Greeks, and the extreme vivacity of their character, it seems rather surprising that in the remains of antiquity we find such a small number of early Greek epistles: and so little said by their rhetoricians, concerning the most admired of their epistolary writers. Some information on this subject may, however, be gleaned from the treatise on elocution, that bears the name of Demetrius Phalereus, from the collections of Stobæus, and the Bibliotheca of Photius.

The learned Abbé Barthelemy, who in his elaborate and masterly work of many years, 'Le Voyage du jeune Anarcharsis,' describes the library of an Athenian, does not represent it (if I remember right) as containing any collection of letters. Yet probably the libraries of Athens, at that period, were not destitute of such an amusing and instructive branch of literature. The first collector of letters, if we may rely on the authority of Clemens Alexandrinus and of Tatian, was a Persian princess, who bore the name of Atossa; for the Greek expression used by these authors seems rather to mean the forming a collection of letters, than the teaching how letters should be written, as some of their interpreters have strangely supposed. Who this interesting Atossa really was, although she is called by Bentley the mother.of Xerxes, it would not perhaps be easy to ascertain; as the name belonged to several Asiatic princesses, and Clemens Alexandrinus is supposed by some critics to have confounded Atossa with Semiramis.

Demetrius Phalereus, or the rhetorician who assumed his name, celebrates Aristotle for having perfectly conceived the proper idea of a letter; observing also, that the morals of a man may be discerned in all his compositions, but above all in his letters. The name of Aristotle reminds me, that the memorable letter of Philip to that philosopher on the future education of Alexander, may be regarded as a model of princely politeness.

To become intimately acquainted with the illustrious characters of Greece, in her days of glory, by the aid of their familiar letters, would afford such a gratification to the lovers of literature, that it is not surprising if some letters have been fabricated for the purpose of ascribing them to the splendid names of Themistocles, Euripides, &c.

In the collection of Greek Letters, the authenticity of which has been so frequently questioned, there are three of a very interesting nature, ascribed to Theano, the wife, or, some authors imagine, the daughter of Pythagoras. These letters are so good, that the accomplished German poet and moralist, Wieland, has translated them into his own language, asserting that their merit has induced him to believe them genuine; and strongly recommending to the ladies of his country the laudable sentiments they display. The first letter contains advice to a mother on the education of her children; the second, to a wife, not to resent too roughly the infidelity of a husband; and the third to a young married friend, on the management of her female domestics.

The authenticity of the five letters ascribed to Euripides is strenu ously asserted by Barnes, and as vehemently denied by Bentley; two laborious and deep searchers into all the reliques of Grecian literature; yet two pedantic scholars, so ungraceful in the use of their own language, that neither of them can be justly supposed competent to decide a doubtful question of this kind by that perfect delicacy of taste, which is sometimes imagined to constitute a sort of intuitive sagacity, sufficient to detect any literary imposture.

Experience has abundantly shown, that in questions concerning the authenticity of ancient compositions, "much may be said on both sides," to use the gentle phrase of the benevolent Sir Roger de Coverley; and the Epistles of Phalaris are a memorable example to confirm his remark. Those Epistles afforded an extensive field to the active and contentious spirit of Bentley, who delighted to display his admirable erudition, and his controversial fortitude, against a host of assailants. They seem to have considered him as the Polypheme of literature, and to have amused themselves in deriding the intemperance of his anger, though they might shudder at his strength. Had not that extraordinary scholar been influenced by a singular passion for such disputes, he would hardly have produced his curious dissertations on the Epistles of Phalaris; as the young nobleman, who republished those Epistles, suggested in his preface, some arguments that tended to prove them spurious, instead of asserting that they were not so. Bentley prided himself on detecting the imposture. He is believed to have had truth on his side, in denying them to be genuine. An admirable judge of such controversies, the late accomplished and amiable Mr. Tyrwhit, represents Bentley crushing his adversaries, as with a stroke of thunder (adversarios velut fulmine prostravisse contentus): yet he conducted the dispute in such a manner, that his young and graceful antagonist, with the assistance of some powerful allies, so far triumphed over the thundering critic, that he exposed the Doctor's petulance to universal derision; and abundantly proved, that, however profound he might be as a scholar, he was deplorably defieient in those accomplishments which ought ever to accompany great learning; good manners, good language, and good nature.

Not content with asserting that the Epistles could not be written by Phalaris, Bentley considered them as the composition of some foolish sophist; an idea which only shows that he had not taste enough to relish that kind of merit which the Epistles certainly possess, and which had so forcibly struck the accomplished Sir William Temple, that he was lavish in their praise. The merit I mean, is that of exhibiting many noble sentiments, embellished by brief, perspicuous, and energetic expression.

Here let us observe, to the honour of Poetry, that the Epistles of Phalaris are partly indebted for their celebrity to that benevolent satisfaction which readers in general receive, in finding a great poet treated with peculiar regard and distinction by a person possessed

of despotic authority. The letters in which Phalaris is supposed to represent himself as friendly and liberal to the poet Stesichorus, and to his family, inspire an inclination to believe them genuine ; because they soothe the mind with an idea, that great literary talents are able to soften and correct the ferocity of a tyrant.

It is, however, most probable they were not written by Phalaris; but of the greater part of them, it may be justly said, they are evidently not the compositions of any foolish and frivolous character.

If I may venture to indulge a hasty conjecture, where conjectures are so likely to mislead, I would say, it seems not improbable the Epistles of Phalaris might be written by some young Roman of a cultivated and powerful mind: who, like Atticus, Cicero, and Brutus, devoted some time at Athens, to acquire completely the talent of writing the Greek language; and who, in the course of such study might compose, as literary exercises, the letters in question.

Having started the supposition, I leave the learned and ingenious reader, to amuse himself by examining, how far it will account (as I think it may) both for the merits and defects, that have given such a sort of motley reputation to these memorable Epistles. It is now a general persuasion that they are not genuine; but many of the arguments that Bentley produced to prove them not written by Phalaris, were arguments of an unfortunate cast, and turned against him by his adversaries with admirable dexterity of derision. There is hardly any piece of controversial ridicule more happy in its execution, than that part of Boyle's reply to Bentley, in which he shows how a future critic might prove, in copying the Doctor's arguments against Phalaris, that Bentley's dissertation was not written by the Doctor.

In saying that the Epistles of Phalaris might be written by a Roman student at Athens, I do not mean to insinuate, that none of the later Grecian sophists had talents equal to such a production. In that tribe of literary characters (often contemptuously described, and often meriting such contempt) there were undoubtedly several individuals perfectly able to fabricate a fictitious series of sensible and animated epistles.

Among the works of several sophists who bore the name Philostratus, there is a curious letter in which the author delivers his opinion of epistolary writers.

In enumerating those, who appear to him, after the ancients (such is his expression), to have best understood the proper character of epistolary language, he mentions Apollonius and Dion, among the philosophers; of commanders, Brutus, or his secretary; of the emperors, Marcus Aurelius; of the orators, Herodes Atticus: -he censures, however, the latter for an affectation of Attic elegance; and very justly observes, that perspicuity should be the primary quality in all works of literature, and especially in a letter. Of all the later Pagan epistolary writers in Greek, whose pro

ductions have been preserved, Libanius is one of the most voluminous; and he has been celebrated for excellence in this species of composition, Gibbon speaks too contemptuously, perhaps, of his extensive correspondence-near two thousand letters! In some of them, the high-spirited friend and correspondent of Julian is far from deserving the title of a dreaming pedant. If he was vain in the display of his own literary powers, he was liberal in commending the eloquence of a rival. In one of his letters to Themistius (printed in the Bibliotheca Græca of Fabricus), Libanius bestows on the philosopher this singular eulogy-" Telemachus did not so much resemble his father, in person, as you resemble Demosthenes in your orations." Themistius was not only distinguished by his eloquence, but regarded for the benevolent mildness of his character. He seems to have enjoyed the rare felicity of being equally esteemed by a Christian bishop, and by an apostate emperor. Some letters of Julian are addressed to him; which leads me to observe, that Julian is entitled to some praise for his epistolary talents; particularly for a manly expression contained in one of his short letters to a painter." Such as you have seen me, such represent me!" Happy, if he had discovered the same attachment to simplicity and truth in the more important concerns of religion! Some Christian fathers of the church, in the age of Julian, are eminent for epistolary elegance; especially the poetical Gregory Nazianzen, the bishop to whom I alluded as the friend of the philosopher Themistius.

But to descend to the letter-writers of the modern world. On the multitudes in different nations, 'whose epistles are printed in Latin, I will only say, that the Eloisa, who inspired Pope, stands at the head of this innumerable host, for the eloquence of the heart. The use of Latin retarded the advances of epistolary improvement in the slowly-formed languages of modern Europe; particularly in French, English, and German. Italian vivacity, and Spanish gravity, seemed to have employed themselves in making collections of private letters, before any such publication appeared in the language of England or France. I have already mentioned the letters of the elder Tasso. Italian letters, still more remarkable, were printed at Venice, in 1551; the letters of ladies, princes, and various eminent persons, addressed to that strange example of extensive, but short-lived celebrity, the satirist Aretine, whose own letters amount to six volumes. Aretine prides himself on being the first publisher of familiar letters: a distinction that some writers had endeavoured to take from him: but to this distinction his very learned and judicious biographer, Mazzuchelli, though by no means partial to Aretine, has candidly vindicated his title. Montaigne represents the Italians as the chief publishers of letters; and says, he possessed in his own library a hundred volumes of such publications; and that he esteemed the letters of Annibal Caro as the best of all.

The literature of Italy has been enriched with many excellent collections of letters, since the days of Montaigne; and with one peculiarly interesting to those who delight in anecdotes relating to painting and sculpture; a collection in seven quarto volumes, of letters written by the most eminent artists, and relating to works of art.

In the Spanish language there is a copious volume of letters by Don Antonio de Guevara, a prelate who held the office of historiographer to the Emperor Charles V.; and a prelate of so nice a conscience, that he directed by his will a part of his salary to be restored to his majesty, for a year in which he had added nothing to his chronicle. His style, as an historian, has been generally censured; but if we may judge of his personal character from his letters, he appears to have been an amiable man. In one, he reproves a female relation with good-nature, for intemperate sorrow on the death of a little dog; and in another, he draws the character of a true friend with great energy of sentiment and expression.

The scholars of Spain wrote and printed letters in their own language, before the polished age of the Emperor Charles V. There is a collection of Spanish letters by Fernan Gomez de Ciudareal, the first edition of which is said to have been printed in 1499. The author was physician to John II., king of Castilethey contain some entertaining particulars relating to the history and manners of that time. It appears from one of them, that the king amused himself in improving a Spanish couplet of his poet and historiographer, Juan de Mena; who seems to have been very highly esteemed as a friend by the author of these letters.

The last of the collection, dated July, 1454, contains an account of the king's death-he said to his physician three hours before he expired- I wish I had been born the son of a mechanic, and not king of Castile."

The physician seems to have had a personal regard for his Sovereign; as he intimates, in the close of his letter, that he might be retained in the court of his successor, but that he felt too old to attach himself to a new master.

The French have undoubtedly many collections of letters that deserve high commendation; but their two celebrated letter-writers, who were for some time the favourites of Europe, Voiture and Balzac, lost much of their celebrity, when taste grew more refined, and learned to value ease and simplicity, as graces essential to a good epistolary style. They had, however, the merit of giving an early polish to the language of their country: they introduced into French prose a degree of fluency and force which it had not before, but which subsequent writers have carried to much greater perfection. Every modern nation might exhibit a collection of interesting letters, so judiciously formed, as to display, in a very agreeable manner, the rise and gradual progress of improvement in its language. In France, the writers of printed letters are so numerous, that the