censures Herodotus for saying, that at the siege of Ninos an eagle was seen to drink, when it is notorious that all birds yavuzes, having crooked claws, never do drink. Now it is certain, that no such expression occurs in what we have remaining of Herodotus. " Probably," says Fabricius, in reply to this, "Aristotle "might have a more perfect copy of the Nine Muses, "than has come down to us." The style of Herodotus might well demand a separate dissertation: this, perhaps, is not the properest place to speak at any length upon the subject". It has been universally admired for being, beyond that of all other Greek writers of Prose, pure and perspicuous. Cicero calls it fusum atque tractum, at the same time copious and polished. Aristotle gives it as an example of the Aegis eigoμevy, which is literally, the connected style; but, as he explains himself, it means rather what we should call the flowing style; wherein the sentences are not involved or complicated by art, but are connected by simple conjunctions, as they follow in natural order, and have no full termina "Or why, it may be asked, should it be thought improbable to suppose that Aristotle might be mistaken, and quote Herodotus instead of some other author? 6 The following are among the passages in Cicero's works, in which he makes honourable mention of Herodotus. Atqui tanta est eloquentia, ut me quantum ego Græce scripta intelligere possum, magnopere delectet.-De Oratore, 1. 11. In his Brutus he says, Sine salebris quasi sedatus amnis fluit. In his Hortensius, Quid aut Herodoto dulcius aut Thucydide gravius VOL. I. Ꭰ tion but in the close of the sense. This he opposes to that style which is formed into regular periods, and rather censures it as keeping the reader in uneasy suspense, and depriving him of the pleasure which arises from foreseeing the conclusion. The former, he says, was the method of the ancients; the latter of his contemporaries. (Rhet. iii. 9.) His own writings afford an example of the latter style, cut into short and frequent periods, but certainly much less pleasing than the flowing and natural smoothness of Herodotus. Plutarch, who wrote a treatise expressly to derogate from the fame and authority of Herodotus, in more places than one, speaks of his diction with the highest commendation. Longinus also, as may be seen in various passages which I have introduced, and commented upon in the progress of my work, added his tribute to the universal praise". 7 Quintilian, in his ninth book, observes, In Herodoto vero cum omnia ut ego quidem sentio leniter fluant tum ipse dialectus habet eam jucunditatem ut latentes etiam numeros complexa videatur. And again in the following book, where he draws a comparison between Herodotus and Thucydides, he says, dulcis, et candidus et fusus Herodotus. The following passage from Dionysius of Halicarnassus is too remarkable to be omitted.-Herodotus very much surpassed all others in the choice of his words, the justice of his composition, and the variety of his figures. His discourse is composed in such a manner, that it resembles an excellent poem, in its persuasive art, and that charming grace, which pleases to the highest degree. He has not omitted any of the beautiful and great qualities, unless it be in that manner of writing adapted to contests and disputes, either because he was naturally not made for it, or that he despised it, as not agreeable to history: for he doth not make use of a great number of orations, nor speeches to promote contention, nor has he the necessary force requisite to excite the passions, and amplify and augment things. Every one knows, who has made the experiment, how difficult and almost impossible it is to assimilate to the English idiom, the simple and beautiful terseness of Greek composition. If any scholar therefore, who may choose to compare my version with the original Greek, shall be inclined to censure me for being occasionally diffuse, I would wish him to remember this.-I would desire him also to consider, that it was my duty to make that perspicuous to the less learned reader, which might have been conveyed in fewer terms to the apprehensions of the more learned or the more intelligent. On the subject of translations in general, I entirely approve of the opinion of Boileau. In a preceding publication, I have before referred to this, but I see no impropriety in its having a place here, in the words of lord Bolingbroke. "To translate servilely into modern language an ancient author, phrase by phrase, and word by word, is preposterous: nothing can be more unlike the original than such a copy; it is not to shew, it is to disguise the author. A good writer will rather imitate than translate, and rather emulate than imitate: he will endeavour to write as the ancient author would have written, had he wrote in the same language."* Perhaps I ought not to omit, that many eminent writers, both of ancient and modern times, accuse Herodotus of not having had a sufficient regard to the austere and sacred dignity of historic truth. Ctesias, in Photius, Strabo, Diodorus Siculus, Aulus Gellius, Letters on History. and, above all, Plutarch, have made strong and violent objections to many of his assertions. Ctesias pretends to question his accuracy in what he relates of the Medes and Persians, but what he says hardly merits refutation. Manetho finds very much to blame in what he writes concerning the Egyptians. Thucydides also, in one or two passages, seems obliquely to glance at Herodotus. Strabo is more definitive, and remarks that the historian writes pleasantly enough, and introduces in his narratives many wonderful tales to supply the want of songs, verses, &c. The following passage in Juvenal has also been applied to him. Creditur olim Velificatus Athos et quicquid Græcia mendax To many general censures which on this account have been aimed against the fame of our historian, I have made reply in various parts of my notes; and the plausible but unjust tract of Plutarch, on the Malignity of Herodotus, has been carefully examined, and satisfactorily refuted, by the Abbé Geinoz, in the Memoirs of the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles Lettres. Thus much must be allowed on all hands, that throughout his works there is the greatest appearance of candour and simplicity. Seldom or ever does he relate extraordinary and marvellous things, without qualifying his narrative with such expressions as these, I have heard, it is said, this does not appear credible, &c. In what he says of Egypt in particular, which has drawn upon him the unjust censure of Manetho, he invariably observes, that he learned what he com municates, from the Egyptian priests. But what, perhaps, is of more consequence to his character for veracity than any thing that can be adduced is, that it is determined by the most learned men, that the writings of Herodotus are more conformable to the sacred Scriptures than those of Xenophon, Ctesias, and other ancient historians. I have little to say concerning the life of Homer, imputed by some to Herodotus, and in more modern editions published with his works. It seems generally determined among scholars, that though undoubtedly of great antiquity, it must have been written by some other hand. Vossius, Faber, Rykius, Spanhemius, Berglerus, Wesseling, and others, are decidedly against its authenticity; which has nevertheless been vindicated by Fabricius, by our countryman Joshua Barnes, and lastly by the President Bouhier. It must strike the most careless and indifferent observer, that the style of the Life of Homer, whoever was the author, does not bear the smallest resemblance to that of the Nine Muses. "In the Life of Homer," says Wesseling, "that unvaried suavity of the Ionic dialect, so re"markable in the Muses, never occurs at all." The great and the most satisfactory argument against its being genuine seems to be this:-Of all the ancient writers, who have taken upon them to discuss the birth, the fortunes, or the poems of Homer, not one has ever, by the remotest allusion, referred to this work, which bears the name of Herodotus. There exists also a chronological argument against its authenticity. The author of this Life, whoever he may be, observes, that Homer lived 168 years after the Trojan |