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.