LETTER IV.

THE FORMER SUBJECT CONTINUED.

FROM the tenor of my last letter, you have, doubtless, perceived the intended application of my argument a priori. And without hesitation I avow, that the fuppofition that any kind of intellectual product will not partake of the general improvement of the mind, under fimilar circumstances, appears to me perfectly unphilofophical. While, then, it is acknowledged that modern times, in extent and accuracy of knowledge, have far furpaffed those periods which ought rather to be regarded as the infancy than the antiquity of the world, I cannot see why the moralift, the metaphysician, the historian, the critic, the orator, and the poet, too, fhould

fhould not be benefited by the progrefs. Horace has faid, "that the fource of good writing is good fenfe;" and what is this, but the refult of reafon operating upon experience? It may, indeed, be urged, that there are certain topics, upon which, after men in a ftate of civilization have once begun to think, little additional knowledge can be gained by experimental or scientific proceffes; and the philofophy of the human mind may be given as an inftance. Every man bearing about him, and viewing round him, the fubject of this kind of investigation, no length of time or foreign aid feems wanting to enable him to carry it as far as his faculties will permit. And it is probably true, that fcarcely any points, of moral and metaphysical fpeculation escaped the acute refearch of the numerous Grecian fchools which devoted their whole attention to ftudies of this kind; nor at the prefent day do many of these points feem nearer being fettled than they were two thoufand years ago. Yet, if the ancients treated

them with as much fubtility and ingenuity as the moderns, the latter will, I believe, be generally allowed to have excelled in clearness of arrangement, and folidity of argumentation; fo that where certainty is not now attained, there is great reafon to fuppofe it unattainable. And I can fcarcely conceive, that many perfons, after making themselves mafters of the mo-] dern theories refpecting the mind, will think it worth while to retrace, the laby rinth of ancient metaphyfic.

The limitation I made of the fuperiority of modern writers to cafes in which the circumstances were fimilar, would probably be made much use of by a zealot for antiquity, who would attempt to fhew, that the language, manners, and inftitutions of the ancients gave them, in a variety of inftances, peculiar advantages over the moderns. As to language, however, let the intrinfic pre-eminence of the Greek and Latin be placed ever fo high, ftill, with refpect to us, they are dead languages, in which we could not read a fentence fo as

to

to be understood, or write a fhort compofition fo as not to be ridiculed, by an old Greek or Roman. I am far from charging with affectation those who fall into raptures with the verfification of Virgil and Horace, or the numerous profe of Plato and Cicero. I am perfuaded that by long attention they have brought themfelves to a perception of fomewhat excellent, though it be a different thing from the real excellence. But can it be doubted, that the fame attention paid to one's own, or another living language, the true pronunciation and all the delicacies of which may with certainty be known, will afford at least as folid and rational a pleasure ? Language and modes of thinking have a clofe connexion with each other; and where the latter become more accurate and methodical, the former muft neceffarily improve in force and precifion. New ideas muft likewise require new words; as knowledge, therefore, advances, languages must become richer, and that, not only in direct terms, but in figurative and allufive ex

preffions.

preffions. The former is an advantage in accuracy, the latter in eloquence; and it would be a vain attempt to transfufe into claffical Greek and Latin the clofe argumentation of a Hume, and the excursive rhetoric of a Burke.

With regard to the changes which manners and inftitutions have undergone, though this may, in fome few inftances, have rendered modern times lefs favourable than the ancient to certain ftudies, as particularly those to which great emulation was formerly attached by means of public rewards and applauses, yet this cause cannot have operated to any confiderable extent upon literature in general. There can never want motives to excel in what is truly valuable; and though the fpecies of encouragement may vary, the effect will be fimilar. If oratory among the ancients had more scope at the bar, with us it has more in the fenate; and that of the pulpit is an entirely new creation. If the plaudits of affembled Greece were animating in a high degree to dramatic at

tempts,