COMPARATIVE MERIT OF THE AN. CIENTS 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. The approbation of the public through so many centuries, estab lishes 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 preeminence in genius, yet

N

the moderns must have some advantage in alk arts, which are improved by the natural progress of knowledge.

Hence, in natural philosophy, astronomy, chymistry, 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 dra

matic 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 fancy. Among the moderns, there is more of art and correctness, but less genius. But though this remark may,in general,be just, there are some exceptions from it; Milton and Shakspeare are inferior to no poets in any age.

Among the ancients, were many circumstances, favourable to the exertions of genius. They travelled much in search of learning, and conversed with priests, poets, and philoso

phers. They returned home full of discoveries, and fired by uncommon objects. Their enthusiasm was greater; and few being stimu lated 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. The remaining prose compositions may be divided into historical writing,

phylosophical 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 accuracy.

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 that is one, whole and entire. Polybius, though not an elegant writer, is remarkable for this quality.

A historian should trace actions and events to their sources. He should, therefore, be well acquainted with human nature and politics. His skill in the former, will enable him to describe the characters of individuals; and his knowledge of the latter, to account for the revolutions of government, and the operation of political causes on public affairs. With regard to political knowledge, the ancients wanted some advantages, which are enjoyed by the moderns. In ancient times there was less communication among neighbouring states; no intercourse by established posts, nor by ambassadors at distant courts. Larger experience too, of the different modes of government has im

proved the modern historian, beyond the historian of antiquity.

It is however in the form of narrative, and not by dissertation, that the historian is to impart his political knowledge. Formal discussions expose him to suspicion of being willing to accommodate his facts to his theory. They have also an air of pedantry, and evidently result from want of art. For reflections, whether moral, political, or philosophical, may be insinuated in the body of a narrative.

Clearness, order, and connection,are primary virtues in historical narration. These are attained when the historian is complete master of his subject; can see the whole at one view; and comprehend the dependence of all its parts. History being a dignified species of composition, it should also be conspicuous for gravity. There should be nothing mean nor vulgar in the style; no quaintness, no smartness, no affectation, no wit. A history should likewise be interesting; and this is the quality which chiefly distinguishes a writer of genius and eloquence.

To be interesting, a historian must preserve a medium between rapid recital, and prolix detail. He should know when to be concise, and when to enlarge. He should make a proper selection of circumstances. These give life, body, and colouring to his narration. They constitute what is termed historical painting.

In all these virtues of narration, particularly in picturesque description, the ancients eminently excel. Hence, the pleasure of read, ing Thucydides, Livy, Sallust, and Tacitus. In historical painting there are great varieties