to no practical ufe, and were to be regarded as an affair of intel lectual difcipline only.

There are two qualities efpecially neceffary to any confiderable improvement of human understanding; an ardent temper, and a habit of thinking with precifion and order. The study of the Latin language is particularly conducive to the production of the laft of thefe qualities.

In this refpect the study of Latin and of geometry might perhaps be recommended for a fimilar reafon. Geometry it fhould feem would always form a part of a liberal courfe of ftudies. It has its direct ufes and its indirect. It is of great importance for the improvement of mechanics and the arts of life. It is effential to the juft maftery of astronomy and various other eminent fcienBut its indirect ufes are perhaps of more worth than its di rect. It cultivates the powers of the mind, and generates the most excellent habits. It eminently conduces to the making man a rational being, and accuftoms him to a clofeness of deduction, that is not eafily made the dupe of ambiguity, and carries on an eternal war against prejudice, and impofition.

ces.

A fimilar benefit feems to refult from the ftudy of language and its inflections. All here is in order. Every thing is fubjected to the most inflexible laws. The mind therefore which is accuftomed to it, acquires habits of order,, and of regarding things in a ftate of clearness, discrimination and arrangement.

The difcipline of mind here defcribed is of inestimable value: He that is not initiated in the practice of clofe investigation, is conftantly exposed to the danger of being deceived. His opinions have no ftandard; but are entirely at the mercy of his age, his country, the books he chances to read, or the company he happens to frequent. His mind is a wildernefs. It may contain excellent materials, but they are of no ufe. They opprefs and choak one another. He is fubject to a partial madness. He is unable to regulate his mind, and fails at the mercy of every breath of accident or caprice. Such a perfon is ordinarily found incapable of application or perfeverance. He may form brilliant projects; but he has neither the refolution nor the power to carry any of them to its completion.

All talent may perhaps be affirmed to confift in analyfis and diffection, the turning a thing on all fides, and examining it in all its variety of views. An ordinary man fees an object just as it happens to be prefented to him, and fees no more. But a man

of genius takes it to pieces, enquires into its caufe and effects, remarks its internal structure, and confiders what would have been the refult, if its members had been combined in a different way, or fubjected to different influences. The man of genius gains a whole magazine of thoughts, where the ordinary man has received only one idea; and his powers are multiplied in proportion to the number of ideas upon which they are to be employed. Now there is perhaps nothing that contributes more eminently to this

น

fubtilifing and multiplication of mind, than an attention to the ftructure of language.

In matters of fcience and the cultivation of the human mind it is not always fufficiently attended to, that men are often effentially benefited by proceffes, through which they have themselves never actually paffed, but which have been performed by their companions and contemporaries. The literary world is an im menfe community, the intercourfe of whofe members is inceffant; and it is very common for a man to derive eminent advantage from ftudies in which he was himself never engaged. Those inhabitants of any of the elightened countries of Europe, who are accustomed to intellectual action, if they are not themselves scholars, frequent the fociety of scholars, and thus become familiar with ideas, the primary fource of which is only to be found in an acquaintance with the learned languages. If therefore we would make a juft eftimate, of the lofs that would be incurred by the abolition of claffical learning, we must not build our estimate upon perfons of talent among ourfelves who have been deprived of that benefit. We must fuppofe the indirect, as well as the direct improvement that arifes from this fpecies of ftudy, wholly banished from the face of the earth.

Let it be taken for granted that the above arguments fufficiently establish the utility of claffical learning; it remains to be de termined whether it is neceffary that it should form a part of the education of youth. It may be alledged, that, if it be a defirable acquifition, it may with more propriety be made when a man is arrived at years of difcretion, that it will then be made with lefs expence of labour and time, that the period of youth ought not to be burthened with fo vexatious a tafk, and that our early years may be more advantageoufly spent in acquiring the knowledge of things, than of words.

In anfwer to thefe objections, it may however be remarked, that it is not certain that, if the acquifition of the rudiments of claffical learning be deferred to our riper years, it will ever be made. It will require ftrong inclination and confiderable leifure: A few active and determined fpirits will furmount the difficulty; but many who would derive great benefit from the acquifition, will certainly never arrive at it.

Our early years, it is faid, may be more advantageoufly fpent in acquiring the knowledge of things, than of words. But this is by no means fo certain as at firft fight it may appear. If you attempt to teach children fcience, commonly fo called, it will perhaps be found in the fequel that you have taught them nothing. You may teach them, like parrots, to repeat, but you can fcarcely make them able to weigh the refpective merits of contending hypothefes. Many things that we go over in our youth, we find ourselves compelled to recommence in our riper years un der peculiar difadvantages. The grace of novelty they have forever loft. We are encumbered with prejudices with refpect to

Comparative State of Literature in the Paft and Prefent times, 131. if there be any truth in the above reafoning, no portion of claffical inftruction, however fmall, need be wholly loft. Some refinement of mind and fome clearness of thinking will almoft infallibly refult from grammatical ftudies. Though the language itfelf fhould ever after be neglected, fome portion of a general fcience has thus been acquired, which can fcarcely be forgotten. Though our children fhould be deftined to the humbleft occupation, that does not feem to be a fufficient reafon for our denying them the acquifition of fome of the moft fundamental documents of human underftanding."

CRITICISM and BELLES LETTRES.

From an English Journal.

ITERATURE is either lefs cultivated, or lefs valued in these days than it was in thofe of our ancestors, for certainTy learning does not now receive the honours it then did. That it is lefs cultivated, cannot, I think, with any truth be afferted, because the prefent is denominated a learned age. It must be the univerfality then, with which it is diffufed through fociety, that renders it lefs valuable; as articles grow cheap, not in proportion to their infignificancy, but their abundance. Great talents, indeed, in any condition of civilized fociety muft inevitably confer a certain degree of power: inafmuch as they render their poffeffors either ufeful, or formidable; but fcarcely any literary attainments would, I apprehend, raife a writer in thefe days, to the fame degree of eminence and requeft, as Petrarch, Erafmus, and Politiano enjoyed, in their refpectve times. We have now amongst us many fcholars of great erudition men of diftinguilhed abilities: yet I much queftion, as haughty as king's were under the old feudal fyftem, if any of the princes in being would contend with the fame eagerness for their favour, as we learn the various fovereigns of Europe did, for that of Petrarch, or Eras

mus.

It has been queftioned by fome, whether the number of publi cations, which are annually poured upon the world, have contributed in any proportionable ratio to the encreate of literature? In my opinion, they have not. To a liberal and cultivated mind there is certainly no indulgence equal to the luxury of books: but, in works of learning, may not the facilities of information be encreafed, until the powers of application and retention be diminifhed? After admitting that the prefent is a learned age, it

Parr, Wakefield, Profeffors Porfon, and White, &c. &c.

432 Comparative State of Literature in the Paft and Prefent times.

may appear fingular to doubt, whether it affords individuals as profoundly learned, (at leaft, as far as Latin and Greek go,) as fome who flourished in the fifteenth and fixteenth centuries. The general mafs of learning is greater now than it was then; and is evidently of a more valuable tendency. Yet whether any of the scholars of the prefent day could compofe Latin verses with as much claffic purity, and taste, as Strada, Sannazariųs, or Politiano; or whether any of our commentators, eminent as they are, could break a fpear in the amphitheatre of criticism, with Erafmus, Scaliger, Salmafius, or Milton, is a matter I much doubt. I am aware that the different state in which literature now ftands, compared with that in which it formerly stood, may be urged as one reafon for the fuperior celebrity which learning then conferred. Men generally unenlightened, but knowing the value of information, would make comparisons, and attribute to genius a degree of credit, perhaps, exceeding its real merit: but, independent of this, the writings of the early critics contain infinite learning. Before the modern languages were fo polished that scholars could compofe in them, it is known that the practice prevailed generally amongst literary men, of writing and speaking in Latin. This naturally led to a knowledge of that language, not only from motives of refinement, but of neceflity alfo; for hiftories, poems, and even familiar letters, were compofed in Latin. The ftudy of fchool-divinity, and the difcuffion of learned questions in the form of thefes, ferved to quicken the comprehenfion of the student: and the introduction of the Ariftotelian philofophy into the schools, however little it might agree with the fimplicity of the Gospel, would naturally give the mind a degree of penetration and conjecture conducive to the difcoveries of emandatory criticism. An acquaintance with the Latin was not, however, confined to our fex only; the knowledge of it was familiar to ladies of rank in the fixteenth century. We are told by Moreri of the unfortunate Queen of Scots, "That he was doubtless the handsomeft princes of her age, and very learned in the Latin tongue, in which the pronouced feveral orations." And there are till preserved in the Bodleian, if I mistake not, fome Latin letters, or pieces, of Queen Elizabeth, in her own handwriting. Catharine of Medicis alfo is represented by historians as a fplendid patronefs of literature. She poffeffed the hereditary attachment of her houfe to letters and learned men; and was, we may reasonably conclude, skilful in the languages.

The ftrange mixture of religion and gallantry, chivalry and imagination, that exifted in the dark ages, had not loft its hold upon the minds of men, even after the reftoration of light under the pontificate of Leo. This fyftem was a fafcinating appeal to the paffions, and gave rife-firit to romances, which are an unconnected and improbable narration of religion, love, and war; and next-to novels, a more contracted and probable fpecies of ftory. Of the laft defcription, the Italians, and particularly Bo