without those qualifications; I shall therefore prove my assertion: in order to do it, I observe that truth being the soul of history, it is an essential thing for a historical composition to be free from lies; so that though it should have all other perfections, it will not be a history, but a mere fable and romance, if it want truth. It is not so with a political or rhetorical piece. Whence I conclude, that none can be well qualified to write a good history, unless he be such an enemy to lying, that his conscience does not permit him to tell lies even to the advantage of his religion, and dearest friends, nor to the disadvantage of an impious sect, and of his most implacable persecutors. I understand by lying, not only the invention of a false thing, but also the suppression or addition of circumstances, that may serve to justify others, or to lay something to their charge. Those, who have not so upright a conscience, and so perfect a probity, will be guilty of a fraud in writing histories, sometimes to please those from whom they expect good offices, and sometimes for fear of dis -

obliging some persons, who might hinder them from obtaining pensions. What has been said of the orator, is still more necessary to the historian: he ought to be defined, vir bonus narrandi peritus, an honest man, who knows how to relate things. And yet you shall seldom hear any body enquire, whether the author of a history is a honest man. The usual question is, whether he be a man of wit and judgment? Whether he has a fine style? Whether he pleases the reader? And according as the answer is, people will either buy his book or not buy it. They should at least imitate those, who in their enquiries about the character of witnesses, began with their riches, and ended with their honesty.

Protinus ad censum, de moribus ultima fiet
Quæstio: quot pascit servos, quot possidet agri
Jugera, quam mult a meguaque paropside cœnat? Juven. Sat. ver. 140.

The question is not put how far extends
His piety, but what he yearly spends:
Quick, to the business; how he lives and eats;
How largely gives; how splendidly be treats:
How many thousand acres feed his sheep,
What are his rents, what servants does he keep.
Dryden.

It ought first to be enquired whether the author is an honest man.—Art. Remond.