y blended, was wonderfully adapted to the taste and genius of martial nobles; and its effects were soon visible in their manners. War was carried on with less ferocity when humanity came to be deemed the ornament of knighthood no less than courage. More gentle and polished manners were introduced when courtesy was recommended as the most amiable of knightly virtues. Violence and oppression decreased when it was reckoned meritorious to check and to punish them. A scrupnlons adherence to truth, with the most religious attention to fulfil every engagement, became the distinguishing characteristic of a gentleman, because chivalry was regarded as the school of honour, and inculcated the most delicate sensibility with reEpect to those points. The admiration of those qualities, together with the high distinctions and prerogatives conferred on knighthood in every part of Europe, inspired persons of noble birth on some occasions with a species of military fanaticism, and led them to extravagant enterprises. But they deeply imprinted on their minds the principles of generosity and honour. These were strengthened by everything that can affect the senses or touch the heart. The wild exploits of those romantic knights who sallied forth in quest of adventures are well known, and have been treated with proper ridicule. The political and permanent effects of the spirit of chiv Iry have been less observed. Perhaps the humanity which accompanies ell the operations of war, the refinements of gallantry, and the point of honour-the three chief circumstances which distinguish modern from ancient manners-may be ascribed in a great measure to this institution, which has appeared whimsical to superficial observers, but by its effects has proved of great benefit to mankind. The sentiments which chivalry inspired had a wonderful influence on manners and conduct during the twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries. They were so deeply rooted, that they continued to operate after the vigour and reputation of the institution itself began to decline.

Characters of Francis I. and the Emperor Charles V.

During twenty-eight years, an avowed rivalship subsisted between Francis I. and the Emperor Charles V. which involved not only their own dominions, but the greatest part of Europe, in wars which were prosecuted with more violent animosity, and drawn out to a greater length, than had been known in any former period. Many circumstances contributed to this. Their animosity was founded in opposition of interest, heightened by personal emulation, and exisperated, not only by mutual injuries but by reciprocal insults. At the same time, whatever advantage one seemed to possess towards gaining the ascendant, was wonderfully balanced by some favourable circumstance peculiar to the other.

The emperor's dominions were of greater extent; the French king's lay more compact. Francis ; overned his kingdom with absolute power; that of Charles was limited, but he supplied the want of authority by address. The troops of the former were more impetuous and enterprising; those of the latter better disciplined, and more patient of fatigue. The talents and abilities of the two monarchs were as different as the advantages which they possessed, and contributed no less to prolong the contest between them. Francis took his resolutions suddenly, prosecuted them at first with warmth, and pushed them into execution with a most adventurous courage; but being destitute of the perseverance necessary to surmount difficulties, he often abandoned his designs, or relaxed the vigour of pursuit from impatience, and sometimes from levity. Charles deliberated loug, and determined with coolness; but haying once fixed his plan, he adhered to it with inflexible obstinacy, and neither danger nor discouragement could turn him aside from the execution of it. The success of their enterprises was suitable to the diversity of their characters, and was uniformly influenced by it. Francis, by his impetuous activity, often disconcerted the emperor's best-laid schemes; Charles, by a more calm but steady prosecution of his designs, checked the rapidity of his rival's career, and baffled or repulsed his most vigorous efforts. The former, at the opening of a war or of a campaign, broke in upon the enemy with the violence of a torrent, and carried all before him; the latter, waiting until he saw the force of his rival beginning to abate, recovered in the end not only all that he had lost, but made new acquisitions. Few of the French monarch's attempts towards conquest, whatever promising aspect they might wear at first, were conducted to a happy issue; many of the emperor's enterprises, even after they appeared desperate and impracticable, terminated in the most prosperous manner,

SMOLLETT, TYTLER, LYTTLETON, &C.

In 1758, DR. SMOLLETT published, in four volumes quarto, his 'Complete History of England, deduced from the Descent of Julius Cæsar to the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, in 1748.' In extent and completeness of design, this history approaches nearest to the works of the historical masters; but its execution is unequal, and it abounds in errors and inconsistencies. It was rapidly composed; and though Smollett was too fluent and practiced a writer to fail in narrative— his account of the rebellion in 1745-6, and his observations on the act for the relief of debtors in 1759, are excellent specimens of his best style and his benevolence of character-he could not, without adequate study and preparation, succeed in so important an undertaking. Smollett afterwards continued his work to the year 1765. The portion from the Revolution of 1688 to the death of George II. is usually printed as a continuation to Hume.

The views which Dr. Robertson had taken of the reign and character of Mary, Queen of Scots, were combated by WILLIAM TYTLER of Woodhouselee (1711-1792), who, in 1759, published an Inquiry, Historical and Critical, into the Evidence against Mary, Queen of Scots, and an Examination of the Histories of Dr. Robertson and Mr. Hume with respect to that Evidence.' The work of Mr. Tytler is acute and learned; it procured for the author the approbation and esteem of the most eminent men of his times; but, judged by the higher standards which now exist, it must be pronounced to be partial and inconclusive.

LORD LYTTLETON wrote his History of the Reign of Henry II.' on which he had bestowed years of study; it is a valuable repertory of facts, but a dry and uninteresting composition. The first three volumes were published in 1764, and the conclusion in 1771. Of a similar character are the Historical Memoirs and Lives'-Queen Elizabeth, Raleigh, Henry, Prince of Wales, &c.-written by Dr. Thomas Birch, of the Royal Society. These works drew attention to the materials that existed for a history of domestic manners, always more interesting than diplomacy or wars; and Dr. Robert Henry-17181790) entered upon a History of Great Britain,' in which particular attention was given to this department. The first volume was published in 1771, and four other at intervals between that time and 1785. This work realized to its author the large sum of £3300 and was rewarded with a pension from the crown of £100 per annum. Henry's work does not come further down than the reign of Henry VIII.

For at least part of our history, a mass of facts relating to events and individuals had been accumulated in the Fontical State of Great Britain, a monthly publication from 1711 to 174, or in sixty volumes; and in the Historical Register, 1714-1735. The former miscellany was begun by ABEL BOYER (1666-1729). a French refugee, with a Gen man appetite for work. Besides his Political State. Boyer compiled histories of Queen Anne and William III. and was author of a French and English dictionary, long popular,

In our days, the plan of a history with copious information as to manners, arts, and improvements has been admirably realised in the Pictorial History of England,' published by Mr. Charles Knight. Of Dr. Henry, we may add that he was a native of St. Ninians, in Stirlingshire, and one of the ministers of Edinburgh.

DR. GILBERT STUART (1742-1786), a native of Edinburgh, wrote various historical works,' 'A History of Scotland,' a 'Dissertation on the British Constitution,' a History of the Reformation,' &c. His style was florid and high-sounding, not wanting in elegance, but disfigured by affectation, and still more by the violent prejudices of its vindictive and unprincipled author.

About the year 1760, the London booksellers completed a compilation which had, for a long period, employed several professional authors-a Universal History,' a large and valuable work, seven vol· umes being devoted to ancient, and sixteen to modern history. The writers were ARCHIBALD BOWER (1686–1766), a native of Ďundee, who was educated at the Jesuits' College of St. Omer, but afterwards fled to England and embraced the Protestant faith: he was author of a History of the Popes.'-DR. JOHN CAMPBELL (1709–1775), a son of Campbell of Glenlyon in Perthshire, wrote the Military History of the Duke of Marlborough and Prince Eugene,' Lives of the Admirals,' a considerable portion of the Biographia Britannica,' a "History of Europe,' a 'Political Survey of Britain,' &c. Campbell was a candid and intelligent man, acquainted with Dr. Johnson and most of the eminent men of his day.-WILLIAM GUTHRIE (17081770), a native of Brechin, was an indefatigable writer, author of a History of England,' a History of Scotland,' a 'Geographical Grammar,' &c.-GEORGE SALE (1680-1736) translated the Koran, and was one of the founders of a society for the encouragement of learning.-GEORGE PSALMANAZAR (1679-1763), a native of France, deceived the world for some time by pretending to be a native of the island of Formosa, to support which he invented an alphabet and grammar. He afterwards became a hack author, was sincerely peritent, and was reverenced by Johnson for his piety. When the 'Universal History' was completed, Goldsmith wrote a preface to it, for which he received three guineas!

'Histories of Ireland,' evincing antiquarian research, were published, the first in 1763-7 by Dr. Warner, and another in 1773 by Dr. Leland, the translator of our best English version of Demosthenes. A review of Celtic and Roman antiquities was in 1771-5 presented by John Whittaker, grafted upon his History of Manchester;' and the same author afterwards wrote a violent and prejudiced Vindication of Mary, Queen of Scots.' The Biographical History of England' by Granger, and Orme's 'History of the British Transactions in Hindostan,' which appeared at this time, are also valuable works. In 1775, Macpherson, translator of Ossian, published a History of Great Britain from the Restoration to the Accession of the House of Han

over,' accompanied by original papers. The object of Macpherson was to support the Tory party, and to detract from the purity and patriotism of those who had planned and effected the Revolution of 1688. The secret history brought to light by his original papersthough Macpherson is charged with having tampered with them and falsified history-disclosed a degree of selfishness and intrigue for which the public were not prepared. In this task, the historian-if Macpherson be entitled to the venerable name-had the use of Carte's collections, for which he was paid £200, and he received no less than £3000 for the copyright of his work. The Annals of Scotland,' from Malcolm III. to Robert I. were published in 1776 by Sir David Dalrymple, Lord Hailes. In 1779 the same author produced a continuation to the accession of the House of Stuart. These works were invaluable at the time, and have since formed an excellent quarry for the historian.

LORD HAILES was born in Edinburgh in 1726, the son of Sir James Dalrymple of Hailes, Bart. He distinguished himself at the Scottish bar, and was appointed one of the judges of the Court of Session in 1766. He was the author of various legal and antiquarian treatises; of the Remains of Christian Antiquity,' containing translations from the fathers, &c.; and of an inquiry into the secondary causes assigned by Gibbon the historian for the rapid growth of Christianity. Lord Hailes was a man of great erudition, an able lawyer, and upright judge. He died in 1792. In 1776, ROBERT WATSON (1780–1780), professor of rhetoric, and afterwards principal of one of the colleges of St. Andrews, wrote a History of Philip II. of Spain,' as a continuation to Robertson, and left unfinished a 'History of Philip III' which was completed by Dr. William Thomson, and published in 1783. In 1779, the first two volumes of 'A History of Modern Europe,' by Dr. WILLIAM RUSSELL (1741–1793), were published with distinguished success, and three others were added in 1784, bringing down the history to the year 1763. Continuations to this valuable compendium have been made by Dr. Coote and others, and it continues to be a standard work. Russell was a native of Selkirkshire, and fought his way to learning and distinction in the midst of considerable difficulties. The vast number of historical works published about this time shews how eagerly this noble branch of study was cultivated and appreciated by authors and the public. No department of literary labour seems then to have been so lucrative, or so sure of leading to distinction. But our greatest name yet remains

behind.

EDWARD GIBBON.

The historian of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' was, by birth, education, and manners, distinctively an English gentleman. He was born at Putney, in Surrey, April 27, 1737. His father was of an ancient family settled at Beriton, near Petersfield,

Hampshire. Of delicate health, young EDWARD GIBBON was privately educated, and at the age of fifteen he was placed at Magdalen College, Oxford. He was almost from infancy a close student, but his indiscriminate appetite for books subsided by degrees in the historic line.' He arrived at Oxford, he says, with a stock of erudition that might have puzzled a doctor, and a degree of ignorance of which a school boy would have been ashamed. He spent fourteen months at college idly and unprofitably, as he himself states; and, studying the works of Bossuet and Parsons the Jesuit, he became a convert to the Roman Catholic religion. He went to London, and at the feet of a priest, on the 8th of June, 1753, he solemnly, though privately, abjured the errors of heresy.' His father, in order to reclaim him, placed him for some years at Lausanne, in Switzerland, under the charge of M. Pavilliard, a Calvinist clergyman, whose judicious conduct prevailed upon his pupil to return to the bosom of the Protestant church. On Christmas-day, 1754, he received the sacrament in the Protestant church at Lausanne. 'It was here,' says the historian, that I suspended my religious inquiries, acquiescing with implicit belief in the tenets and mysteries which are adopted by the general consent of Catholics and Protestants.' At Lausanne, a regular and severe system of study perfected Gibbon in the Latin and French languages, and in a general knowledge of literature. In 1758 he returned to England, and three years afterwards appeared as an author in a slight French treatise, an Essay on the Study of Literature.' He accepted the commission of captain in the Hampshire militia; and though his studies were interrupted, the discipline and evolutions of a modern battle,' he remarks, gave him a clearer notion of the phalanx and the legion, and the captain of the Hampshire grenadiers was not useless to the historian of the Roman Empire.'

On the peace of 1762, Gibbon was released from his military duties, and paid a visit to France and Italy. He had long been meditating some historical work, and whilst at Rome, October 15, 1764, his choice was determined by an incident of a striking and romantic nature. 'As I sat musing,' he says, ' amidst the ruins of the Capitol, while the barefooted friars were singing vespers in the temple of Jupiter, the idea of writing the decline and fall of the city first started into my mind.' Many years, however, clapsed before he realised his intentions. On returning to England in 1765, he seems to have been fashionable and idle; his father died in 1770, and he then began to form the plan of an independent life. The estate left him by his father was much involved in debt, and he determined on quitting the country and residing permanently in London. He then undertook the composition of the first volume of his history. At the outset,' he remarks, all was dark and doubtful: even the title of the work, the true era of the decline and fall of the empire, the limits of the introduction, the division of the. chapters, and the order of the narra tive; and I was often tempted to cast away the labour of seven years.