PREFACE.
IF we compare the endeavours of our countrymen for the illuſtration of our antiquities with thoſe of other nations, we ſhall find the preference both in number and matter due to us. The Italians and French are our only competitors. The latter have acquired, the former are born with, a paſſion for antiquities. Both will teach us a ſtyle, when we have aſcertained our knowledge; and we may borrow from the one a portion of ſcepticiſm to contraſt with the aſſiduity of the other. The French, carrying into their antiquarian reſearches thoſe engaging talents which they poſſeſs in the generality of literary purſuits, have handled thoſe obſcure ſubjects with the ſame eaſe as romances. Without going ſo deep as graver nations, even their ſuperficial knowledge appears to greater advantage by an animated ſtyle and pertinent reflections; while our language, as capable of conciſe judicious remarks, is drawn out into tedious unanimated narrative in ſuch compoſitions.—Thoſe who have hitherto treated our topographical antiquities ſeem to have trodden only in mazes overgrown with thorns, neglecting the flowery paths with which the wilderneſs of obſeurity is diverſified. Incorrect pedigrees, futile etymologies, verboſe diſquiſitions, crowds of epitaphs, liſts of landholders, and ſuch farrago, thrown together without method, unanimated by reflections, and delivered in the moſt uncouth and horrid ſtyle, make the bulk of our county hiſtories. Such works bring the ſtudy of antiquities into disgrace with the generality, and diſguſt the moſt candid curioſity[1].
The Hiſtory of Mancheſter is attempted upon a different plan, upon that which has long appeared to the author the one only rational and judicious plan for a work of antiquities. He
- ↑ See p. vi. and xviii. of the lively ingenious and judicious Preface to Anecdotes British Topography, London, 1768.
