seat of enormous monarchy: on its natives fair liberty never shed its genial influence. If at any time civil discords arose among them, (and arise there did innumerable,) the contest was never about the form of their government, (for this was an object of which the combatants had no conception;) it was all from the poor motive of who should be their master, whether a Cyrus or an Artaxerxes, a Mahomet or a Mustapha. Such was their condition and what was the consequence? Their ideas became consonant to their servile state, and their words became consonant to their servile ideas. The great distinction, for ever in their sight, was that of tyrant and slave; the most unnatural one conceivable, and the most susceptible of pomp and empty exaggeration. Hence they talked of kings as gods, and of themselves as the meanest and most abject reptiles. Nothing was either great or little in moderation, but every sentiment was heightened by incredible hyperbole. Thus, though they sometimes ascended into the great and magnificent, they as frequently degenerated into the tumid and bombast. The Greeks too of Asia became infected by their neighbours, who were often, at times, not only their neighbours but their masters; and hence that luxuriance of the Asiatic style, unknown to the chaste eloquence and purity of Athens. But of the Greeks we forbear to speak now, as we shall speak of them more fully when we have first considered the nature or genius of the Romans. X And what sort of people may we pronounce the Romans?—A nation engaged in wars and commotions, some foreign, some domestic, which for seven hundred years wholly engrossed their thoughts. Hence, therefore, their language became, like their ideas, copious in all terms expressive of things political, and well adapted to the purposes both of history and popular eloquence. But what was their philosophy?-As a nation it was none, if we credit their ablest writers. And hence the unfitness of their language to this subject; a defect which even Cicero is compelled to confess, and more fully makes appear, when he writes philosophy himself, from the number of terms which he is obliged to invent. Virgil seems to have judged the most truly of his may * The truest sublime of the East may be found in the scriptures, of which, perhaps, the principal cause is the intrinsic greatness of the subjects there treated; the creation of the universe, the dispensations of Divine Providence, &c. > Muretus has the following passage upon the Roman taste for philosophy: Beati autem illi, et opulenti, et omnium gentium victores Romani, in petendis honoribus, et in prensandis civibus, et in exteris nationibus verbo componendis, re compilandis occupati, philosophandi curam servis aut libertis suis, et Græculis esurientibus relinquebant. Ipsi, quod ab ava ritia, quod ab ambitione, quod a voluptatibus reliquum erat temporis, ejus si partem aliquam aut ad audiendum Græcum quempiam philosophum, aut ad aliquem de philosophia libellum vel legendum vel scribendum contulissent, jam se ad eruditionis culmen pervenisse, jam victam a se et profligatam jacere Græciam somniabant. Var. Lect. vi. 1. See Cic. de Fin. i. c. 1, 2, 3; iii. c. 1, 2. 4, &c.; but in particular Tusc. Disp. i. 3. where he says, Philosophia jacuit usque ad hanc ætatem, nec ullum habuit lumen literarum Latinarum ; quæ illustranda et excitanda nobis est; ut si, &c. See also Tusc. countrymen, when, admitting their inferiority in the more elegant arts, he concludes at last with his usual majesty, Disp. iv. 3. and Acad. i. 2. where it appears, that until Cicero applied himself to the writing of philosophy, the Romans had nothing of the kind in their language, except some mean performances of Amafanius the Epicurean, and others of the same sect. How far the Romans were indebted to Cicero for philosophy, and with what industry, as well as eloquence, he cultivated the subject, may be seen, not only from the titles of those works that are now lost, but much more from the many noble ones still fortunately preserved. The Epicurean poet Lucretius, who flourished nearly at the same time, seems by his silence to have overlooked the Latin writers of his own sect; deriving all his philosophy, as well as Cicero, from Grecian sources; and, like him, acknowledging the difficulty of writing in philosophy in Latin, both from the poverty of the tongue, and from the novelty of the subject. Nec me animi fallit, Graiorum obscura reperta Difficile inlustrare Latinis versibus esse, (Multa novis rebus præsertim quam sit agendum,) Propter egestatem linguæ et rerum novita tem: Sed tua me virtus tamen, et sperata voluptas Suavis amicitiæ quemvis perferre laborem Suadet. Lucr. i. 137. In the same age, Varro, among his numerous works, wrote some in the way of philosophy; as did the patriot Brutus a treatise Concerning Virtue, much applauded by Cicero; but these works are now lost. Soon after the writers above mentioned came Horace, some of whose satires and epistles may be justly ranked amongst the most valuable pieces of Latin philosophy, whether we consider the purity of their style, or the great address with which they treat the subject. After Horace, though with as long an interval as from the days of Augustus to those of Nero, came the satirist Persius, the friend and disciple of the Stoic Cornutus; to whose precepts as he did honour by his virtuous life, so his works, though small, shew an early proficiency in the science of morals. Of him it may be said, that he is almost the single difficult writer among the Latin classics, whose meaning has sufficient merit to make it worth while to labour through his obscurities. In the same degenerate and tyrannic period, lived also Seneca; whose character, both as a man and a writer, is discussed with great accuracy by the noble author of the Characteristics, to whom we refer. Under a milder dominion, that of Adrian and the Antonines, lived Aulus Gellius, or (as some call him) Agellius, an entertaining writer in the miscellaneous way, well skilled in criticism and antiquity; who, though he can hardly be entitled to the name of a philosopher, yet deserves not to pass unmentioned here, from the curious fragments of philosophy interspersed in his works. With Aulus Gellius we range Macrobius, not because a contemporary, (for he is supposed to have lived under Honorius and Theodosius,) but from his near resemblance in the character of a writer. His works, like the other's, are miscellaneous; filled with mythology and ancient literature, some philosophy being intermixed. His Commentary upon the Somnium Scipionis of Cicero may be considered as wholly of the philosophical kind. In the same age with Aulus Gellius flourished Apuleius of Madaura in Africa, a Platonic writer, whose matter in general far exceeds his perplexed and affected style, too conformable to the false rhetoric of the age when he lived. Of the same country, but of a later age and a harsher style, was Martianus Capella, if indeed he deserve not the name rather of a philologist, than of a philosopher. After Capella, we may rank Chalcidius the Platonic, though both his age, and country, and religion are doubtful. His manner of writing is rather more agreeable than that of the two preceding, nor does he appear to be their inferior in the knowledge of philosophy, his work being a laudable commentary upon the Timæus of Plato. The last Latin philosopher was Boethius, who was descended from some of the noblest of the Roman families, and was consul in the beginning of the sixth century. He wrote many philosophical works, the greater part in the logical way: but his ethic piece, On the Consolation of Philosophy, and which is partly prose and partly verse, deserves great encomiums, both for the matter and for the style; in which last he approaches the purity of a far better age than his own, and is in all respects preferable to those crabbed Africans already mentioned. By command of Theodoric king of the Goths, it was the hard fate of this worthy man to suffer death: with whom the Latin tongue, and the last remains of Roman dignity, may be said to have sunk in the western world. There were other Romans who left philosophical writings, such as Musonius Rufus, Tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento, From considering the Romans, let us pass to the Greeks. The Grecian commonwealths, while they maintained their liberty, were the most heroic confederacy that ever existed. They were the politest, the bravest, and the wisest of men. In the short space of little more than a century, they became such statesmen, warriors, orators, historians, physicians, poets, critics, painters, sculptors, architects, and (last of all) philosophers, that one can hardly help considering that golden period as a providential event in honour of human nature, to shew to what perfection the species might ascend." and the two emperors Marcus Antoninus and Julian; but as these preferred the use of the Greek tongue to their own, they can hardly be considered among the number of Latin writers. And so much (by way of sketch) for the Latin authors of philosophy; a small number for so vast an empire, if we consider them as all the product of near six successive centuries. a If we except Homer, Hesiod, and the lyric poets, we hear of few Grecian writers before the expedition of Xerxes. After that monarch had been defeated, and the dread of the Persian power was at an end, the effulgence of Grecian genius (if I may use the expression) broke forth, and shone till the time of Alexander the Macedonian, after whom it disappeared, and never rose again. This is that golden period spoken of above. I do not mean that Greece had not many writers of great merit subsequent to that period, and especially of the philosophic kind; but the great, the striking, the sublime, (call it as you please,) attained at that time to a height to which it never could ascend in any after age. The same kind of fortune befell the people of Rome. When the Punic wars were ended, and Carthage, their dreaded rival, was no more, then (as Horace informs us) they began to cultivate the politer arts. It was soon after this, their great orators and historians and poets arose, and Rome, like Greece, had her golden period, which lasted to the death of Octavius Cæsar. I call these two periods, from the two greatest geniuses that flourished in each, one the Socratic period, the other the Ci ceronian. There are still further analogies subsisting between them. Neither period commenced, as long as solicitude for the common welfare engaged men's attentions, and such wars impended as threatened their destruction by foreigners and barbarians. But when once these fears were over, a general security soon ensued, and instead of attending to the arts of defence and self-preservation, they began to cultivate those of elegance and pleasure. Now as these naturally produced a kind of wanton insolence, (not unlike the vicious temper of high-fed animals,) so by this the bands of union were insensibly dissolved. Hence, then, among the Greeks, that fatal Peloponnesian war, which, together with other wars, its immediate consequence, broke the confederacy of their commonwealths, wasted their strength, made them jealous of each other, and thus paved a way for the contemptible kingdom of Macedon to enslave them all, and ascend in a few years to universal monarchy. A like luxuriance of prosperity sowed discord among the Romans, raised those unhappy contests between the senate and the Gracchi, between Sylla and Marius, between Pompey and Cæsar; till at length, after the last struggle for liberty by those brave patriots Brutus and Cassius at Philippi, and the subsequent defeat of Anthony at Actium, the Romans became subject to the dominion of a fellow-citizen. It must indeed be confessed, that after Alexander and Octavius had established their monarchies, there were many bright geniuses, who were eminent under their government. Aristotle maintained a friendship and epistolary correspondence with Alexander. In the time of the same monarch lived Theophrastus, and the cynic, Diogenes. Then also Demosthenes and schines spoke their two celebrated orations. So likewise in the time of Octavius, Virgil wrote his Æneid; and with Horace, Varius, and many other fine writers, partook of the protection and royal munificence, But then it must be remembered, that these men were bred and educated in the principles of a free government. It was hence they derived that high and manly spirit, Now the language of these Greeks was truly like themselves, it was conformable to their transcendent and universal genius. Where matter so abounded, words followed of course, and those exquisite in every kind, as the ideas for which they stood. And hence it followed, there was not a subject to be found, which could not with propriety be expressed in Greek. Here were words and numbers for the humour of an Aristophanes; for the native elegance of a Philemon or Menander; for the amorous strains of a Mimnermus or Sappho; for the rural lays of a Theocritus or Bion; and for the sublime conceptions of a Sophocles or Homer. The same in prose. Here Isocrates was enabled to display his art, in all the accuracy of periods, and the nice counterpoise of diction. Here Demosthenes found materials for that nervous composition, that manly force of unaffected eloquence, which rushed, like a torrent, too impetuous to be withstood. Who were more different in exhibiting their philosophy than Xenophon, Plato, and his disciple Aristotle? Different, I say, in their character of composition; for as to their philosophy itself, it was in reality the same. Aristotle, strict, methodic, and orderly; subtle in thought; sparing in ornament; with little address to the passions or imagination; but exhibiting the whole with such a pregnant brevity, that in every sentence we seem to read a page. How exquisitely is this all performed in Greek? Let those who may imagine it may be done as well in another language, satisfy themselves either by attempting to translate him, or by perusing his translations already made by men of learning. On the contrary, when we read either Xenophon or Plato, nothing of this method or strict order appears. The formal and didactic is wholly dropped. Whatever they may teach, it is without professing to be teachers; a train of dialogue and truly polite address, in which, as in a mirror, we behold human life, adorned in all its colours of sentiment and manners. And yet, though these differ in this manner from the Stagirite, how different are they likewise in character from each other? Plato, copious, figurative, and majestic; intermixing at times the facetious and satiric; enriching his works with tales and fables, and the mystic theology of ancient times. Xenophon, the pattern of perfect simplicity; everywhere smooth, harmonious, and pure; declining the figurative, the marvellous, and which made them the admiration of afterages. The successors and forms of government left by Alexander and Octavius, soon stopped the growth of any thing further in the kind. So true is that noble saying of Longinus: Θρέψαι τε γὰρ ἱκανὴ τὰ φρονήματα τῶν μεγαλοφρόνων ἡ ἐλευθέρια, καὶ ἐπελπίσαι, καὶ ἅμα διωθεῖν τὸ πρόθυμον τῆς πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἔριδος, καὶ τῆς περὶ τὰ pwreîa piλoriμías: “It is liberty that is formed to nurse the sentiments of great geniuses; to inspire them with hope; to push forward the propensity of contest one with another, and the generous emulation of being the first in rank.” De Subl sect. 44. the mystic; ascending but rarely into the sublime; nor then so much trusting to the colours of style, as to the intrinsic dignity of the sentiment itself. The language, in the meantime, in which he and Plato wrote, appears to suit so accurately with the style of both, that when we read either of the two, we cannot help thinking, that it is he alone who has hit its character, and that it could not have appeared so elegant in any other manner. And thus is the Greek tongue, from its propriety and universality, made for all that is great, and all that is beautiful, in every subject, and under every form of writing. Graiis ingenium, Graiis dedit ore rotundo It were to be wished, that those amongst us who either write or read, with a view to employ their liberal leisure, (for as to such as do either from views more sordid, we leave them, like slaves, to their destined drudgery,) it were to be wished, I say, that the liberal (if they have a relish for letters) would inspect the finished models of Grecian literature; that they would not waste those hours, which they cannot recall, upon the meaner productions of the French and English press; upon that fungous growth of novels and of pamphlets, where, it is to be feared, they rarely find any rational pleasure, and more rarely still, any solid improvement. To be competently skilled in ancient learning, is by no means a work of such insuperable pains. The very progress itself is attended with delight, and resembles a journey through some pleasant country, where every mile we advance new charms arise. It is certainly as easy to be a scholar, as a gamester, or many other characters equally illiberal and low. The same application, the same quantity of habit, will fit us for one, as completely as for the other. And as to those who tell us, with an air of seeming wisdom, that it is men, and not books, we must study to become knowing; this I have always remarked, from repeated experience, to be the common consolation and language of dunces. They shelter their ignorance under a few bright examples, whose transcendent abilities, without the common helps, have been sufficient of themselves to great and important ends. But, alas! Decipit exemplar vitiis imitabile. In truth, each man's understanding, when ripened and mature, is a composite of natural capacity, and of super-induced habit. Hence the greatest men will be necessarily those who possess the best capacities, cultivated with the best habits. Hence also moderate capacities, when adorned with valuable science, will far transcend others the most acute by nature, when either R |