XXXV.

fuch as favourable circumstances of government LE CT. and of manners; encouragement from great men; emulation excited among the men of genius. But as thefe have been thought inade quate to the whole effect, phyfical caufes have been alfo affigned; and the Abbé du Bos, in his Reflections on Poetry and Painting, has collected a great many obfervations on the influence which the air, the climate, and other fuch natural causes, may be fuppofed to have upon genius. But whatever the caufes be, the fact is certain, that there have been certain periods or ages of the world much more distinguished than others for the extraordinary productions of genius.

LEARNED men have marked out four of thefe happy ages. The firft is the Grecian Age, which commenced near the time of the Peloponnefian war, and extended till the time of Alexander the Great; within which period we have Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Socrates, Plato, Arif totle, Demofthenes, Æfchines, Lyfias, Ifocrates, Pindar, Æfchylus, Euripides, Sophocles, Arifto. phanes, Menander, Anacreon, Theocritus, Lyfip. pus, Apelles, Phidias, Praxiteles. The fecond 2 is the Roman Age, included nearly within the days of Julius Cæfar and Auguftus; affording us Catullus, Lucretius, Terence, Virgil, Horace, Tibullus, Propertius, Ovid, Phædrus, Cæfar, Cicero, Livy, Salluft, Varro, and Vitruvius. The third Age is, that of the restoration of Learn- 3 ing, under the Popes Julius II. and Leo X.; when flourished

B 2

LE CT. flourished Ariofto, Taffo, Sannazarius, Vida,
XXXV. Machiavel, Guicciardini, Davila, Erafmus, Paul

Jovius, Michael Angelo, Raphael, Titian. The
fourth comprehends the Age of Louis XIV.
and Queen Anne; when flourished in France,
Corneille, Racine, De Retz, Moliere, Boileau,
Fontaine, Baptifte, Rouffeau, Boffuet, Fenelon,
Bourdaloue, Pafcall, Malebranche, Maffilon,
Bruyere, Bayle, Fontenelle, Vertot; and in
England, Dryden, Pope, Addison, Prior, Swift,
Parnell, Arbuthnot, Congreve, Otway, Young,
Rowe, Atterbury, Shaftesbury, Bolingbroke,
Tillotson, Temple, Boyle, Locke, Newton,
Clarke.

WHEN We speak comparatively of the Antients and the Moderns, we generally mean by the Antients, fuch as lived in the two firft of these periods, including alfo one or two who lived more early, as Homer in particular; and by the moderns, thofe who flourished in the two laft of thefe ages, including alfo the eminent Writers down to our own times. Any comparison between thefe two claffes of Writers muft neceffarily be vague and loofe, as they comprehend fo many, and of fuch different kinds and degrees of genius. But the comparison is generally made to turn, by thofe who are fond of making it, upon two or three of the most dif tinguished in each clafs. With much heat it was agitated in France, between Boileau and Mad. Dacier, on the one hand, for the Antients, and Perault and La Motte, on the other, for

the

the Moderns; and it was carried to extremes on L E C T. both fides. To this day, among men of tafte XXXV. and letters, we find a leaning to one or other fide. A few reflections may throw light upon the fubject, and enable us to difcern upon what grounds we are to reft our judgment in this controversy.

Ir any one, at this day, in the eighteenth century, takes upon him to decry the antient Claffics; if he pretends to have difcovered that Homer and Virgil are Poets of inconfiderable merit, and that Demofthenes and Cicero are not great Orators, we may boldly venture to tell fuch a man, that he is come too late with his discovery. The reputation of fuch Writers is established upon a foundation too folid to be now fhaken by any arguments whatever; for it is established upon the almost universal tafte of mankind, proved and tried throughout the fucceffion of fo many ages. Imperfections in their works he may, indeed, point out; paffages that are faulty he may fhew; for where is the human work that is perfect? But, if he attempts to dif credit their works in general, or to prove that the reputation which they have gained is, on the whole, unjuft, there is an argument against him, which is equal to full demonftration. He must be in the wrong; for human nature is against him. In matters of tafte, fuch as Poetry and Oratory, to whom does the appeal lie? where is the standard? and where the authority of the last decifion? where is it to be looked for,

LECT. but, as I formerly fhewed, in thofe feelings and XXXV. fentiments that are found, on the most extenfive examination, to be the common fentiments and feelings of men? Thefe have been fully confulted on this head. The Public, the unprejudiced Public, has been tried and appealed to for many centuries, and throughout almost all civilized nations. It has pronounced its verdict; it has given its fanction to thefe writers; and from this tribunal there lies no farther appeal.

In matters of mere reafoning, the world may be long in an error; and may be convinced of the error by stronger reasonings, when produced. Pofitions that depend upon fcience, upon know. ledge, and matters of fact, may be overturned according as fcience and knowledge are enlarged, and new matters of fact are brought to light. For this reafon, a fyftem of Philofophy receives no fufficient fanction from its antiquity, or long currency. The world, as it grows older, may be justly expected to become, if not wifer, at least more knowing; and fuppofing it doubtful, whether Ariftotle or Newton were the greater genius, yet Newton's Philofophy may prevail over Ariftotle's by means of later difcoveries, to which Ariftotle was a ftranger. But nothing of this kind holds as to matters of Tafte; which depend not on the progress of knowledge and fcience, but upon fentiment and feeling. It is in vain to think of undeceiving mankind, with refpect to errors committed here, as in

Philofophy.

XXXV.

Philofophy. For the univerfal feeling of man- LECT. kind is the natural feeling; and because it is the natural, it is, for that reafon, the right feeling. The reputation of the Iliad and the Æneid muft therefore ftand upon fure ground, becaufe it has flood fo long; though that of the Ariftotelian or Platonic Philofophy, every one is at liberty to call in question.

It is in vain alfo to allege, that the reputation of the antient Poets and Orators is owing to authority, to pedantry, and to the prejudices of education, tranfmitted from age to age. Thefe, it is true, are the authors put into our hands at schools and colleges, and by that means we have now an early prepoffeffion in their favour; but how came they to gain the poffeffion of colleges and schools? Plainly, by the high fame which these authors had among their own contemporaries. For the Greek and Latin were not always dead Languages. There was a time when Homer, and Virgil, and Horace, were viewed in the fame light as we now view Dryden, Pope, and Addifon. It is not to commentators and univerfities that the claffics are indebted for their fame. They became claffics and fehool-books, in con fequence of the high admiration which was paid them by the beft judges in their own country and nation. As early as the days of Juvenal, who wrote under the reign of Domitian, we find Virgil and Horace become the ftandard books in the education of youth.