ART. II.-Memoirs of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. 8vo. pp. 228. Philadelphia. McCarty & Davis.

6

It was said by Lord Bacon, that nothing is so seldom found among the writings of men, as true and perfect civil history.' This remark is as pertinent at the present day, as it was in the time of Bacon. There would seem to have been no essential improvements on the models of the ancients, in the art of writing history, and Herodotus may still be cited as standing at the head of the first rank of historians, as Homer of the poets, and Demosthenes of the orators. The voice of ages has been as unanimous in favor of the one as the others, notwithstanding the discourteous criticisms of Plutarch on the writings of Herodotus.

To inquire into the reasons, why historical compositions have not been improved by the moderns, would lead us away from our present purpose. It is enough to admit the fact, and assent to the truth of Bacon's proposition. In this respect history stands on the same footing, as poetry and eloquence, architecture and sculpture. Lucian tells of a certain historian of Corinth, who began his work by a formal argument to prove, that none but a wise man should attempt to write history. Were all historians to set out with this position, and gravely apply themselves to establish its truth, we should probably meet with fewer unsuccessful invocations of the historic muse, unless, like the same Corinthian author, each should think his own case sufficiently clear without proof. In his rules for an accomplished historian, Lucian mentions what he calls two grand qualifications, namely, a genius for political investigation, and a command of language, or a power of describing his thoughts with force and accuracy. The first, says Lucian, is a gift of nature, and a thing not to be taught. The second can be acquired by industry and emulation, by study and practice. The great historians have possessed both these qualifications. Their patience and labor have been equal to their genius. Herodotus spent years in travelling, observing, conversing with men of different nations, and polishing his compositions, before he ventured to submit his work to the critical ears of a Grecian audience. Froissart was a travelling chronicler, and he holds the first place in the department of history, which he cultivated. In short, a man without talents or industry may compose a wretched history, as he may be a dull

orator or poet. Genius in either case is a feeble flame, unless cherished by severe mental application; and industry will plod in vain, when not quickened by some portion of the celestial fire.

Sometimes the historian fails, on account of his subject; at other times, for the want of materials. It is not in the power of the greatest mind to make that dignified and interesting, which in its nature is low and unattractive. The first step to be taken by a historian, therefore, is to exercise his judgment in selecting a subject, which will not cause him to run the hazard of wasting his powers in developing and recording events, that have nothing in them to command the admiration, or awaken the sympathy of mankind. Next come the materials of history, and in no part of his task are the resolution, the patience, the ardor of the historian, more seriously tried than in collecting these. Some writers have avoided this burden of research, and proved themselves to be politicians, rather than historians. Xenophon related his own adventures, and Hume worked upon the stock of others. Herodotus, on the contrary, sought out the very fountain heads of knowledge with untiring diligence; and Gibbon delved deeply and laboriously in the unproductive mines of the literature of the dark ages.

In applying these hints to our own country, we perceive reason, why historical compositions of the highest order may not be written among us. There is no appalling deficiency of any one requisite, either in regard to writers, subjects, or materials. As to the first, to be sure, the best proof is a successful experiment; and, if occasion required, we should not despair of establishing this proof with some degree of triumph, even from the present list of American historians; although we confess, that no work approaching to the character of a complete history of America, or of the United States, or of the American Revolution, has yet appeared. Of the single states we have some respectable histories, rather of the narrative than the philosophical kind; telling much of events, but little of causes and consequences; describing the visible motions of the political machine, but hardly acquainting us with the springs that actuated it, or the mass it moved. These are valuable chiefly as materials, and indexes to materials, for future use, in composing a perfect colonial history. In glancing over this subject, however, nothing is more obvious, than the scattered and loose condition of all materials for history in the United States. So many dis

tinct governments existed in this country, from the time of its first settlement, that the records of events were not only very much multiplied, but widely diffused. In some cases they were never well preserved in the public offices, and at the Revolution there was a universal confusion. Important papers belonging to individuals were subject to similar accidents. Since that time many have been lost, and those which remain will gradually suffer the same fate, unless some special means shall be used to collect and preserve them.

To effect this end no better plan could be adopted, than that of societies in the several states expressly established for the purpose. Some of these societies have already been efficient and eminently serviceable. Twentyone volumes have been given to the public by the Massachusetts Historical Society, and one volume at least is annually published. By the New York Society three volumes have been printed, and we understand that a fourth may soon be expected from the press, comprising a second volume of Smith's History of New York, left by the author in manuscript. The library of this Society is valuable, and is well supplied with books on American history. It must not be concealed, however, that the objects of the Society do not seem to have been prosecuted recently with the same ardor and success, as at the beginning. The New Hampshire Society has begun to publish its collections, and a good deal is to be expected from that quarter. There is a Historical Society in Connecticut, but we do not learn that the public has as yet been favored with its contributions. We hope that gentlemen of leisure and inquiry in other states will shortly follow these examples, so honorable, and so well calculated to rescue from oblivion the memorials of the lofty spirit, the brave deeds, and the enduring fortitude of our fathers, who settled and subdued the land of our inheritance, and planted the seeds of liberty from which we are now enjoying an abundant and grateful harvest.

A new Society has been formed in Pennsylvania, with the design of collecting materials illustrating the history of that state; and in the volume before us, we have the first fruits of its labors. The specific objects of this Society, as set forth in the president's inaugural address, are comprehensive and important. These are stated to be the national origin and domestic habits of the first settlers of Pennsylvania; biography of William Penn, his family, and other settlers; biographical notices of eminent persons in modern times; aborigines of America; principles VOL. XXIII.-NO. 53 36

to which is to be ascribed the rapid peopling of Pennsylvania; general polity, revenues, and expenses of the colonial government; judicial history; medical history; literary history; agriculture, manufactures, and commerce. It is thus seen that the Society has given itself a great latitude of research, and that the zeal of its members need not flag for the want of suitable incitements. A separate committee, consisting of several gentlemen, is appointed for the investigation of each of these topics. Eleven years ago a committee of the American Philosophical Society of Philadelphia was formed, expressly for literary and historical purposes, and why it has been deemed necessary to create a new society for the same objects, and in the same place, we know not, nor do we think it a matter of any consequence, provided the activity and usefulness of both will be promoted by such an arrangemeut. It is to be feared, however, that by this division of forces the strength of the whole body will be weakened. There can be no question, in short, that much the greatest results would be produced by a union of the zeal and exertions of all parties. That no one can be associated with the Historical Committee, who is not a member of the Philosophical Society, is a very serious bar to the usefulness of that committee, and unless this obstacle could be removed, by some more liberal conditions of membership, the reasons perhaps were sufficiently cogent for setting up a new association on a broader basis. It is not to be supposed, that the persons most ardent in antiquarian and historical research, will always be the best qualified to belong to a philosophical society. Yet we think the president's language a little too strong, when he says in his inaugural discourse, speaking of the Committee, that the public looks on them with indifference.' To judge by the silence which they have maintained, since the publication of their first volume, seven years ago, it may be inferred rather that they are indifferent to the public, than that the public is indifferent to them. Another volume is understood to be in preparation, if not now ready for the press.

Besides the inaugural discourse of Mr Rawle, president of the society, the volume now under notice contains a memoir by Roberts Vaux, on the locality of the famous treaty between William Penn and the Indians; notes on the provincial literature of Pennsylvania, by Thomas I. Wharton; and a memoir on the controversy between William Penn and Lord Baltimore, respecting the boundaries of Pennsylvania and Maryland, by James

Dunlop. These are all judicious tracts, and throw as much light as could be expected or desired on the points of history, which their authors attempt to discuss.

Among other things Mr Rawle goes into an elaborate argument, to prove the rights of the aborigines to the soil of this country, and to show that these rights were as valid, and gave the Indians as strong claims, as in a more advanced stage of civilization. On this topic we do not fully agree with him, believing his reasoning to be more refined than practical. It is true in general, that what is right in one sense is so in another; but there are such things as conditional rights, and we apprehend this case of the Indians to be one of that description. A right to the soil depends on the mode by which possession was acquired,' says Mr Rawle; it is only by military conquest, or voluntary cession that the rights of the original occupants are divested.' Now in our view there is a previous question to be disposed of. What was the nature of the right by which the Indians held possession? Was it the right of occupancy? Doubtless it was, as far as the European settlers were concerned, for no other proof of right could be exhibited by the Indians; nor would any other be required to make the right unconditional and indisputable, in all cases where the inhabitants bore any proportion to the quantity of land they claimed. But to argue seriously, that a handful of savage people has a right to retain exclusive possession of as much land as it can wander over, during the four seasons of the year, in pursuit of game, and reject all other people from this domain, is carrying the metaphysical side of the question a little too far. Mr Rawle goes back to Adam, and says that to him was given 'dominion over the earth,' and adds, that dominion thus became a quality incident to rational existence.' Take this for granted, the question then occurs, How much dominion? Every human being undoubtedly has a natural right to soil enough to procure his subsistence, but here his natural right ends. If he possesses more, it must be by some conventional or conditional right. The laws of nations have recognised the rights of conquest and purchase, the first chiefly from necessity, and the second from convenience. Hobbes believed the foundation of right to be in the superiority of strength, Puffendorf in that of excellence. But take it as you will, the dimensions of the Indian rights become very scanty. As to the dubious right of conquest, we know not enough of their history to say anything on the subject; they made no pre