of amazing moral fublimity.. His Satires, I fufpect, are fuperior to thofe of Horace, if fublimity be a quality of writing fuperior to grace, as, for my own part, I have no doubt but it is. The obfcurity of Perfius throws him quite out of the rank of good writers.

LUCAN is original, but it is the originality of Ovid; an originality of no price. His grand and Stoic diction deferves, however, much praise; and, even confidered as a poet, I agree with Heinfius and Corneille, that he is infinitely fuperior to Virgil.

THE Natural Hiftory of Pliny is an original of vast design, and masterly execution.

QUINTILIAN is the only fenfible critic of antiquity, the only one who knew method or distinction; but he cannot be called original.

STATIUS, Martial, Valerius Flaccus, Silius Italicus, have no claim to originality.

To Tacitus let us bend the knee as the greatest of the original Roman writers, as the first hiftorian who wrote with philofophy for his

guide;

guide; as one whofe judgment and talents were infinite, and fhall never be rivalled. I am not unaware that Milton, in his Familiar Letters, calls Saluft the very first of all historians, and Tacitus his imitator. Tho I revere Milton, I revere the truth more, and think that Saluft imitates Thucydides, and Tacitus imitates none. Saluft deals merely in general reflections; Tacitus in deep and political knowlege.

BOETIUS, the last Roman writer, has a fair claim to originality, and that not of the meaneft kind.

SUCH is the lift of the more eminent Latin writers. Among them we have found only Eight Original, namely, TIBULLUS, HORACE, CELSUS, PHEDRUS, JUVENAL, PLINY the Elder, TACITUS, BOETIUS; and I fuppofe, if weighed in the scales of Critical Juftice, their various powers of genius would rank them in this order.

I. TACITUS, as a profound hiftorian. None having arifen before, or fince, his genius must neceffarily be of wonderful rarity and value.

II. TIBULLUS, as the firft writer of Elegy in the world.

III. JUVENAL. A fatyric writer of the sublime or first class. As fatire is an inferior province of poetry to elegy, he stands after Tibullus; but, as the fublime is fuperior to the elegant, he precedes

IV. HORACE.

V. PLINY the Elder.

VI. CELSUS.

VII. PHEDRUS.

VIII. BOETIUS.

1

LETTER

T

HE diftinction between learning and reading is very juft. A man may read all the books ever fent into the world, were it poffible, and yet have no title to the appellation of learned. A man of true learning, by the digeftion of a strong mind, converts all literary food into wholfome nourishment; whereas, when the receptacle is difordered, or feeble, the more it is crammed the worfe. Such is Milton's idea:

But knowlege is as food, and needs no lefs Her temperance over appetite, to know In measure what the mind may well contain: Oppreffes elfe with furfeit; and foons turns Wisdom to folly, as nourishment to wind, For a long time after the revival of learning it was confounded with reading. An author could not call fnow white, without a long quotation from Aristotle in the margin. This plan having fallen into juft contempt, we have now adopted the other extreme, Voltaire, an

ape

ape who looks big by getting upon the shoulders of giants, after dirtying them all over in getting up, writes history without ever quoting his authorities; and tells us anecdotes as ancient, which are not to be found in any ancient author in print; yet he quotes no MS. Shall we believe him? No. They are the offspring of his own brain. Even for apparent facts he produces no authority; yet hiftory cannot be too well authenticated. As he made his poetry hiftory, fo he hath made his history poetry; he is an historical poet, and a poetical hiftorian. This is an inftance that there are works in which it is abfolutely neceffary to fhew one's learning by quotations, and not by the effence of the difcourfe.

FOR a man's writing on learned fubjects with no difplay of erudition, we can only account by pronouncing him ignorant. The more a man hath read upon any fubject, he will doubtless write the better; fuppofing him a man of any capacity. Is not a rich man better qualified to furnish a banquet that will delight every palate, than one whose poverty fruftrates his intention?

NONE