sidered that, which is the basis of all, that is to say, in other words, the meaning of the sense. This led them at once into the most curious of subjects; the nature of man in general, the different characters of men, as they differ in rank or age; their reason and their passions; how the one was to be persuaded, the others to be raised or calmed; the places or repositories to which we may recur, when we want proper matter for any of these purposes. Besides all this, they studied sentiments and manners; what constitutes a work; what, a whole and parts; what, the essence of probable, and even of natural fiction, as contributing to constitute a just dramatic fable.

Harris.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, the next in order, may be said to have written with judgment upon the force of numerous composition, not to mention other tracts on the subject of oratory, and those also critical as well as historical. Longinus, who was in time far later than these, seems principally to have had in view the passions and the imagination, in the treating of which he has acquired a just applause, and expressed himself with a dignity suitable to the subject. The rest of the Greek critics, though they have said many useful things, have yet so minutely multiplied the rules of art, and so much confined themselves to the oratory of the tribunal, that they appear of no great service, as to good writing in general. Ibid.

168. PLATO, ARISTOTLE, THEOPHRASTUS, and other GREEK Authors § 169. Philosophical Critics among the of Philosophical Criticism.

Much of this kind may be found in different parts of Plato. But Aristotle, his disciple, who may be called the systematizer of his master's doctrines, has, in his two treatises of poetry and rhetoric, with such wonderful penetration developed every part of the subject, that he may be justly called the Father of Criticism, both from the age when he lived, and from his truly transcendent genius. The criticism which this capital writer taught, has so intimate a correspondence and alliance with philosophy, that we can call it by no other name, than that of Philosophical Criticism.

To Aristotle succeeded his disciple Theophrastus, who followed his master's example in the study of criticism, as may be seen in the catalogue of his writings, preserved by Diogenes Laertius. But all the critical works of Theophrastus, as well as of many others, are now lost. The principal authors of the kind now remaining in Greek, are Demetrius of Phalera, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Dionysius Longinus, together with Hermogenes, Aphthonius, and a few others.

Of these the most masterly seems to be Demetrius, who was the earliest, and who appears to follow the precepts, and even the text of Aristotle, with far greater attention than any of the rest. His examples, it must be confessed, are sometimes obscure, but this we rather impute to the destructive hand of time, which has prevented us from seeing many of the original authors.

ROMANS.

Among the Romans, the first critic of note was Cicero; who, though far below Aristotle in depth of philosophy, may be said, like him, to have exceeded all his countrymen. As his celebrated treatise concerning the Orator is written in dialogue, where the speakers introduced are the greatest men of his nation, we have incidentally an elegant sample of those manners, and that politeness, which were peculiar to the leading characters during the Roman commonwealth. There we may see the behaviour of free and accomplished men, before a baser address had set that standard, which has been too often taken for good breeding ever since.

Next to Cicero came Horace; who often, in other parts of his writings, acts the critic and scholar, but whose Art of Poetry is a standard of its kind, and too well known to need any encomium. After Horace arose Quinctilian, Cicero's admirer and follower, who appears, by his works, not only learned and ingenious, but, what is still more, an honest and a worthy man. He likewise dwells too much upon the oratory of the tribunal, a fact no way sur prising, when we consider the age in which he lived: an age when tyrannic govern ment being the fashion of the times, that nobler species of eloquence, I mean the popular and deliberative, was, with all things truly liberal, degenerated and sunk. The later Latin rhetoricians there is no need to mention, as they little help to il lustrate the subject in hand. I would only repeat that the species of criticism here

mentioned,

mentioned, as far at least as handled by the more able masters, is that which we have denominated Criticism Philosophical. Harris.

6170. Concerning the Progress of Criticism in its second Species, the HistoricalGREEK and ROMAN Critics, by whom this Species of Criticism was cultivated.

As to the Criticism already treated, we find it not confined to any one particular author, but containing general rules of art, either for judging or writing, confirmed by the example not of one author, but of many. But we know from experience, that, in process of time, languages, customs, manners, laws, governments, and religions, insensibly change. The Macedonian tyranny, after the fatal battle of Cheronea, wrought much of this kind in Greece: and the Roman tyranny, after the fatal battles of Pharsalia and Philippi, carried it throughout the known world. Hence, therefore, of things obsolete the names became obsolete also; and authors, who in their own age were intelligible and easy, in after days grew difficult and obscure. Here then we behold the rise of a second race of critics, the tribe of scholiasts, commentators, and explainers.

These naturally attached themselves to particular authors. Aristarchus, Didymus, Eustathius, and many others, bestowed their labours upon Homer; Proclus and Tzetzes upon Hesiod; the same Proclus and Olympiodorus upon Plato; Simplicius, Ammonius, and Philoponus, upon Aristotle; Ulpian upon Demosthenes; Macrobius and Asconius upon Cicero; Calliergus upon Theocritus; Donatus upon Terence; Servius upon Virgil; Acro and Porphyrio upon Horace; and so with respect to others, as well philosophers as poets and orators. To these scholiasts may be added the several composers of Lexicons; such as Hesychius, Philoxenus, Suidas, &c. also the writers upon Grammar, such as Apollonius, Priscian, Sosipater, Charisius, &c. Now all these painstaking men, considered together, may be said to have completed another species of criticism, a species which, in distinction to the former, we call Criticism Historical. And thus things continued, though in a declining way, till, after many a severe and unsuccessful plunge, the Roman empire sunk through the west of Europe. Latin then soon lost its purity; Greek they hardly knew; Classics, and their Scho6

§ 171. Moderns eminent in the two Species of Criticism before mentioned, the Philosophical and the Historical-the last Sort of Critics more numerous-those, mentioned in this Section, confined to the GREEK and LATIN Languages.

At length, after a long and barbarous period, when the shades of monkery began to retire, and the light of humanity once again to dawn, the arts also of criticism insensibly revived. 'Tis true, indeed, the authors of the philosophical sort (I mean that which respects the causes and principles of good writing in general) were not many in number. However, of this rank, among the Italians, were Vida, and the elder Scaliger; among the French were Rapin, Bouhours, Boileau, together with Bossu, the most methodic and accurate of them all. In our own country, our nobility may be said to have distinguished themselves; Lord Roscommon, in his Essay upon Translated Verse; the Duke of Buckingham, in his Essay on Poetry; and Lord Shaftsbury, in his treatise called Advice to an Author: to whom may be added, our late admired genius, Pope, in his truly elegant poem, the Essay upon Criticism.

The Discourses of Sir Joshua Reynolds upon painting have, after a philosophical manner, investigated the principles of an art, which no one in practice has better verified than himself.

We have mentioned these discourses, not only from their merit, but as they incidentally teach us, that to write well upon a liberal art, we must write philosophically -that all the liberal arts in their principles are congenial—and that these principles, when traced to their common source, are found all to terminate in the first philosophy.

But to pursue our subject-However small among moderns may be the number of these Philosophical Critics, the writers of historical or explanatory criticism have been in a manner innumerable. To name, out of many, only a few-of Italy were Beroaldus, Ficinus, Victorius, and Robertellus; of the Higher and Lower Germany were Erasmus, Sylburgius, Le Clerc, and Fabricius; of France were Lambin, DuVall, Harduin, Capperonerius; of England were Stanley (editor of Eschylus),

Gataker,

§ 173. Modern Critics of the Explanatory May this invaluable privilege never be Kind, commenting modern Writers--Lexi- impaired either by the hand of power, or cographers--Grammarians-Translators. by licentious abuse!

sportsmen) unqualified persons, I shall enumerate only a few, and those such as for their merits have been deservedly esteemed. Of this number I may very truly reckon Meric Casaubon, the translator of Marcus Antoninus; Mrs. Carter, the translator of Epictetus; and Mr. Sydenham, the translator of many of Plato's Dialogues. All these seem to have accurately understood the original language from which they translated. But that is not all. The authors translated being philosophers, the translators appear to have studied the style of their philosophy, well knowing that in ancient Greece every sect of philosophy, like every science and art, had a language of its own *.

To these may be added the respectable names of Melmoth and of Hampton, of Franklin and of Potter ; nor should I omit a few others, whose labours have been similar, did I not recollect the trite, though elegant admonition:

-fugit irreparabile tempus, Singula dum capti circumvectamur amore. VIR. Harris.

175. Rise of the third Species of Criticism, the Corrective-practised by the Ancients, but much more by the Moderns; and why.

But we are now to enquire after another species of Criticism. All ancient books, having been preserved by transcription, were liable, through ignorance, negligence, or fraud, to be corrupted in three different ways, that is to say, by retrenchings, by additions, and by alterations.

To remedy these evils, a third sort of criticism arose, and that was Criticism Corrective. The business of this at first was painfully to collate all the various copies of authority, and then, from amidst the variety of readings thus collected, to establish, by good reasons, either the true, or the most probable. In this sense we may call such criticism not only corrective bat authoritative.

As the number of these corruptions must needs have increased by length of time, hence it has happened that corrective criticism has become much more necessary in these later ages, than it was in others more ancient. Not but that even in ancient days various readings have been noted. Of this

See Hermes, p. 269, 270.

kind there are a multitude in the text of Homer; a fact not singular, when we consider his great antiquity. In the Comments of Ammonius and Philoponus upon Aristotle, there is mention made of several in the text of that philosopher, which these his commentators compare and examine.

We find the same in Aulus Gellius, as to the Roman authors; where it is withal remarkable, that, even in that early period, much stress is laid upon the authority of ancient manuscripts, a reading in Cicero being justified from a copy made by his learned freed-man, Tiro: and a reading in Virgil's Georgics, from a book which had once belonged to Virgil's family.

But since the revival of literature, to correct has been a business of much more latitude, having continually employed, for two centuries and a half, both the pains of the most laborious, and the wits of the most acute. Many of the learned men before enumerated were not only famous as historical critics, but as corrective also. Such were the two Scaligers (of whom one has been already mentioned, § 171.) the two Casaubons, Salmasius, the Heinsii, Grævius, the Gronovii, Burman, Kuster, Wasse, Bentley, Pearce, and Markland. In the same class, and in a rank highly eminent, I place Mr. Toupe, of Cornwall, who, in his Emendations upon Suidas, and his edition of Longinus, has shewn a critical acumen, and a compass of learning, that may justly arrange him with the most distinguished scholars. Nor must I forget Dr. Taylor, residentiary of St. Paul's, nor Mr. Upton, prebendary of Rochester. The former, by his edition of Demosthenes, (as far as he lived to carry it) by his Lysias, by his Comment on the Marmor Sandvicense, and other critical pieces; the latter, by his correct and elegant edition, in Greek and Latin, of Arrian's Epictetus (the first of the kind that had any pretensions to be called complete) have rendered themselves, as Scholars, lasting ornaments of their country. These two valuable men were the friends of my youth; the com hours. I admired them for their erudition; panions of my social, as well as my literary I loved them for their virtues; they are