this wrath against the people, natural enough in a republic, was mixed in all his orations,-when he speaks of himself, it is with rapidity and indifference.

In the following chapter, I shall examine some of the reasons which caused the political distinction that existed between Cicero and Demosthenes. It is generally remarked of the Greek orators, that they make use of but a very small number of original ideas: whether it was owing to their being able to strike the minds of the people with only a few arguments forcibly expressed and fully explained, or whether the harangues of the ancients displayed the same uniformity as their writings, it is certain that, generally speaking, they had not a great variety of ideas their writings resembled the music of the Scots, who composed their airs of a few fine but simple notes, the perfect harmony of which, while it defied criticism, could not create a very deep interest in the hearers.

We feel little cause of regret in taking leave of the Greeks, though truly an astonishing people: and the obvious reason for this indifference is, that they were the people who merely began the civilization of the world. They had, it is true, all the qualities requisite to excite the develope

ment of the human understanding: but we do not feel a similar sensation of pain at their disappearance from history, as is caused by the loss of the Romans. The customs and habits, the philosophical knowledge, and the military successes of the Greeks, could be but transitory; they resembled seed driven by the wind to every corner of the world, till none remained in the place whence it originally came.

The love of fame was the motive that guided every action of the Greeks: they studied the sciences, in order to be admired; they supported pain, to create interest; they adopted opinions, to gain disciples; and they defended their country, for the sake of ruling it*: but they had not that internal sentiment, that national spirit, that devotion to their country, all which so eminently distinguished the Romans. The Greeks gave the first impulse to literature and the fine arts; but the Romans gave to the world invaluable testimonies of their genius.

* Alcibiades and Themistocles attempted to revenge themselves of their country by stirring up foreign enemies against it. But a Roman would never have been guilty of such a crime: Coriolanus is the only example; he formed the plot, but could not acquire sufficient resolution to put it into practice.

CHAP. V.

Of the Latin Literature while the Roman Republic still existed.

WE must make a distinction in all the different stages of literature; dividing what is national from that which belongs to imitation. The Roman empire having succeeded to the dominion of Athens, the Latin literature followed the track which had been marked out by the Greeks: at first, because they might have considered it superior in many respects; and therefore to have swerved from it, would have been to have renounced truth and taste and another probable reason why they conformed to it was, that they found a model which accorded with their own ideas and habits-whenever this is the case, the mind is more inclined to adopt than create; necessity alone can produce invention, and mankind apply themselves in preference to improving, when they are saved the trouble of inventing.

The paganism of the Romans was very similar to that of the Greeks. The precepts of the fine arts and of literature, a great number of

laws, and the greater part of their philosophical opinions, were transported successively from Greece into Italy.—I shall not therefore attempt to analyse effects, which so nearly resemble each other, and which must have arisen from a similar cause all that regards the Greek literature, the pagan religion, slavery, the customs and manners of the East, and the general spirit of antiquity before the invasion of the North, and the establishment of the Christian religion, will be found, with some few restrictions, among the Latins.

What are most worthy of observation and remark, appear to be the different characteristics of the Greek and Latin literature, and the progress of the human mind in the three successive periods of the literary history of the Romans ;— that which precedes the reign of Augustus; that which bears the name of that emperor; and likewise the term that may be reckoned after his death till the reign of the Antonines. The two first are in some measure confounded by their dates, but are extremely different in every other respect. Although Cicero died in the reign of the triumvirate of Octavius, his genius is limited entirely to the Republic: and notwithstanding Ovid, Virgil, and Horace, were born during the time of the Republic, their writings bear the

character of monarchical influence: and in the reign of Augustus, some authors (particularly Titus Livy) discovered very often in their historical writings, that they were republicans at heart. But to analyse with accuracy the distinctions of these three different periods, we must examine their general colourings, and not dwell upon particular exceptions.

The Roman character was never fully displayed but in the time of the Republic. A nation indeed has no character, unless it is free. The Aristocracy of Rome possessed some of the advantages of an aristocracy made up of enlightened characters and though they may be justly reproached, with regard to the nomination of their senators, it being entirely hereditary; nevertheless the government of Rome, within its own walls, was free and paternal. But their conquests gave an almost unlimited power to the chiefs of the state; and the principal Romans, being freely elected by their City (which they looked upon as the queen of the universe), considered themselves as possessing the government of the world. From this aristocratical sentiment in the nobles, and the exclusive superiority in the inhabitants of the city, arose the distinguished character of the