pected from them. It is, however, from the original ancient writers that the greatest advantage may be derived; and it is a difgrace to any one, whofe profeffion calls him to speak in publick, to be unacquainted with them. In all the ancient rhetorical writers there is indeed one defect; they are too fyftematical. They aim at doing too much; at reducing rhetorick to a perfect art, which may even fupply invention with materials on every fubject; fo that one would suppose they expected to form an orator by rule, as they would form a carpenter. But in reality all that can be done is to affift and enlighten taste, and to point out to genius the course it ought to hold.

Ariftotle was the first who took rhetorick out of the hands of the fophifts, and founded it on reason and folid fenfe. Some of the profoundeft obfervations, which have been made on the paffions and manners of men, are to be found in his Treatife on Rhetorick; though in this, as in all his writings, his great conciseness often renders him obfcure. The Greek rhetoricians who fucceeded him, most of whom are now loft, improved on his foundation. Two of them ftill remain, Demetrius Phalerius, and Dionyfius of Halicarnaffus. Both wrote on the conftruction of sentences, and deferve to be confulted; particularly Dionyfius, who is a very accurate and judicious critick.

To recommend the rhetorical writings of Cicero is fuperfluous. Whatever on the fubject of eloquence is fuggefted by fo great an orator, must be worthy of attention. His most extensive work on this subject is that De Oratore. None of his writings are more highly fiuifhed than this treatise. The dialogue is polite; the characters are well fupported, and the

COMPARISON OF THE ANCIENTS AND MODERNS. 183

management of the whole is beautiful and pleafing. The Orator ad M. Brutum is also a valuable treatise; and indeed through all Cicero's rhetorical works are displayed thofe fublime ideas of eloquence, which are calculated to form a just taste, and to infpire that enthusiasm for the art, which is highly conducive to excellence.

Al

But of all ancient writers on the fubject of oratory the most inftructive and moft ufeful is Quintilian. His inftitutions abound with good fenfe, and difcover a tafte in the highest degree juft and accurate. most all the principles of good ctiticism are found in them. He has well digefted the ancient ideas concerning rhetorick, and has delivered his inftructions in elegant and polished language.

COMPARATIVE MERIT OF THE ANCIENTS AND MODERNS.

A VERY curious question has been agitated with regard to the comparative merit of the ancients and moderns. In France, this difpute was carried on with great heat between Boileau and Madame Dacier. for the ancients, and Perrault and La Motte for the moderns. Even at this day, men of letters are divided on the fubject. A few reflections upon it may be useful.

To decry the ancient clafficks is a vain attempt. Their reputation is established upon too folid a founddation to be fhaken. Imperfections may be traced in their writings; but to difcredit their works in general can belong only to peevishnefs or prejudice. The

approbation of the publick through so many centuries establishes a verdict in their favour, from which there is no appeal.

In matters of mere reafoning, the world may be long in error; and systems of philosophy often have currency for a time, and then die. But in objects of tafte there is no fuch fallibility; as they depend not on knowledge and fcience, but upon fentiment and feeling. Now the univerfal feeling of mankind must be right, Homer and Virgil therefore must continue to stand upon the fame ground which they have fo long occupied.

Let us guard however against blind veneration for the ancients, and inftitute a fair comparison between them and the moderns. If the ancients had the preeminence in genius, yet the moderns must have fome advantage in all arts which are improved by the nat ural progress of knowledge.

Hence in natural philofophy, aftronomy, chymistry, and other fciences, which reft upon obfervation of facts the moderns have a decided fuperiority over the ancients. Perhaps too in precise reasoning, philofophers of modern ages are fuperiour to those of ancient times; as a more extenfive literary intercourfe has contributed to fharpen the faculties of men. The moderns have alfo the fuperiority in history and in political knowl. edge; owing to the extenfion of commerce, the dif covery of different countries, the fuperiour facility of intercourse, and the multiplicity of events and revolu tions which have taken place in the world. In poetry likewife fome advantages have been gained in point of regularity and accuracy. In dramatick performances, improvements have certainly been made

upon the ancient models. The variety of characters is greater; greater fkill has been difplayed in the conduct of the plot; and a happier attention to probability and decorum. Among the ancients we find high-. er conceptions, greater fimplicity, and more original fancy. Among the moderns there is more of art and correctness, but lefs genius. But though this remark may in general be juft, there are fome exceptions from it; Milton and Shakespeare are inferiour to no poets in any age.

Among the ancients were many circumftances favourable to the exertions of genius. They travelled much in fearch of learning, and converfed with priests, poets, and philofophers. They returned home full of discoveries, and fired by uncommon objects. Their enthusiasm was greater; and few being ftimulated to excel as authors, their fame was more intense and flattering. In modern times good writing is lefs prized. We write with lefs effort. Printing has fo multiplied books, that affiftance is eafily procured. Hence mediocrity of genius prevails. To rife beyond this, and to foar above the crowd, is given to few.

In epick poetry, Homer and Virgil are ftill unrivalled; and orators, equal to Demofthenes and Cicero, we have none. In hiftory, we have no modern narration fo elegant, fo picturefque, fo animated, and interesting, as thofe of Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Livy, Tacitus and Salluft. Our dramas, with all their improvements, are inferiour in poetry and fentiment to thofe of Sophocles and Euripides. We have no comic dialogue that equals the correct, graceful, and elegant fimplicity of Terence. The elegies of Tibullus, the pastorals of Theocritus,and the lyrick poetry of Horace,

are still unrivalled. By thofe, therefore, who wish to form their tafte, and nourish their genius, the utmost attention must be paid to the ancient clafficks, both Greek and Roman.

After thefe reflections on the ancients and moderns, we proceed to a 'critical examination of the most dif tinguished kinds of compofition, and of the characters of thofe writers, whether ancient or modern, who have excelled in them. Of orations and publick dise courses much has already been said. The remaining profe compofitions may be divided into historical writing, philofophical writing, epiftolary writing, and fic titious history.

HISTORICAL WRITING.

HISTORY is a record of truth for the inftruction of mankind. Hence the great requifites in a hiftorian are impartiality, fidelity, and accuracy.

In the conduct of hiftorical detail the firft object of a hiftorian fhould be, to give his work all poffible unity. History fhould not confift of unconnected parts. Its portions fhould be united by fome connecting principle, which will produce in the mind an impreffion of fomething that is one, whole and entire. Polybius, though not an elegant writer, is remarkable for this quality.

A hiftorian should trace actions and events to their fources. He should therefore be well acquainted with human nature and politicks. His fkill in the former will enable him to defcribe the characters of individuals; and his knowledge of the latter to account for