The author's affectation of using the purple for the crown or imperial dignity, is so obvious by numberless repetitions of the word, as to be perfectly ridiculous.
"In the choice of an advantageous situation, he preferred the confines of Europe and Asia; to curb, with a powerful arm, the barbarians who dwelt between the Danube and Tanais; to watch, with an eye of jealousy, the conduct of the Persian monarch." Here the members of the sentence in Italics, are altogether superfluous; the author wanted to inform his reader, that Dioclesian designed to curb the barbarians and watch the Persian monarch; for which purpose he chose a favorable situation; but it was wholly immaterial to the subject to relate in what manner or degree, the emperor meant to exert his arm or his jealousy. Nay more, these are circumstances which are not reduceable to any certainty, and of which the writer and the reader can have no precise idea.
"With these views, Dioclesian had selected and embellished the residence of Nicomedia."—Is Nicomedia a princess, whose residence the emperor selected and embellished? This is the most obvious meaning of the sentence. But Nicomedia, we learn from other passages, was a city, the residence itself of the emperor. Yet the author could not tell us this in a few plain words, without spoiling the harmony of the phrase; he chose therefore to leave it obscure and ungrammatical.
"—But the memory of Dioclesian was justly abhorred by the Protector of the Church; and Constantine was not insensible to the ambition of founding a city, which might perpetuate the glory of his own name." Who is the protector of the church? By Constantine's being mentioned immediately after, one would think he cannot be the person intended; yet on examination, this is found to be the case. But why this separate appellation? It seems the author meant by it to convey this idea; That Dioclesian was a persecutor of the church, therefore his memory was abhorred by Constantine who was its protector; the cause of Constantine's abhorrence is implied, and meant to be unfolded to the reader, in a single epithet. Is this history? I must have the liberty to think that such terseness of stile, notwithstanding the authorities of Tacitus and Gibbon, is a gross corruption and a capital fault.
In description, our author often indulges a figurative poetical manner, highly improper.
"The figure of the imperial city (Constantinople) may be represented under that of an unequal triangle. The obtuse point, which advances towards the east, and the shores of Asia, meets and repels the waves of the Thracian Bosphorus." Here the author soars on poetic wings, and we behold the obtuse point of a triangle, marching eastward, attacking and repulsing its foes, the waves of the Bosphorus; in the next line, the author sinks from the heights of Parnassus, and creeps on the plain of simple narrative—"The northern side of the city is bounded by the harbor."
"On these banks, tradition long preserved the memory of the sylvan reign of Amycus, who defied the son of Leda to the combat of the Cestus." The author takes it for granted that his reader is acquainted with all the ancient fables of Greece and Rome. Such allusions to facts or fables make a wretched figure in sober history.[177]
The author, after the manner of the poets, admits episodes into his descriptions, by way of variety and embellishment. He begins a description of Constantinople; to do justice to the city, he must describe its situation; he therefore gives an account of the Thracian Bosphorus, the Propontus and Hellespont, interspersed with ancient fables, and adorned with poetical imagery. When he arrives at the mouth of the Hellespont, his fancy leads him to the seat of ancient Troy, and he cannot pass it, without telling us from Homer, where the Grecian armies were encamped; where the flanks of the army were guarded by Agamemnon's bravest chiefs; where Achilles and his myrmidons occupied a promontory; where Ajax pitched his tent; and where his tomb was erected after his death. After indulging his fancy on this memorable field of heroic actions, he is qualified to describe Constantinople.
But it is needless to multiply examples; for similar faults occur in almost every page. Most men, who have read this history, perceive a difficulty in understanding it; yet few have attempted to find the reason; and hardly a man has dared to censure the stile and manner.
To what cause then shall we ascribe the almost unanimous consent of the English and Americans, in lavishing praises upon Gibbon's history? In some measure doubtless to the greatness of the attempt, and the want of an English history which should unfold the series of events which connects ancient and modern times. The man who should light a lamp, to illuminate the dark period of time from the 5th to the 15th century, would deserve immortal honors. The attempt is great; it is noble; it is meritorious. Gibbon appears to have been faithful, laborious, and perhaps impartial. It is his stile and manner only I am censuring; for these are exceedingly faulty. For proof of this I appeal to a single fact, which I have never heard contradicted; that a man who would comprehend Gibbon, must read with painful attention, and after all receive little improvement.