tory, which is fpun out to a great length, fince the conquefts of the Romans ought, agreeably to the plan juft mentioned, to have been related under the hiftory of the country conquered.

That our Readers may form fome idea of the work, we shall give a view of the prefent edition, and fhew in what refpects it differs from the former, which was publifhed in 1747.

The Preface is a very elaborate performance, fhewing the use of hiftory in general, and giving an ample account of the mode of diftributing the matter and dividing the book. The editor has confiderably fhortened it, and though he has retained every thing of confequence relative to the work itself, yet many curious circumstances are omitted that might have afforded much entertainment, if not information to the inquifitive reader, and in fome inftances have enabled the diligent inquirer to fatisfy himself refpecting feveral difficulties and doubts, that neceffarily occur from too fuperficial an acquaintance with the customs, manners, coin, weights, measures, &c. of different nations, especially thofe, of which we have only few records, and even these few, obfcure, Chronology is of the utmoft confequence in all historical works. The chronology of the ancients is every where obfcure and confused, on which account the authors of this work have, in the Preface to their firft edition, given ample chronological tables, and endeavoured to elucidate, as much as poffible, the darker parts of their refearches. To this we may add the accurate and comprehenfive chronological Index at the end of the 8vo edition in 1747; which is a very valuable and useful addition to the work. In the prefent edition thefe tables and remarks are wholly fuppreffed. The advantage of the chronological index is fo very great, that we are aftonished at its being with-held, and efpecially that no reafons fhould have been given for fo material an omiffion. To young perfons, who ftudy hiftory as a part of their education, it is particularly beneficial; for by running over fo much of the tables as regards that space of the hiftory they read, within a certain compafs of time, they will the more cafily retain it in their memory; and by fixing all the capital facts, as they ftand connected with each other in point of time, ftrongly in their mind, they will be enabled to recal, without much difficulty, most of the minute circumftances attending the more material tranfactions. We could recite many other advantages which thefe chronological tables afford, but we fhall content ourfelves with noting only one, more immediately belonging to the prefent performance. The plan of the Univerfal Hiftory is, as we have faid above, geographical, by which means all confufion, with regard to that science, is prevented; but, for this very reafon, breaches in chronology become neceffary. Thefe breaches in chronology being united by the Tables, the reader has all the REV. July, 1787. principal

D

principal facts in two diftinct views of place and time; fo that he can the more eafily, on a flight examination, find the particular circumstances attendant on the hiftory of any particular place, or determine the times in which they happened. It may be objected that authors, especially the ancient hiftorians, differ very widely in their chronology, and therefore no dependence can be placed on them. This is undoubtedly too often the cafe; and for that very reafon, compilers of hiftory fhould to the utmost of their abilities endeavour to rectify the more material errors, and reduce the principal transactions to their proper time.

The introductory part, called in the former edition Cofmogony, is in this much altered. It is an excellent epitome of the opinions of the ancient philofophers; and as it exhibits the whole of their doctrines in one view, the reader may make himself acquainted with the contents of many voluminous and abstruse works at a small expence both of labour and time. This treatise is not only abridged, by which it lofes much of its original excellency, but divided; the greatest part of it which properly belongs to the beginning, being inferted at the end of the whole work. If it was to be retained, why not keep it together? The whofe treatife is a well-connected and uniform performance; and appears to great difadvantage from the change it has undergone.

The hiftory of the World, from the creation to the flood, has undergone as much abridgment as the Introduction. Indeed there was much caufe for expunging a number of paffages, which answered no other purpose than to difplay the learning of the compiler, and divert the reader by attending to ridiculous ftories and the figments of ancient writers, moft of which are to be met with in the General Dictionary compiled from Bayle, &c. This circumftance is almost a direct proof that Mr. Sale, the principal tranflator of that dictionary, was the compiler of this part of the Univerfal History, for he, as all the matter of the dictionary paffed through his bands but a little while before, could the more eafily apply it in the hiftory, which work, by the date, feems to have followed very closely the tranflation of Bayle's Dictionary. The many curious inveftigations of the dark and confufed paffages of the profane hiftory of this period, may be defirable by a number of readers, and to fuch, the prefent abridged ftate of this chapter, especially on account of the omiffion of the learned notes and numerous references, cannot be fatisfactory. In the edition of 1747, every thing relative to the antediluvian hiftory was contained in this chapter, or, at leaft, references were made to every book that had been written on the fubject; on which account we ever efteemed it a moft valuable collection, and, confequently, highly worthy of preservation.

At

i

At the beginning of the fecond chapter, which comprehends the hiftory of the world, from the Deluge to the birth of Abraham, the antecedent of the fecond paragraph being omitted, renders the remainder somewhat obfcure. But this and the following are the only omiffions we meet with, that injure the original. In the 7th volume, page 292, Philip wrote the Athenians a letter, ftill extant, which is one of the moft artful and spirited remonftrances that ever was compofed.' In the former edition, this epiftle is inferted, but in the new one, it is left out; the impropriety of which evidently appears when, coming to p. 301, where fpeaking of the diffenfion in Philip's family, we are told, The reader must remember, that in Philip's letter to the Athenians, he speaks with great heat of, &c.' We are however furprifed not to find more inaccuracies of this kind in a work fo extenfive as the prefent. The former edition is replete with miftakes, which in this are corrected, and which were the more unpardonable in the former editors, because they were copied in different parts of the work. For inftance, vol. iv. p. 119, edition of 1747, Jehoshaphat had the moft numerous army of any of his predeceffors, it confifting of above 11,000,000 fighting men:' and in the chronological table, p. 40, Jehoshaphat fortifies his frontiers, maintains an army of 11,000,000 men, &c.' The editors of this edition have rightly expunged one of the cyphers, making it 1,100,000, which is nevertheless an enormous army, and would require for its annual maintenance above ten millions pounds fterling at 6d. per man per day, exclufive of accoutrements and clothing.

In reading any hiftory, especially a general one, the reader frequently wishes to confult authors who have been particularly minute in defcribing certain tranfactions, or who have confined themselves to record private actions that more properly belong to the biography of the individual, than to the hiftory of the country in which he lived, or the national affairs in which he as a public character acted a part. For this purpose, hiftorians cannot be too liberal in references to fuch writings as contain any historical or perfonal anecdotes, or inferting in notes, which do not interrupt or incumber the text, fuch private information as may fatisfy the reader's curiofity, or enlighten the principal fubject. The numerous notes of the original are too frequently omitted, especially the philological ones; the tracing of etymologies is a pleafing employment to many literary men, and fometimes it is the means, if judiciously conducted, of reflecting much light on thofe parts of hiftory whofe records are deficient either in quantity or matter. But many of the ingenious and learned notes in the former editions were valuable on account of their forming a regular literary journal, especially those inferted in the Roman hiftory, in which we had a catalogue of the writings,

D 2

a/

writings, and a fhort account, of the principal authors and philofophers who flourished in the reign of each emperor.

The great length of the Roman hiftory fwelled the original work to a very voluminous bulk. The author who undertook this part of the general hiftory, feems to have difregarded, more than any other of the gentlemen employed in the compilation, the reftrictions which the original plan had proposed, of confining every fact to its proper fcene of action. This acknowledged imperfection ought to have fuggefted to the editors, the neceffity of retrenching from this diffufe part of the work, all foreign tranfactions whatever, and of referring the relation of the unhappy nations, that were conquered by thefe ambitious and victorious people, to the places to which they properly belonged. But fo far from making this neceffary alteration, we have, in this new edition, feveral tranfactions of the Romans, which were not mentioned in the original. Cæfar's expedition into Britain is detailed in the 11th volume, p. 364, which improperly belongs to the place where it is inferted, and greatly increases a part of the work already too large. A fimilar infertion occurs in vol. xiii. p. 193, where the British affairs are again abruptly introduced. The impropriety of affigning five volumes of this work to the Roman hiftory, is the more evident, fince it is a part of ancient hiftory which has been more expatiated on than any other, and which fo many learned men, in almost every country in Europe, have fufficiently elucidated. From the state of learning among the Romans, more records of that nation have come to our hands than of any other, but in a work of this kind, to retain every ordinary tranfaction, and the biographical anecdotes of individuals, is departing from the intention of a general hiftory of the country. Such articles ought to have been only referred to by notes, and not fuffered to interrupt the regular detail of public occurrences by being admitted into the text. There are indeed many parts of the hiftory of this once great people, that are very interefting to mankind, as they hand down to us fome of the nobleft examples of patriotism that any nation can boat, and difplay characters eminent for virtue, freedom, valour, and prudence, characters which ought to be held forth as examples of imitation.

The hiftory of the Carthaginians contained, in the former edition, many valuable obfervations on the Punic language, intermixed with a number of excellent philological reafonings refpecting the Oriental languages in general, fhewing their analogy, their affinity, and the proofs of their being of the fame origin. Perhaps, as men of letters, we may be too partial to fuch remarks, or think them intitled to more confideration than they deferve; yet we cannot but lament that this new edition has rejected these learned difquifitions, on account of the use they may

afford

afford in discovering a connection between nations, whofe records have either been loft or mutilated in the courfe of time, or by the viciffitudes and ravages of government and plundering. The deftruction of civilized and enlightened nations, by the outrageous hands of cruel and ignorant barbarians, has, beyond a doubt, been the cause of the lofs of many valuable records and monuments of antiquity. Inftances of this kind have been mentioned by hiftorians as the well-known calamities of the Alexandrian library, but many more, it is to be feared, have had no remaining witness to relate them. Hiftorians, therefore, efpecially fuch as profefs to give the univerfal hiftory of the world, ought to preferve every fragment that can afford the leaft ray of light toward elucidating thofe fubjects on which records are filent. But allowing the greateft part, or even all, of thefe obfervations to be conjectures, ought we therefore to reject them? May not the ingenuity of one man begin where the learning of his predeceffor in the fame fteps of literature ended? Of this we have daily proofs. Let us then preserve what has been tranfmitted to us, fince we know not what utility future ages may derive from it.

In this part of the work, we have a very material alteration, which we cannot pass over without remarking its propriety. The battle of Canne, which had been fully and circumftantially related in the Roman hiftory, was in the former edition again minutely described in the hiftory of the Carthaginians, nearly in the fame manner. The editor of this edition has judiciously left out the repetition of it under the Carthaginian hiftory, and given a more regular account of it in the former place. We could have wished to have seen this method oftener adopted, as we are convinced, that the chief fault of the former edition confifted in the many unneceflary repetitions with which it abounded, and the expunging of these repetitions feemed to be the principal defign the editor ought to have had in view, in order to make the work complete, and as concife as its nature and plan would admit. A fimilar judicious retrenchment is made in the hiftory of the Spaniards, where the conqueft of Spain by the Carthaginians and Romans is wholly left out, being related at length in the hiftory of those two nations. Though the editor has by this means avoided repetitions, he has not ftrictly adhered to the original intention of the work, nor, reftored it to the uniformity of the primitive defign of relating nothing concerning the history of any country, or nation, but what was tranfacted within its boundaries.

We fhall conclude this article with obferving, that the prefent edition is in fome inftances preferable to the former, efpecially on account of the language and ftyle, which, to use the editor's own words, is melted down into a more uniform mass of regular compofition.' It has however fometimes its imperfections;

D 3

but