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 countrymen, when, admitting their inferiority in the * See Cic. de Fin. I, C. 1, 2, 3. II. C. 1, 2, 4, &c. but in particular Tusc. Disp. 1. 3. where he says, "Philosophia jacuit usque ad hanc ætatem, nec ullum habuit lumen literarum Latinarum : quæ illustranda & excitanda nobis est; ut si," &c. See also Tusc. Disp. IV. 3. and Acad. 1. 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 very 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 philosophy in Latin, both from the poverty of the tongue, and from the novelty of the subject. Nec me animi fallit, Graiorum obscura reperta Propter egestatem linguæ et rerum novitatem : 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 abovementioned, came Horace, some of whose satires and epistles may be justly ranked among 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. more elegant arts, he concludes at last with his usual majesty : Tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento, (Hæ tibi erunt artes) pacisque imponere morem, Parcere subjectis, et debellare superbos. From considering the Romans, let us pass to the Greeks. The Grecian commonwealths, while they maintained their Under a milder dominion, that of Hadrian 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 Madura 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 Boëthius, 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 Mufonius Rufus, 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. 2 F liberty, 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*. Now the language of these Greeks was truly like themselves; it was conformable to their transcendant 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 *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 groat, 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 befel 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 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, froin the two greatest geniuses that flourished in each, one the Socratic period, the other the Ciceronian. There are still farther 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-preserva, tion, 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 humour of an Aristophanes; for the ac tive 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 jealous of each other; and thus paved a way for the contemptible kingdom of Macedon to en slave them all, and ascend in a few years to universal monarchy. A like luxuriance of prosperity sowed discord among the Romans; raised those unhappy con tests between the senate and the Gracchi; be tween Sylla and Marius; between Pompey and Cæsar; till at length, after the last struggle for h berty by those brave patriots, Brutus and Cassius, at Philippi, and the subsequent defeat of Antony 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 Eschines 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 his protection and royal'munificence. But then it must be remembered, that these men were bred and educated in the princi ples of a free government. It was hence they derived that high and manly spirit which made them the admiration of after ages. The successors and forms of government left by Alexander and Octavius, soon stopt the growth of any thing farther in the kind. So true is that noble saying of Longinus. Θρέψαι τε γὰρ ἱκανὴ τὰ ορονήματα των μεγαλοφρόνων ἡ ΕΛΕΥΘΕΡΙΑ, καὶ ἐπελπισαις καὶ ἅμα δισθεῖν τό πρόθυμον τῆς πρὸς αλλήλες, gidos, xal tйs weel ta wewτełα Qinoriμía;. "It is liberty that is formed to nurse the senti ments 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. whole 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 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 and strict order appears. The formal and didactic is wholly dropt. 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 Stagyrite, how different are they likewise in character from each other! -Plato, copious, figurative, and majestic; intermixing at times the facetious and sa tiric; enriching his works with tales and fables, and the mystic theology of ancient times. Xenophon, the pattern of perfect simplicity; every where smooth, harmonious, and pure; declining the figurative, the marvellous, and 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 mean time, 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 this 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 recal, 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 completely 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 superinduced 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 neglected, or applied to low and base purposes. And thus, for the honour of culture and good learning, they are able to render a man, if he will take the pains, intrinsically more excellent than his natural superiors. Harris. $207. History of the Limits and Extent of the Middle Age. When the magnitude of the Roman empire grew enormous, and there were two imperial cities, Rome and Constantinople, then that happened which was natural; out of one empire it became two, distinguished by the different names of the Western, and the Eastern. The Western empire soon sunk. So early as in the fifth century, Rome, once the mistress of nations, beheld herself at the feet of a Gothic sovereign. The Eastern empire lasted many centuries 2 F 2 longer, At length, after various plunges and various escapes, it was totally annihilated in the fifteenth century by the victorious arms of Mahomet the Great. The interval between the fall of these two empires (the Western or Latin in the fifth century, the Eastern or Grecian in the fifteenth) making a space of near a thousand years, constitutes what we call the Middle Age. Dominion passed during this interval into the hands of rude, illiterate men: men who conquered more by multitude than by military skill; and who, having little or no taste either for sciences or arts, naturally despised those things from which they had reaped no advantage. This was the age of Monkery and Legends; of Leonine verses, (that is, of bad Latin put into rhime;) of projects, to decide truth by ploughshares and battoons; of crusades, to conquer infidels, and extirpate heretics; of princes deposed, not as Croesus was by Cyrus, but one who had no armies, and who did not even wear a sword. Different portions of this age have been distinguished by different descriptions; such as Saculum Monotheleticum, Sæculum Eiconoclasticum, Sæculum Obscurum, Sæculum Ferreum, Sæculum Hildibrandinum, &c.; strange names it must be confest, some more obvious, others less so, yet none tending to furnish us with any high or promising ideas. And yet we must acknowledge, for the honour of humanity and of its great and divine Author, who never forsakes it, that some sparks of intellect were at all times visible, through the whole of this dark and dreary period. It is here we must look for the taste and literature of the times. The few who were enlightened, when arts and sciences were thus obscured, may be said to have happily maintained the continuity of knowledge; to have been (if I may use the expression) like the twilight of a sunimer's night; that auspicious gleam between the sitting and the rising sun, which, though it cannot retain the lustre ponus said to him: You have visited "all the repositories or public warehouses "in Alexandria, and you have sealed up "things of every sort that are found there. "As to those things that may be useful to 66 you, I presume to say nothing; but as 66 to things of no service to you, some of "them perhaps may be more suitable to "me.' Amrus said to him: And what "is it you want? The philosophical "books (replied he) preserved in the royal « libraries. This (said Amrus) is a re"quest upon which I cannot decide. You "desire a thing where I can issue no or "ders till I have leave from Omar, the "commander of the faithful.'-Letters "were accordingly written to Omar, in❝forming him of what Philoponus had "said; and an answer was returned by "Omar, to the following purport: As "to the books of which you have made " mention, if there be contained in them "what accords with the book of God "(meaning the Alcoran) there is without "them, in the book of God, all that is "sufficient. But if there be any thing in "them repugnant to that book, we in no "respect want them. Order them there "fore to be all destroyed.' Amrus upon "this ordered them to be dispersed through "the baths of Alexandria, and to be there "burnt in making the baths warm. After "this manner, in the space of six months, "they were all consumed." The historian, having related the story, adds from his own feelings, "Hear what "was done, and wonder !" Thus ended this noble library; and thus began, if it did not begin sooner, the age of barbarity and ignorance. Ibid. tune, &c. &c.—Manners of the present Inhabitants.-Olives and Honey. When the Athenians had delivered them selves from the tyranny of Pisistratus, and after this had defeated the vast efforts of the Persians, and that against two successive invaders, Darius and Xerxes, they may be considered as at the summit of their national glory. For more than half a century afterwards they maintained, without controul, the sovereignty of Greece*. As their taste was naturally good, arts of every kind soon rose among them, and flourished. Valour had given them reputation; reputation gave them an ascendant; and that ascendant produced a security, which left their minds at ease, and gave them leisure to cultivate every thing liberal or elegant. It was then that Pericles adorned the city with temples, theatres, and other beautiful public buildings. Phidias, the great sculptor, was employed as his architect ; who when he had erected edifices, adorned them himself, and added statues and bassorelievos, the admiration of every beholder. It was then that Polygnotus and Myro painted; that Sophocles and Euripides wrote; and, not long after, that they saw the divine Socrates. Human affairs are by nature prone to change; and states, as well as individuals, are born to decay. Jealousy and ambition insensibly fomented wars; and success in these wars, as in others, was often various. The military strength of the Athenians was first impaired by the Lacedæmonians; after that, it was again humiliated, under Epaminondas, by the Thebans; and, last of all, it was wholly crushed by the Macedonian Philip. But though their political sovereignty was lost, yet, happily for mankind, their love of literature and arts did not sink along with it. Just at the close of their golden days of empire, flourished Xenophon and Plato, the disciples of Socrates; and from Plato descended that race of philosophers called the Old Academy. Aristotle, who was Plato's disciple, may be said not to have invented a new philosophy, but rather to have tempered the sublime and rapturous mysteries of his mas * For these historical facts consult the ancient and modern authors of Grecian history. ter with method, order, and a stricter mode of reasoning. Zeno, who was himself also educated in the principles of Platonism, only differed from Plato in the comparative estimate of things, allowing nothing to be intrinsically good but virtue, nothing intrinsically bad but vice, and considering all other things to be in themselves indifferent. He too, and Aristotle, accurately cultivated logic, but in different ways: for Aristotle chiefly dwelt upon the simple syllo gism; Zeno upon that which is derived out of it, the compound or hypothetic Both too, as well as other philosophers, cultivated rhetoric along with logic; holding a knowledge in both to be requisite for those who think of addressing mankind with all the efficacy of persuasion. Zeno elegantly illustrated the force of these two powers by a simile, taken from the hand; the close power of logic he compared to the fist, or hand comprest; the diffuse power of logic, to the palm or hand open. I shall mention but two sects more, the New Academy, and the Epicurean. The New Academy, so called from the Old Academy (the name given to the school of Plato) was founded by Arcesilas, and ably maintained by Carneades. From a mistaken imitation of the great parent of philosophy, Socrates, (particularly as he appears in the dialogues of Plato) because Socrates doubted some things, therefore Arcesilas and Carneades doubted all. Epicurus drew from another source: Democritus had taught him atoms and a void. By the fortuitous concourse of atoms he fancied he could form a world, while by a feigned veneration he complimented away his gods, and totally denied their providential care, lest the trouble of it should impair their uninterrupted state of bliss. Virtue he recommended, though not for the sake of virtue, but pleasure: pleasure, according to him, being our chief and sovereign good. It must be confest, however, that though his principles were erroneous, and even bad, never was a man more temperate and humane; never was a man more beloved by his friends, or more cordially attached to them in affectionate esteem. We have already mentioned the alliance between philosophy and rhetoric. This cannot be thought wonderful, if rhetoric be the art by which men are persuaded, and if men cannot be persuaded without a knowledge of human nature; for what but |