norance, and the coldness of verbal criticifm. Yet he is not a bigotted admirer of this great author. He obferves, The character of Tacitus as an hiftorian, though, upon the whole, defervedly high; yet cannot, in every refpect, efcape our cenfure. He poffeffed powers perfectly adequate to the task of fpeculating upon the affairs of men, as becomes a philofopher. His fenfibility catched thofe delicate fhades in the human character, of which ordinary obfervers lofe fight amidst its great outlines. His fancy fuggefted the precife emotions moft likely to arife in a trying fituation; led him to adopt that language by which fuch emotions feek vent; and to feize the circumftances, in every object described, which ftrike the obferver firft, and bring the reft along with them. His judgment difcriminated the genuine from the fpurious, however artfully embellifhed; and, in the action even of complicated caufes, could affign the exact influence of each in the production of their common effects. But the ardour of his feeling, and the quickness of his fancy, fometimes betrayed him into errors. Strong as his judgment was, it did not always watch and control their exceffes. The elegance of his ftyle and fentiments, accordingly, degenerates, at times, into affectation, and their animation into extravagance. From the general vigour of his powers, he has thrown beauties into many paffages which few writers, in any age, have rivaled, and which none have furpaffed; but, from an undue balance, occafionally exifting among thefe powers, certain paffages are overwrought, and deformed by thofe attentions that were meant to improve them. Shakespeare and Tacitus are, perhaps, the two writers whò leave upon the minds of their readers the strongest impreffion of the force of their genius. Splendid beauties in each are but eclipfed by faults which would have cancelled the merit of ordinary performers. We fhould, indeed, have no ftandard for meafuring their excellence, did not the poet fometimes fhock us with his extravagancies, and the hiftorian with his conceits. The opinions of the best modern critics confirm the favourable judgment given upon the writings of Tacitus. They were rated beneath their value by thefe who pretended to judge of them in the laft century. Mere philologifts might, indeed, detect impurities in our author's ftyle, and falfely afcribe that obfcurity to a fault in his diction, which, in fact, had its feat in the depth of his thought. Being void, however, of that fcience which alone makes literature refpectable, no words could unfold to them thofe beauties upon which he meant that his reputation fhould reft. Monfieur D'Alembert*, and other French critics, whofe merit entitled them to direct literary opinions, faw the value of his works, and removed, in fome degree, the prejudices that had fubfifted against them. The elegant Mr. Gibbon tells us, "That, if we can prefer perfonal merit to accidental greatnefs, we fhall efteem the birth of the Emperor Tacitus more truly noble than that of kings: That he claimed his defcent from the philofophic historian, whofe writings will inftruct the laft generations of mankind." That the Emperor did not feel Melanges de Litterature, tom. 3. Morceaux de Tacite. + Hift. vol. i. p. 325. himfelf himself dishonoured by the connection, appears from his giving orders, that ten copies of Tacitus fhould be annually tranfcribed, and placed in the public libraries. From the works of his immortal ancestor, he expected, that his fubjects would learn the hiftory, not of the Roman conftitution alone, but of human nature itself. By rescuing even a part of these from deftruction, he acquired a right to the gratitude of pofterity; because he thereby preferved a mine, in which, the longer and the deeper we dig, we shall find the richer ore. . However feeble this attempt to trace the principles of historical compofition may have been, it may perhaps fhew, that Tacitus, and all fuccefsful hiftorians, have pleafed, not by accident, but by rigidly adhering to a ftandard which they must have previously difcerned." In fpite of thofe diverfities in point of manner, and gradations in point of merit, which neceffarily take place among a number of writers, the leading characters of this ftandard must be the fame to them all. A new proof may be thus had, that there is as certainly, in the nature of things, an immutable difference between beauty and, deformity, as between truth and falfehood; that the principle of tafte is more confiftent in its decifions than is generally fuppofed; and that, in all the fine arts, this principle is gratified when we obferve, and offended when we neglect, certain laws which are the bafis of juft execution, and of found criticism in each.' From this quotation, it appears that Mr. Hill is abundantly qualified for the task which he has undertaken, and that his own tafte in compofition renders him worthy of criticising Tacitus. Next follows an Effay by Mr. William Richardson, Profeffor of Humanity in the Univerfity of Glafgow, on the dramatic or ancient form of hiftorical compofition. Mr. R. endeavours to explain the reafons, which are furely obvious enough, why the ancients adopted a method fo peculiar to themselves;' but the fact is, that the contrary method of only telling what a man faid, instead of making him fpeak for himself, is rather peculiar to English and French hiftorians of the prefent century. Mr. Richardfon then juftifies the ancient dramatic mode of writing history, by obferving that probability is not more fhocked by an hiftorian's fpeaking in the character of another, than by his thinking for that other. Of this he gives an example from Dr. Robertfon, who fays, in his hiftory of America, that "Pizarro, intoxicated with the fuccefs which had hitherto accompanied his arms, and elated with having again near a thoufand men under his command, refufed to litten to any terms." Yet, as Mr. Richardfon obferves, the only fact, of which we have fufficient evidence, is, that Pizarro refufed to liften to any terms. The laft article, of which we are to take notice (for Collins's Ode on the popular Superftitions of the Highlands of Scotland, has already been reviewed,-fee vol. 79. p. 532. 555.), is a very ingenious Grammatical Effay, on the nature, import, and effect Mm 3 of of certain conjunctions, particularly the Greek dr. This effay will be read with pleafure by philologifts. The author, Mr. John Hunter, Profeffor of Humanity in the University of St. Andrews, proves that the words to and too in English, ad and at in Latin, and ce in Greek, as an adverbial termination, and a feparate particle, all of them denote the fame thing, viz. addition; and that in each of thefe languages refpectively, the two words were originally the fame. The ftyle of this effay is correct and claffical, and the matter affords a happy fpecimen of the application of philofophy to grammar. Gil...S. ART. IX. Aphorifms on Man: tranflated from the original Manufcript of the Rev. John Cafpar Lavater, Citizen of Zuric. 8vo. pp. 224. 3s. fewed. Johnson. 1788. "THE HE proper fudy of mankind is Man." Nothing dignified with the name of Science is fo entitled to our attention as that which analyzes the mind, developes the principles of human conduct, inftructs us in the knowlege of ourselves, promotes the practice of virtue, and contributes to the trueft enjoyment of life. But this is a branch of wisdom not of the most easy attainment. Man is a creature fo wonderfully made; fo like, and yet fo unlike, himself, that it requires long and nice oblervation, affociated with the foundest judgment, to lay down with any tolerable precifion, the philofophy of human nature; or to ftate what M. Lavater calls the doctrine of unifons and difcords between ourselves and others *.' How far he is capable of executing this task, is a matter on which all are not likely to be agreed; though no one, it must be confeffed, has looked at man with a more minute and steady attention than this phyfiognomonical philofopher. He has furveyed him from top to toe, and fo noted each variety of form and features, that he pretends to fee the foul through every part; and to be able, from merely reading the exterior or title-page of man, to tell all that is within. Phyfiognomony is this gentleman's hobby-horse, which he fometimes rides rather hobbyhorfically, or puthes to a ridiculous extreme; as when he undertakes, from infpecting even the feet †, to tell what kind of foul they belong to, or with what paffions Alma is ufually agitated, as the fits fquat on the pineal gland ‡. We will not, however, quarrel with him for having cantered his hobby-horse fafter than we poor Hyperborean Reviewers fhould have done, as he has made us ample amends for the ftrangeness of fome of his phyfiognomonical pofitions by the little book of Aphorifms now before us. They are the maxims of one who has looked at man through + See our Appendix, vol. lxxviii. Art 1. the Aph. 18. the medium of a fingular genius. In them, is much originality of fentiment and expreffion; common thoughts fometimes affume an air of novelty, and the whole evinces in the author a confiderable infight into human nature, together with a peculiarity of reflection. These sketches of M. Lavater on the philofophic Canvas might be compared to the paintings of his friend FUSELI. Perhaps the drawing is, in general, too bold, and the colouring too strong; but he knew that he painted for beings on whose minds the boldeft ftrokes of the moral pencil are apt to produce the flighteft effects. What we moft object to, in thefe Aphorifms, is the air of affectation which difcovers itfelf in fome, and the obfcurity which invelopes others. In feveral places, the thoughts and fentiments are expreffed with a cenfurable brevity; for without notes, which are wanting, many readers will not be able to understand him; but, in fpite of thefe defects, we forcibly feel his genius, and difcover, in thefé Aphorifmns, the warm friend of mankind. The following will enable our readers to form an idea of the merit of this collection of maxims. Who in the fame given time can produce more than many others, has vigour; who can produce more and better, has talents; who can produce what none elfe can, has genius. Who is open without levity; generous without wafte; fecret without craft; humble without meannefs; bold without insolence; cautious without anxiety; regular, yet not formal; mild, yet not timid; firm, yet not tyrannical-is made to pass the ordeal of honour, friendship, virtue. 6 Who, without preffing temptation, tells a lie, will, without preffing temptation, act ignobly and meanly. Who, under preffing temptations to lie, adheres to truth, nor to the profane betrays aught of a facred truft, is near the fummit of wif dom and virtue. All affectation is the vain and ridiculous attempt of poverty to appear rich.. True genius repeats itself for ever, and never repeats itself-one ever varied fenfe beams novelty on all, and speaks the fame. Who has no friend, and no enemy, is one of the vulgar; and without talents, powers, or energy. 'The more honefty a man has, the lefs he affects the air of a faintthe affectation of fanctity is a blotch on the face of piety.- Be not the fourth friend of him who had three before and loft them.- A merchant who always tells truth, and a genius who never lies, are fynonymous to a faint.- The pureft religion is the most refined Epicurifm. He, who in the fmallest given time can enjoy most of what he never fhall repent, and what furnishes enjoyments, ftill more unexhausted, ftill lefs changeable-is the moft religious and the most voluptuous of men. M m 4 A woman A woman whofe ruling paffion is not vanity, is fuperior to any man of equal faculties. He, who reforms himself, has done more toward reforming the public than a crowd of noify, impotent patriots.- Love as if you could hate and might be hated;-a maxim of detefted prudence in real friendship, the bane of all tenderness, the death of all familiarity. Confider the fool who follows it as nothing inferior to him who at every bit of bread trembles at the thought of its being poifoned.--' Some are phyfiognomonical, as 118 and 328; the conclufion, in the firft inftance, is difputable; and in the fecond, why a perfon's hating bread fhould induce us to fhun him, is incomprehenfible. The truth likewife of No. 315 † might be called in queftion. Here and there, a little mifanthropy feems to difcover itself; and the following will be deemed a fit companion for the wellknown maxim of ROCHEFOUCAULT, il y a quelque chofe dans les malheurs de nos meilleurs amis qui ne nous deplait pas. You are not very good if you are not better than your best friends imagine you to be.--' There are many, like the following, diftinguished by a great fingularity and energy of expreffion. There are more heroes than faints (heroes I call rulers over the minds and destinies of men); more faints than humane characters. Him, who humanifes all that is within and around himself, adore: I know but of one fuch by tradition. — He who laughed at you till he got to your door,, flattered you as you opened it felt the force of your argument whilt he was with you-applauded when he rofe, and, after he went away, blasts youhas the most indifputable title to an archdukedom in hell.-- Let the four-and-twenty elders in heaven rife before him who, from motives of humanity, can totally fupprefs an arch, full-pointed, but offenfive bon mot. I will take upon me to create a world to-morrow, if to day I can give rectitude of heart to one petty- fogging attorney. The creditor, whofe appearance gladcens the heart of a debtor, may hold his head in funbeams, and his foot on ftorms.- A great woman not imperious, a fair woman not vain, a woman of common talents not jealous, an accomplished woman, who fcorns to fhine-are four wonders, juft great enough to be divided among the four quarters of the globe. -—' From thefe fpecimens, many, no doubt, will be tempted to buy the book; and we venture to affirm, that whoever, after attentively ftu lying thefe Aphorifms, is not excited to virtuous fentiments, mult have a ftupid mind, or a bad heart. Moo-y. Who writes an illegible hand, is commonly rapid, often impetuous, in his judgments. 6 Keep him at least three paces diftant who hates bread, music, and the laugh of a child —— + Him, who inc flantly laughs in the ftreet, you may commonly hear grumbling in his cloiet. ART. |