ipfe, quibufcumque familiariffime verfatus eft." Theocritus represents the Cyclops fitting on a rock, and contemplating his reflected image in the broad and calm bofom of the ocean beneath. Virgil has applied this idea to his fhepherd Corydon. But the Cyclops and Corydon are different perfons. The fhepherd Corydon, with much greater propriety, had used a river, or a fountain, for the purpose of a looking-glass. The idea of Theocritus entirely correfponds with the form, character, and fituation of the Cyclops, who was a giant, and inhabited the rocks of the fea-fhore. When the fame Corydon of Virgil is made to fay, that he poffeffes large ftores of milk and cheefe, which never fail him both in winter and fummer; these circumstances are, with much less characteristic propriety, attributed to a fhepherd, who lived amidst the conveniences of common life, than to the Cyclops, whofe favage and folitary fituation required things of this fort to be laid up in store. Virgil's Corydon boafts, that he was rich in fnow-white cattle, that he fed a thousand lambs in the Sicilian mountains, and that he exceeded all in the art of piping and finging. But Corydon has no pretenfions to these merits. "Quæ longe convenientius de Cyclope prædicata puto; cujus notiores longe erat paftorales divitiæ, fistula ludendi peritia valde celebris et infignis, character denique Bucolicus eminentior. Eadem de Corydone Virgiliano, omnium hominum paftorumque obfcur riffimo, nunquam credere fuimus edocti." Virgil has also unhappily applied the Hirfutum Supercilium of the Cyclops to his little thepherd. One of Theocritus's lovers is enamoured of a girl whom he saw walking out to gather the leaves of hyacinths on the fide of a mountain. Virgil has foftened and destroyed this imagery he makes a fhepherd fall in love with a girl, whom he met gathering dewy apples in the hedge rows. "Suavioris quiddam fimplicitatis ineft in foliis, quam in ipfis floribus, hyacinthi petendis: quæ præterea defertis montibus quærere quiddam magis rufticum fapit, quam Mala in fepibus." Nor has Virgil been more fortunate in his imitation of the Cup of Theocritus. In this description he has been commended for correcting the luxuriancy of the Sicilian bard; but the truth is, Virgil had no idea of the cup which the Greek poet was defcribing. It was a moft capacious veffel, which the Sicilian fhepherds used to fill with milk, wine, or other beverage, when they meant to indulge to excess. This cup, in propor◄ tion to its fize, Theocritus has adorned with an abundant variety of sculpture. But Virgil has contracted it into two goblets fit for a fideboard. "Quos magno sculpture apparatu, nimicque, faltem fi formam minorem fpectes, ornavit." But Virgil did this from his avarice of the beauties of Theocritus. The

cup

cup of Theocritus did not belong to Virgil's age or country. These are our critic's reasonings on this head. He has alfo, in this Differtation, fhewn the peculiar beauty which results to the Paftorals of Theocritus, from his obfervance of the different characters of Shepherds; and which have been disregarded by Virgil, and all modern bucolifts. In the eighth Idyllium, he obferves, that most of the graces of the poem are derived from the diverfity of character between a feeder of sheep and a feeder of oxen. Daphnis feeds oxen, and Menalcas sheep; and both in their respective allufions confine themselves to their respective profeffions. One never invades the province of the other. The Bubulcus very elegantly draws his comparisons from his office, "Sweet, fays he, is the voice of the heifer, and sweet her breath. Sweet are the lowings of the cow, &c." Menalcas, the Upilio rejoins, " The udders of the soup fwell with milk, and the tender lambs are fat, when my lovely girl appears. The Bubulcus replies, "When my paramour is abfent, both the oxen and their feeder grow lean." At last, a goatherd, with the greatest propriety, is fummoned to decide the contest; whom a white dog was barking at among the goats, and who affigns to the conqueror a be-goat with mutilated. horns. In the ninth Idyllium, Daphnis, a Bubulcus, boafts that he has a bed conftructed of beautiful skins of white cows, which were blown down from a fteep rock by the weft wind, while they were cropping the arbutus. To these Menalcas, an Upilia, oppofe his Fleeces which his feep-fold afforded him, and which were placed in great abundance at his feet and head in his cave. The different claffes of fhepherds had alfo different deities. The goatherds venerated Pan as their preceptor in the art of playing on the pipe. The Bubulci and Upiliones were the difciples of the Mufes and Apollo. "Veruntamen hæc dif criminatio paulatim evanuit, locumque ceffit generali nomini et ideæ PASTORIS: cum jam ceffabant poetæ ex ipfa vita reali fcribere paftoralia. Etiam defiit in Mofchi Bionifque carminibus; ut folus veræ et genuinæ poefios exemplar bucolica Theocritus reliquiffe videretur. Atqui multum varietatis et gratiæ antiquis Bucolicis acceffiffe ex hac oppofitione characterum putaveris; unde magna et jucunda morum, fermonum, cantaumque, diverfitas. Hac laude omnino deftituitur Virgigilius; hac etiam deftituta recentiora omnia Pastoralia, personarum fimilitudine perpetua, five identitate, lectores obtundunt." The critic has given many other illustrations of this point, which cannot here be conveniently transcribed or analyfed.

In the notes, which are large and comprehenfive, obfcure allufions are difplayed, the controverted readings of the text

are ascertained, many new emendations are proposed with much fagacity, the opinions of other critics are examined, and the beauties of Theocritus, are, with great elegance, explained and illuftrated. Under this article of the work, it would be unpardonable not to mention, with the highest approbation, the contributions of our editor's friend, Mr. Toup, fo juftly celebrated for his mafterly Obfervations on Suidas.

Our editor's reftorations of the text, founded only on the authority of the Vatican, and other choice manuscripts, are numerous and important. But from this original source he has also been enabled to give to the public a more complete body of the Greek Scholia than has ever yet appeared. Collations of fifteen manuscripts are annexed; executed, as it seems, with the greatest accuracy, and ftill affording an ample fund of materials for new conjectures and corrections.

The text is printed without accents. Whether these figns are here rejected on good grounds, it is not our business, nor is it our inclination, to enquire. The editor himself has declined the controverfy; which, however, we wish to have seen difcuffed, as it would have been finally determined, by fo able a critic. He only tells the reader, that he has omitted the use of the accentual points, in compliance with the directions of those who prefided over the Oxford prefs about twelve years ago.

It is not eafy to difplay, especially within the limits of our paper, the various parts and merits of this edition. Let it fuffice to add, that while writers of real abilities are engaged in illuftrating the original poets of antient Greece, we may venture to promise ourselves the revival of true tafte, genuine criticifm, and Grecian literature.

VII. An Account of the Character and Manners of the French; with occafional Obfervations on the English. In Two Vols. 8vo, Pr. 85.

Dilly.

WE have read this performance with great attention, and

One

with equal pleasure. It seems to be written by a man divefted of all ridiculous national prejudices, one of a philofo phical turn of mind, and accustomed to deep reflection. peculiarity attending this author, is, his great modefly, for we hardly remember that, through the whole work, he fpeaks above once or twice in the first perfon. Of course, we have none of his own trivial unimportant adventures, fo frequent in writers who treat of the characters and manners of nations amongst whom they have fojourned, which, however confe

quential

quential in their own opinion, can seldom be interefting to the reader. Another peculiarity of this author is, that he makes no quotations, and cites no authorities, for any thing he advances. From whence we might be naturally led to infer, that every thing is drawn from the ftorehouse of his own careful and impartial obfervation, which, no doubt, would be a great recommendation to the work. But against this position there lies one objection, which, though not abfolutely convincing, is, at least, in our opinion, very plaufible. That is, the nature of his ftile, which, as will be seen from some of the specimens quoted, is fo far from being eafy and flowing, that it is often very stiff and crabbed; that his periods are frequently very long, diffufive, and perplexed, not feldom destitute of grammatical precision, and that his words are not always well chofen, but, on the contrary, fometimes out of the common road, and even pedantic. In short, he does not appear, from his ftile and compofition, to have been a man of the world, at leaft much converfant in the polite circle. We do not mention this in derogation of his merit, which we acknowledge to be extraordinary, but of another, and even a fuperior kind: human nature is incapable of every perfection, and every virtue must have a concomitant defect. Had his language been more elegant and adorned, perhaps, his researches might have been lefs curious, and his reflections lefs profound. In a word, he seems to be a perfon who has lived long both among the French and English, a prying but unconcerned obferver; a character rare in the world, but the most to be depended on both for facts and opinions.

This work is divided into chapters, as it fhould feem in a pretty arbitrary manner, without any contents prefixed. It is likewife ushered in with an introduction, of which we shall take fome notice in the firft place..

In order to ftate with certainty and precifion, fays our au. thor, the nature and character of the French, it is neceffary to examine the progrefs of literature, and of other improvements among them, and the changes thereby effected in their difpofition and manners.

To do this accurately we muft diftinguish three remarkable epochas in their hiftory. The first commences with the opening of the fixteenth century, after the revival of classical learning, and the polite arts in Italy; from whence they were brought into France under the protection and Encouragement of Francis I. cotemporary with our Henry VIII. a prince, whole temper fympathized, in many refpects, with that of the French monarch; in emulation of whom, probably, he not only cultivated, but was also no inconfiderable a patron of

letters. This æra of Francis I. they call le Siecle des Savant, the age of learning.

The fecond epocha is marked by the fplendid reign of Lewis XIV. and is esteemed in France, le Siecle de Genie, the age of genius.

The third, which is the prefent, they have thought proper to ftile le Siecle du Gout, the age of taste.'

He then gives a very pertinent hiftorical detail of the moft remarkable and characteristic occurrences during that period, and concludes with the following ftriking obfervation. It was thought neceffary to enter into this hiftorical detail, in order to account fatisfactorily for the pacific temper and frame of mind the French still adhere to with fo much conftancy, that is to say, their passiveness and unreluctance in complying with all the dictates of government; a character from which, as obferved, they once were fo widely removed; and which could never, probably, have taken place, but from the very cogent caufes above-mentioned, that gave fo effectually a new turn to that people, and from the moft contentless, turbulent, and factious, have rendered them the most pliable and easy to rule of any throughout all Europe.'

The fecond chapter contains a remark, which, as we do not remember to have met with it in any printed accounts, we fhall here infert, with our author's fenfible obfervations on the fact, which is greatly to the honour of the French nobleffe, and in which, instead of their vices, fopperies, and follies, it might be wished they were imitated by our nobility in this country.

What firft prepoffeffes a ftranger in favour of the French, is the affability and friendlinefs he experiences from thofe to whom he is properly recommended. Add to this, what (if he is a perfon of ingenuous, liberal fentiments, and from his fituation in life, intitled to the frequentation of genteel fo ciety) muft afford him ftill greater fatisfaction, the unaffected complaifance and familiarity of behaviour fubfifting between individuals whofe circumftances are widely difproportionate, but whom an intimate fense and conviction of the refpect and encouragement that are due to intellectual merit, places on the most agreeable level.

Certain it is, that among the French, more, perhaps, than any other nation, an equality in point of education, fe. cures an equal reciprocation of urbanity and good manners between persons very different in degree: and that the great, far from flighting or fhunning their inferiors, if men of known abilities, are on the contrary, remarkably fond of their company and converfation.