notoriety. If he had proceeded as far in his classical studies as the title of the first book of the Iliad he would have found it numbered as 'Payodia A,' — Rhapsody the First; and a little research into that recondite authority, the Greek Lexicon, would have informed him that the meaning of the word rhapsody is a 'collection of songs,' or, more literally, songs sewed together. The Homeric poems carry with them, therefore, internal evidence in the very name of their present divisions, of having existed previously in the shape of unconnected songs. If this writer after mastering the title of the first book, had possessed perseverance enough to sound the depths of the note upon it in Clarke's edition, Vol. 1, p. 1, he would have found a little collection of historical authorities in support of the same fact. "Homeri poëmata," says Clarke, "ex Asia in Græciam primum transvexisse Lycurgum refert Plutarchus in vitâ Lycurgi sub initio et Ælian. L. xiii, c. 14. In Græcia diu circumferebantur, non, uti nunc habemus, in duos libros disposita, sed tanquam cantilenæ quaedam disjunctæ. Tà Oμnov nŋ (inquit Aelianus ub. sup.) πρόπαλαι διηρημένα ἥδον δι παλαιὸι διον ἔλεγον, “Τὴν ἐπὶ ναυσὶ Μάχην” καὶ “Δολωνίαν” τινὰ καὶ “ ἀριστείαν Αγαμέμνονος καὶ “ νηῶν Κατάλογον” καὶ ποῦ “Πατροκλειαν" etc. Libellos istos primus ordine disposuit, contexuit et quasi consuit (èggayódnoɛ) Pisistratus, qui primus Homeri libros, confusos ante, sic disposuisse dicitur, ut nunc habemus." Cic. de Orat. L. iii, § 34. Πεισίστρατος ἔπη τὰ ̔Ομήρου διεσπασμένα ήθροLETO. Pausanias Achaic. 7. 26."

Here are Plutarch, Ælian, Pausanias, Cicero and Dr. Clarke concurring in what our anonymous critic is pleased to pronounce a foolish paradox.

If there were any doubt about this matter, which is a fact, as we have seen, within the knowledge of every well-read schoolboy, we might refer to Dr. Bentley, the greatest Hellenist that England has ever produced, who remarks in his Phileleutheros Lipsiensis, p. 18, "Homer wrote a sequel of songs and rhapsodies to be sung by himself for small earnings and good cheer at festivals and other days of merriment. The Iliad he made for the men and the Odysseis for the other sex. These loose songs were not collected together in the form of an epic poem

till Pisistratus's time, about five hundred years after." Whether all these poems were written originally by one person is a point upon which Hellenists are a good deal divided, although the current of opinion for the last half century has strongly inclined to the negative; but all agree in what this writer calls the foolish paradox, that the Homeric poems, previously to their collection into their present form by Pisistratus, had existed for centuries in that of "unconnected rhapsodies recited through the cities of Greece."

So much for the classical learning of this very courteous and candid person. We may add, that he has made a quite gratuitous display of his ignorance, as Sir James, in the remark in question, makes no allusion to any critical theory on the subject of the origin and composition of the Homeric poems. The conversation had turned upon Shakspeare, of whom Sir James had spoken in the very highest terms, specifying particularly as one of his great excellencies the union of profound and just philosophical thought with an exuberant richness of imagination. The writer of the memoranda remarked in reply to this, with a view of drawing out more fully Sir James's opinion on the subject, that perhaps the reflections which we find in Shakspeare, and which strike us with so much force, may in part derive their point from the fact, that they lie very near the surface of practical life, and may have been for the same reason more accessible to a writer not possessing the habit of philosophical investigation. In answer to this Sir James remarked: "We do not however find such reflections in Homer:" and then added the observation at which his biographer now cavils: "Homer is the finest ballad-writer in any language. The flow and fulness of his style are beautiful, but he has nothing of the deep piercing observation of Shakspeare." If this writer had not been blinded to the natural import of the language by the desire to sneer at an American publication, he would have seen, what every one else of course sees at a glance, that Sir James, as we have said, makes no allusion to any critical theory on the subject of the Homeric poems. Ballad-writer, as he uses the term, is synonymous with epic or narrative poet. He meant to say that Homer posessed the qualities required for excellence in epic or narra

tive poetry in the highest perfection, but that he did not combine with them the power of profound, philosophical thought which belonged to Shakspeare. This is what his biographer describes as an outrageous absurdity. With how much justice we leave it to the reader to decide for himself.

We cannot close these remarks without expressing our regret, that the task of furnishing the biography of Mackintosh should have fallen into the hands of a person every way so ill-qualified for it as this writer, who does not even agree with Sir James in his political opinions. The work is apparently from a Tory pen, and wears in many passages an air of studied and almost malignant depreciation. We take for granted that the family and friends of the illustrious deceased will feel the propriety of erecting a more valuable literary monument to his memory, and we trust that some of those who lived in his society will be able to enrich it with copious notes of his table talk. Conversation was one of the fields in which he chiefly delighted to display his powers, and his fame will not be sustained by the written memorials of his life unless there should be some fuller record of his sayings than the scanty collection, which we had the good fortune to preserve, and which we ventured to incorporate in our humble tribute to his memory, certainly without suspecting that we should subject ourselves by so doing to the 'scoffs and sneers' of his pretended friends.

29

CICERO ON GOVERNMENT.*

[North American Review, July, 1823.]

WE could hardly have anticipated, at the commencement of our critical labors, that we should have in the course of them the satisfaction of announcing to our readers a work, before unpublished, by the great Roman Orator. Without shrinking at any time from a fearless and impartial performance of our functions, we cannot but experience, in attempting to discharge them on this occasion, something like the diffidence that would naturally be felt by a magistrate of ordinary powers, when required to sit in judgment upon the most distinguished individual in the country. We shall strive as usual to render substantial justice without fear, affection, or hope of reward; but, in consideration of the eminent dignity of the author we are now called to notice, we shall venture to relax a little from the tone of rigid but wholesome severity which we commonly find it necessary to assume; and shall make no scruple to welcome the 'man of Arpinum,' at his reappearance before the literary tribunal

*M. Tullii Ciceronis de Re Publica quæ supersunt, edente Angelo Maio, Vaticana Bibliothecæ præfecto. Impressum Roma; denuo impressum Londini. 1 tom. 8vo. Impensis J. Mawman. 1823.

La République de Cicéron, d'après le texte inédit, récemment découvert et commenté par Mons. Mai, Bibliothécaire du Vatican: avec une traduction Française, un discours préliminaire, et des dissertations historiques par M. Villemain, de l'Académie Française. 2 vol. 8vo Paris. Michaud 1823.

† Arpinas ignobilis.—Juvenal.

after a silence of three or four hundred years, with something of the favorable prejudice and eager enthusiasm, which, as regular reviewers, we reserve in general for the popular novelist and poet of the day.

The recent discovery of the long lost and much lamented treatise of Cicero on Government has excited, for a year or two past, a strong sensation in the literary world; and the publication of it was expected with no small degree of impatience. The work had been placed by the unanimous consent of antiquity at the head of the productions of its illustrious author, as well on account of the importance of the subject, as of the ability and eloquence with which it was treated. It is known that Cicero himself considered it as the best of all his writings; and he frequently alluded to it in his letters and other works with marked complacency. The singularity of the mode in which this interesting relic of former ages was discovered and brought to light, after lying perdu several centuries under St Austin's Commentary on the Psalms, added something to the curiosity which was felt respecting it. Finally, the political events of the last and present ages, and the popularity which has been given by them to all inquiries into the principles of government, rendered the present epoch particularly favorable for the first appearance of a celebrated work upon this subject by an ancient author. It is true that we were not wholly ignorant before of the general ideas entertained by the Greeks and Romans on the leading points of political science. Several of their best historical and political works have always been in the hands of the public. Nevertheless, it was impossible not to look with a high degree of curiosity for a treatise by one of the greatest philosophers and statesmen of all antiquity upon those momentous questions, which, for the last half-century, have engaged so deeply the attention of