perhaps very much cannot be expected from them. It is however from the original ancient writers that the greatest advantage may be derived; and it is a disgrace to any one whose profession calls him to speak in public, to be unacquainted with them. In all the ancient rhetorical writers there is indeed one defect; they are too systematical. They aim at doing too much; at reducing rhetoric to a perfect art, which may even supply invention with materials on every subject; so 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 assist and enlighten taste, and to point out to genius the course it ought to hold.

Aristotle was the first who took rhetoric out of the hands of the sophists, and founded it on reason and solid sense. Some of the profoundest observations, which have been made on the passions and manners of men, are to be found in his Treatise on Rhetoric; though in this, as in all his writings, his great conciseness often renders him obscure. The Greek rhetoricians who succeeded him, most of whom are now lost, improved on his foundation. Two of them still remain, Demetreus Phalereus, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Both wrote on the construction of sentences, and deserve to be consulted; particularly Dionysius, who is a very accurate and judicious critic.

To recommend the rhetorical writings of Cicero is superfluous. Whatever on the subject of eloquence, is suggested by so great an orator, must be worthy of attention. His most exten

sive work on this subject is that De Oratore. None of his writings are more highly finished than this treatise. The dialogue is polite; the characters are well supported, and the management of the whole is beautiful and pleasing. The Orator ad M. Brutum is also a valuable treatise, and indeed through all Cicero's rhetorical works are displayed those sublime ideas of eloquence, which are calculated to form a just taste and to inspire that enthusiasm for the art which is highly conducive to excellence.

But of all ancient writers on the subject of oratory, the most instructive and most useful is Quintilian. His institutions abound with good sense, and discover a taste in the highest degree just and accurate. Almost all the principies of good criticism are found in them. He has well digested the ancient ideas concerning rhetoric, and has delivered his instructions 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 dispute 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 subject. A few reflections upon it may be useful.

To decry the ancient classics is a vain attempt. Their reputation is established upon too solid a foundation to be shaken. Imperfections may

be traced in their writings; but to discredit their works in general can belong only to peevishness or prejudice. he approbation of the public through so many centuries establishes a verdict in their favour, from which there is no appeal.

In matters of mere reasoning, the world may be long in error; and systems of philosophy often have a currency for a time, and then die. But in objects of taste there is no such fallibility; as they depend not on knowledge and science, but upon sentiment and feeling. Now the universal feeling of mankind must be right; Homer and Virgil therefore must continue to stand upon the same ground which they have so long occupied.

Let us guard however against blind veneration for the ancients, and institute a fair comparison between them and the moderns. If the ancients had the pre-eminence in genius, yet the moderns must have some advantage in all arts which are improved by the natural progress of knowledge.

Hence in natural philosophy, astronomy, chemistry, and other sciences, which rest upon observation of facts, the moderns have a decided superiority over the ancients. Perhaps too in precise reasoning, philosophers of modern ages are superior to those of ancient times; as a more extensive literary intercourse has contributed to sharpen the faculties of men. The moderns have also the superiority in history and in political knowledge; owing to the extension of commerce, the discovery of different countries, the superior facility of intercourse, and the multiplicity of events and revolutions which have

taken place in the world. In poetry likewise some advantages have been gained in point of regularity and accuracy. In dramatic performances improvements have certainly been made upon the ancient models. The variety of characters is greater; greater skill has been displayed in the conduct of the plot; and a happier attention to probability and decorum. Among the ancients we find higher conceptions, greater simplicity, and more original faney. Among the moderns there is more of art and correctness, but less genius. But, though this remark may in genaral be just, there are some exceptions from it; Milton and Shakespeare are inferior to no poets in any age.

Among the ancients were many circumstances favorable to the exertions of genius. They travelled much in search of learning, and conversed with priests, poets and philosophers.They returned home full of discoveries, and fired by uncommon objects. Their enthusi

asm was greater; and, few being stimulated to excel as authors, their fame was more intense and flattering. In modern times good writing is less prized. We write with less effort. Printing has so multiplied books, that assistance is easily procured. Hence mediocrity of genius prevails. To rise beyond this, and to soar above the crowd, is given to few.

In Epic poetry, Homer and Virgil are still unrivalled; and orators, equal to Demosthenes and Cicero, we have none. In history, we have no modern narration so elegant, so picturesque, so animated, and interesting, as those of Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Livy, Tacitus

and Sallust. Our dramas, with all their improvements, are inferior in poetry and sentiment to those of Sophocles and Euripides. We have no comic dialogue that equals the correct, graceful, and elegant simplicity of Terence. The elegies of Tibullus, the pastorals of Theocritus, and the lyric poetry of Horace, are still unrivalled. By those, therefore, who wish to form their taste, and nourish their genius, the utmost attention must be paid to the ancient classics, both Greek and Roman.

After these reflections on the ancients and moderns, we proceed to a critical examination of the most distinguished kinds of composition, and of the characters of those writers, whether ancient or modern, who have excelled in them. Of orations and public discourses much has already been said he remaining prose compo sitions may be divided into historical writing, philosophical writing, epistolary writing, and fictitious history.

HISTORICAL WRITING.

History is a record of truth for the instruction of mankind. Hence the great requisites in a historian are impartiality, fidelity, and ac

curacy.

In the conduct of historical detail, the first object of a historian should be. to give his work all possible unity. History should not consist of unconnected parts. Its portions should be united by some connecting principle, which will produce in the mind an impression of something