this examination, that free institutions have been remarkable for quickening the growth of intellect, the contrary does not appear, that less liberal governments have failed to do the same. Take the position for granted, which we shall be the last to deny, that republics hold out infinitely higher motives to intellectual exertion, than any other system, yet our faith in this doctrine can be but little strengthened by the exampies either of the old or modern democracies. What was the literature of Rome in her republican days? Where are the orators, poets, philosophers, historians, of the Swiss cantons, of Venice, of Genoa, of the United Provinces, and of other modern republics? A few native names adorn these countries, it is not denied, but they are hardly distinguished amidst the brighter blaze, which has burst forth from time to time in the surrounding monarchical governments. The master spirits, that have taken the reins of the world into their hands, and ruled the empire of mind and sentiment with a dominion scarcely less than despotic, have all risen up in monarchies, and never breathed the air of genuine liberty.

When we run back to the remote antiquity of the Chaldeans and Babylonians, we are launched on an ocean, which has no bounds. In that infancy of the human mind, we know not what was accomplished; the records of those times, if any existed, are swept away, and buried in the common wreck of human things. That the literature of a nation, before a written language was known, should disappear in the same gulf of oblivion, that swallowed up the nation itself, is not surprising. Tradition tells much of the intellectual progress of the Chaldeans, and the name of Zoroaster has descended to this day with a renown, that attaches to few of any age or country. The book of Job, that brilliant display of intellectual power, and of a lofty imagination, was written in the East before the age of Homer. China, even China, groaning under her iron despotism, has produced her philosopher, and one of the greatest, whom any country has ever produced. The wisdom of Confucius is still the guide to the opinions and conduct of millions of human beings, and it is probable that no one mind, which has been lighted up amidst the habitations of men, has sent abroad its influence to so great a number of other minds, as that of the great philosopher of China.

How much have we heard, too, of the mental advancement of the Hindoos, their numerous writings in theology, metaphysics, astronomy, grammar, music, their logicians, mathematicians, and poets. Sir William Jones, the best judge of this subject, that ever lived, speaks with raptures of some of these works, and says, that, in addition to many beautiful specimens of lighter poetry among the Hindoos, their epic is 'magnificent and sublime is the highest degree.' The Sanscrit language is represented as susceptible of a polished, elegant, and expressive style of composition, to which hardly any other language can aspire. And, moreover, is it not true, that the East was the fountain of knowledge to the West? The very laws, that gave a semblance of stability to the Athenian democracies, were gleaned from Egypt, and to Egypt they came from Chaldea and India. The laws of Solon, and the philosophy of Plato, were little else than transcripts of what they had borrowed from the wise men of other countries. The Persians and Arabians of later times are allowed, by adequate judges, to have excelled in a refined and vigorous literature, and the poems of Hafez, Sadi, and Ferdusi are cited, as illustrious examples of beautiful and finished compositions.

In regard to Homer, it would not be easy to give any other account of the form of government under which he lived, than what is found in his own writings. Nothing is known with any certainty about the republics of Greece, till after the beginning of the Olympiads, in the age of Lycurgus; and, for all that can be shown to the contrary, Linus and Orpheus, Hesiod and Homer, flourished under despotic governments. Indeed, this fact seems abundantly established by the whole tenor of Homer's poems. His description in the Odyssey of the governments of Phæacia, where his hero was shipwrecked, and of Ithaca, proves that these islands were ruled by kings, who had a council of nobles. Ulysses was himself a king. The following language of Ulysses to the Grecian forces, in the second book of the Iliad, breathes a spirit of royalty, with which even our modern despots of the Holy Alliance might well be satisfied.

'To one sole monarch Jove commits the sway,

His are the laws, and him let all obey.'

It does not appear, that republican institutions had anything to do in forming the mind or taste of Homer; he might have written as good a poem, though with machinery, incidents, and imagery far different, in Egypt or India, as in the Isles of Greece; it was the intellect and not the place, the fire from heaven and not the fostering principles of any form of government, that called into life the gorgeous vision of the Iliad.'

It is nearly as difficult, with all the light that history sends out, to obtain a distinct notion of the Athenian government at any particular time, as it is that of the Grecian islands in the age of Homer. Plato called it an aristocracy with the consent of the people; but it was not unfrequently an aristocracy in defiance of the people; and then a democracy in defiance of the nobles, or archons; in other words a kind of half subdued anarchy. What was Athenian liberty in its best estate? Four hundred thousand slaves, who had no voice whatever in public concerns, and twenty thousand free citizens, constituted the Athenian people. It is idle to talk of freedom, where only one person in twenty can vote, and where nineteen twentieths of the whole population are in servitude. Themistocles endeavored to restore all the Athenians to equal privileges, but his project failed. Even the citizens, who were excused from labor in virtue of their freedom, became so indifferent to the public interests, that they deserted the assemblies, and on a motion of Pericles it was decreed, that each should receive three oboli for his attendIn short, such a government, or rather such a series of governments, as prevailed at Athens, cannot be imagined to have afforded any peculiar inducements to intellectual cultivation, which have not been equally afforded in a thousand other instances, where the results have been totally different.

ance.

But the fact of the brilliant achievements in learning and the arts, at Athens, is before the eyes of the whole world. This we allow, and we consider it an anomaly in the history of nations and of the human mind. If it were to be ascribed wholly to the influence of political institutions, why should not the same have happened in the other republics of Greece, in Thebes, Corinth, Crete, Argos? The same advantages, the same language, climate, and features of character were common to all, as well as similar principles of government.

Madam de Stäel assigns two reasons why the Athenians. engaged with so much eagerness in the study of the polite arts; first, their inherent love of admiration; and secondly, their contempt of other nations, whom they esteemed barbarians. By the first they were stimulated to great exertions, the spirit of emulation was quickened, the public taste was kept up to the standard of the best productions, and the people were brought gradually to discriminate with judgment, and admire with enthusiasm. By the second, they were induced to cultivate those arts, which raised them above their neighbors, by making them more enlightened, and giving them a rank possessed by no other people. It must be remembered, too, that, when the immense proportion of slaves is taken into the account, the number of competitors was very small, compared with what it would be in a country of general education and intelligence. The objects of comparison were few, each production was scrutinised with minuteness, competition was direct, and the fire of genius and the power of execution were carried to their extreme limits.

From these observations, connected with those quoted from Professor Everett, we would infer, that the history of past ages furnishes us with very slender grounds for assigning the origin and progress of extraordinary mental culture to any exclusive form of government. Great names have appeared under all forms, and, if we except Greece, the literature and knowledge of nearly the whole world, have been the fruit of monarchies, and sometimes of cheerless, withering despotisms. This is merely This is merely a question of history, however, and in no manner militates against the sound doctrine, that republics, well organised and well administered, are the truest encouragers of letters and the arts. Liberty is the life of enterprise; it is the strongest incitement to vigorous thought and vigorous action; and it is not to be doubted, that the spirit of liberty added a powerful, an unconquerable impulse to the great minds produced in the republics of Greece. But it did not do all; the intellect to be moved must first exist; Greece was glorious in the constellation of astonishing minds, which by the favor of Providence shone upon that country; the same cluster would have been conspicuous in any other age or region; perhaps

not in the same degree, but sufficiently so to have made them the wonder of all future time. Let them have come upon this orb, where accident might have thrown them, they would have formed governments for themselves, created a literature, reared monuments of art, and left behind them trophies of genius and skill for the nations to gaze at and revere, to imitate, but never to surpass.

We have not room to accompany the author in his remarks on another subject of great interest, to which his attention is directed, namely, the probable effect, which will be produced by a community of language on our intellectual exertions and character. He is decidedly of opinion, that it will be favorable, and that it opens prospects on our rising literature never enjoyed by any other nation. 'Instead of that multiplicity of dialect,' he observes, by which mental communication and sympathy are cut off in the old world, a continually expanding realm is opened and opening to the American intellect, in the community of our language, throughout the wide spread settlements of this continent. The enginery of the press will here, for the first time, be brought to bear, with all its mighty power, on the minds and hearts of men, in exchanging intelligence, and circulating opinions, unchecked by diversity of language, over an empire more extensive than the whole of Europe.' This subject, we apprehend, must be regarded in two aspects; first, as it concerns those branches of attainment, which may be classed under the denomination of knowledge; and secondly, as pertaining to the imagination and taste. All facts in science, history, philosophy, expositions of opinion, direct moral and religious precepts, principles of politics and law, everything properly called information, will be more widely diffused, more thoroughly inculcated, and better understood through the medium of a common language, than can possibly be done by several tongues. This is too plain to need illustration. But in works of the imagination, that description of works, which have been the chief instruments in refining the taste, and raising the tone of moral feeling, in polishing the manners of society, and softening the asperities of the human character, we presume the case is not so clear. Every nation, either from climate, or a thousand other local causes, has many, and frequently striking peculiarities, from which