otherwise valuable with absurdity. Ménage tells us of a chemist, who, writing a history, used upon every occasion the language of an adept, and brought all his allusions from the laboratory. Polybius, who was a soldier, has been reprehended for taking up too much time in the history of a siege or the description of a battle. Guicciardini, on the other hand, who was a secretary, has been tedious in disserting upon trifling treaties and dull negociations. In like manner, we have known writers, who, being somewhat acquainted with oriental languages, have filled a long history with long Arabic names and uncouth spellings.

Were we disposed to the same affectations, it would have been easy enough, through the course of our work, to have written Mohammed for Mahomet, Tatar for Tartar, Wazir for Visier, or Timour for Tamerlane; we might even have outgone our predecessors, and have written Stamboul for Constantinople, or Ganga for Ganges, with true exotic propriety. But though we have the proper reverence for Arabic, and Malayan also, of which we profess our ignorance, we have thought it expedient to reject such peculiarities. For which reason, when we meet the name of an Arabian general at full length, we make no scruple of abridging his titles, or turning them into English. Thus, for instance, when an Arabian historian and his faithful copyists, in a late Universal History, assure us that Hâreth Ebn Talâtula led an army into the field, which by the temerity of Al Howaireth Ebn Nohaid Ebn Wahab Ebn Abd Ebn Kosa, was utterly defeated, we thought less ceremony might be used with such an indifferent general, and simply mention Howaireth's folly and his defeat. To be serious; innovation, in a work of this nature, should by no means be attempted ; those names and spellings which have been used in our language from time immemorial, ought to continue unaltered; for, like states, they acquire a sort of jus diuturne posses

sionis, as the civilians express it, however unjust their original claims might have been. Yet, how far we have reformed these defects of style, without substituting errors of our own, we leave the public to determine; for few writers are judges of themselves in these particulars.

With respect to chronology and geography, the one of which fixes actions to time, while the other assigns them to place, we have followed the most approved methods among the moderns. All that was requisite in this was to preserve one system of each invariably, and permit such as chose to adopt the plans of others to rectify our deviations to their own standard. If actions and things are made to preserve their due distances of time and place mutually with respect to each other, it matters little as to the duration of them all with respect to eternity, or their situation with regard to the universe.

Thus much-perhaps some will think too much—we have thought proper to premise concerning a work which, however executed, has cost much labour and great expense. Had we for our judges the unbiassed and judicious alone, few words would have served, or even silence would have been our best address; but when it is considered that we have wrought for the public, that miscellaneous being, at variance within itself from the differing influence of pride, prejudice, or incapacity, a public already sated with attempts of this nature, and in a manner unwilling to find out merit till forced upon its notice, we hope to be pardoned for thus endeavouring to shew where it is presumed we have had a superiority.

A History of the World to the present time, at once satisfactory and succinct, calculated rather for use than curiosity, to be read rather than consulted, seeking applause from the reader's feelings, not from his ignorance of learning, or affectation of being thought learned; a history

that may be purchased at an easy expense, yet that omits nothing material, delivered in a style correct yet familiar, was wanting in our language; and, though sensible of our own insufficiency, this defect we have attempted to supply. Whatever reception the present age or posterity may give this work, we rest satisfied with our own endeavours to deserve a kind one. The completion of our design has for some years taken up all the time which we could spare from other occupations, of less importance indeed to the public, but probably more advantageous to ourselves. We are unwilling therefore to dismiss this subject without observing, that the labour of so great a part of life should at least be examined with candour, and not carelessly confounded in that multiplicity of daily publications which, being conceived without effort, are produced without praise, and sink without censure.

Were he who now particularly entreats the reader's candid examination to mention the part he has had in this work himself, he is well convinced, and that without any affected modesty, that such a discovery would only shew the superiority of his associates in this undertaking: but it is not from his friendship or his praise, but from their former labours in the learned world, that they are to expect their reward. Whatever be the fate of this History, their reputation is in no danger, but will still continue rising; for they have found by its gradual increase already, that the approbation of folly is loud and transient; that of wisdom still but lasting.

66

PREFACE AND INTRODUCTION

ΤΟ

THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND; IN A SERIES OF LETTERS FROM A NOBLEMAN TO HIS SON." (1)

PREFACE.

THE Editor cannot dismiss a new edition of this work, without expressing the pleasure he feels in its reception. It was at first ushered into the world with none of the usual methods of awakening curiosity, or biassing the judgment. Its author, as well as its editor, was, and still continues unknown. It appeared with very little splendour; scarcely any expense was laid out in the publication, and that praise was studiously avoided, which was only to be caught by pursuing.

However, under all these disadvantages, the work has succeeded beyond the Editor's most sanguine expectations; if he may judge from the numbers which have been sold, and the commendations which have been given. Nor can it be a circumstance of small pleasure to him to think, that a performance, calculated chiefly to dispel the prejudice of party and soften the malevolence of faction, has had purchasers, at a time when almost every new publication that respects our history or constitution, tends to fix the one and inflame the other.

(1) [This little work was published anonymously in 1764, in two pocket volumes; and it is strikingly illustrative of the neglect hitherto shown to the detail of Goldsmith's literary labours, that his claim to the authorship of so popular a compendium of English history should be unknown to the great majority of readers. By some the work was attributed to Lord Chesterfield; by others to Lord Orrery; but by the great number to Lord Lyttleton. For a copy of the receipt given by Goldsmith to Mr. John Newbery, for the copyright, dated 11th October 1763, see Life, ch. xiii.]

It is true that but very little of the merit is his own, and that he only applauds himself for triumphs which have been gained by another. However, he is willing to take to himself those advantages which are declined by the great personage who has only deserved them; for the poor often think themselves very fine in those clothes which are thrown aside by their betters.

But, to speak more particularly of my own part of the work, I am not a little proud in hearing that the conclusion is not entirely contemptible, and that it does not fall very far short of the beginning. It was my aim to observe the perspicuity and conciseness of the original, and as his lordship seems to have taken Tacitus for his model, so I took him for mine. It was, in fact, no easy matter, in such a variety of materials as our history affords, to reject trivial particulars, and yet preserve a concatenation of events; to crowd a multitude of facts into so small a compass, and yet not give the work the air of an index. In this all who have hitherto abridged our History have failed: how far the present work has succeeded posterity must be left to judge.

The first part of these Letters, as we have formerly observed, were written for the instruction of a young man of quality, who was then at college: the Editor, therefore, is surprised with an objection usually made against them, that they are rather above the capacity of boys. If by boys be meant children, I grant it: the facts stript of all ornament may perhaps be most proper for them; but on the contrary, those who are rising up to manhood should be treated as men, and no works put into their hands but such as are capable of exercising their capacity, and which the most mature judgment would approve. I am well aware, that many schoolmasters will prefer any of those little Histories of England that are written by way of question and answer,