of references. This may, and we truft will, be remedied in another edition. Having given our opinion of the parts we have noticed, which in general are exceedingly well executed, we will only add, that we hope, and can scarcely doubt that the Dictionary will be favourably received; and that the author will obtain encouragement, in fome degree commenfurate to the diligence he has shown in forming the work, t ART. V. Lectures on Belles Lettres and Logic. By the late William Barron, &c. (Concluded from p. 359.) MR. R. Barron confiders the various fpecies of profe com. pofition, under the heads of epiftolary writing, fiction, philofophical writing in the form of effays, fyftems, or dialogues, and hiftory. We find but few fpecific precepts for the attainment of excellence or the avoiding of faults in thefe various kinds of profe writing. Inftead of this the lectures are chiefly occupied with an enumeration of the moft eminent authors in each department, and a critical ef timate of their merits or defects. We are far from denying the usefulness of fuch a detail, but we think that, in the prefent inftance, it has been allowed to occupy mere than its proportionate fhare of attention. Mr. Barron's eftimate of the relative merits of the effay ifts, letter-writers, philofophers, and hiflorians of ancient and modern times is, in general, fufficiently juft, but in certain particulars, we can by no means agree with him. He is certainly deficient in critical difcrimination, when he says that the letters of Lady Mary Wortley Montague "poffefs very few ingredients of that fpecies of compofition but the form:" and that "the reader confiders her rather in the character of a grave and inftructive hiftorian, than an amufing letter-writer." (Lect. 39.) We fhould fcarcely have credited that a grave profeffor could ferioufly complain of the fuperabundant gravity of this moft ingenious and lively female, whofe letters we are inclined to confider as one of the best models that we poffefs of the familiar epiftolary style, undebafed by homelinefs or affectation. We think Mr. Barron equally unjuft in his cenfure, when he denies all merit to Steele as a periodical effayift, and calls him "one of the most frivolous of all the candi dates for fame in this line, who have at any time laid their pretenfions before the public." So far is this from being generally allowed, that Steele is commonly placed next to Addifon in eftimating the merit of the contributors to the earlier periodical publications. We are furprifed that a Scotchman fhould have taken no notice of the Mirror and Lounger, which certainly deferve to be enrolled among the number of ftandard works of this defcription. We were impreffed with the jufinels of the following illuftration of the popularity of ellay-writing. "The forbidding afpect of fyftem, and the popularity of ef fay-writing, are pertinently illuftrated by fome works of the late Mr. Hume. He compofed an abstract, dry, fyftematic book, on human nature, which had employed much of his time and labour, and from which he expected confiderable reputation. He was difappointed and mortified, the book was fcarcely ever called for, and foon funk into oblivion. He refolved, however, not to relinquifh the fruit of his profound refearches. He concluded, that the manner, rather than the matter of the book, was the cause of its difgrace, which induced him to drefs it up in another and a more engaging form. He accordingly republished the fubftance of it in eflays, adorned with all the ingenuity of thought, vigour of invention, and elegance of ftyle, for which he is remarkable; and the attempt was attended with all the fuccefs he could have defired." (Lect. 40.) In eftimating the merits of the hiftorians of antiquity, Mr. Barron is most unfortunate as to the ftyle of Xenophon and of Caefar, which he confiders as beneath the dignity of hiftorical compofition. To all readers of true tafte, the elegant fimplicity of thefe writers pofleffes an irrefiftible charm; and we are much difpofed to think, that it is a flyle better adapted for hiftory, than that which Mr. Barron might characterize as more dignified and nervous. It is rather fingular that he thould have fuppofed Cæfar to be very little concerned about his fame as a man of letters, when it is known that he wrote a book on analogy, and ran the rifque of drowning to preferve his commentaries from perifhing. Mr. Barron includes under hiftory, the fubordinate fpecies of annals, memoirs, and biography; but he ought to have treated feparately of each of thefe kinds of writing, and particularly of the laft, which, from its importance, and the general intereft with which it is received, was entitled to a full difcuffion. The examination of compofitions in verfe, is prefaced by a very fhort and imperfect account of the diftinction be. tween poetry and profe. Short as this account is, we obferve in it one very remarkable error, namely, the affertion" that rhyme rhyme is the invention of the barbarity of the middle ages. (Lect. 44.) So far is it from being true that rhyme was an invention of the middle ages, or indeed of any particular age or nation, that it has been found in the native poetry of almost every people, except the ancient Greeks and Romans. It is found in the poetry of the Arabs, Perfians, Hindoos, and native Americans; and it was a favourite ornament of the verfification of our Gothic ancestors. The gratification which it affords, is, therefore, founded in human nature, and not in the arbitrary decifions of fafhion or caprice. The ear is naturally pleafed by the regular recurrence of fimilar founds; and the art which the poet exhibits in expreffing himself with eafe, and pathos, in fpite of the reftraint which is impofed upon him by the arbitrary ftru&ture of his lines and terminations, greatly enhances our admiration of his power and skill. "Si malgré cette contrainte," fays Fontenelle, " le poete penfe et s'exprime auffi bien que s'il eût été entierement libre, alors au plaifir naturel que fait la beauté du difcours, fe joint le plaifir artificiel de voir que la contrainte n'a rien gâté.” The fingular circumftance that rhyme was at no period an accompaniment of the claffical poetry of ancient Greece and Rome, has been thus plaufibly accounted for. I confequence of the number of fimilar terminations occafioned by the inflections and conjugations of the Greek and Latin languages, it was, in fact, more difficult to avoid rhyme in verfification than to produce it, and there was more of art and fkill difplayed in fhunning than in attaining the regular recurrence of fimilar terminations. Hence it was the object of the poet to produce a variety rather than a famenels of cadence; and the want of fimilar termination in the poetry of Greece and Rome was amply compenfated by the melody of the verses, and the artificial combination of long and fhort fyllables. That rhyme was apt to intrude itself unfought into the ancient verfification, is proved by many of the lines both of Home: a Virgil. Thus in the Greek poet we find, Εσπετε μοι μεσαι— Ολυμπια δώματ' εχεσαι, And in the Roman, And, Cornua velatarum-obvertimus antennarum. Æn. 3. 549. Tum Bitiam ardentem-oculis animifque frementem." An. 9. 703. Examples may alfo be found of couplets which rhyme ac curately to each other, as And, "Haud aliter terras inter, cœlumque volabat Littus arenofum Libya, ventofque fecabat." En. 4. 256-7. "His amor unus erat, pariterque in bella ruebant : En. 9. 182-3. So far is the remark of Mr. Upton, in his obfervations on Shakespeare, from being trietly true, that thefe chiming terminations were fo induftriously avoided by Virgil, that in his whole poem it is difficult to find one. Mr. Barron feems to have contracted an uncommon degree of antipathy to rhyme. He fays it is "a diminutive ornament in the higher kinds of compofition, and has for that reafon been difcontinued by almoft all English epic, dramatic, and defcriptive poets." But he allows that" it is of great fervice to bad poets, for it conceals many imperfections both in thought and expreffion." And yet the most generally admired of all the English poets, Pope, wrote invariably in rhyme. But Mr. Barron feems to have had a very inadequate idea of the merit of Pope's verfification, for he places it below that of Parnell. Speaking of this latter poet, he fays, "His verfification is not inferior to that of Pope in melody and conciseness, and is fuperior in fimplicity and perfpicuity. It teems with inftruction, with the genuine language of the heart; and there is no poetry perhaps, which the reader can perufe fo often with pleafure," (Lect. 47-) We can by no means concur in this exceffive eulogium on Parnell; nor in the author's unqualified reprobation of rhyme. This reprobation we find biaffing his judgment on another remarkable occafion, and inducing him to prefer the ftanza of octave rhyme, employed by Taffo and other Italian poets, to the heroic couplet ufsally adopted in the longer compofitions of our own country. The Italian ftanza, Mr, Barron calls "a fplendid measure of eight lines, in which no two adjacent lines rhyme to one another, except the two laft. The other fix lines all rhyme, but without fucceeding one another. The first line rhymes with the third, the fecond with the fifth, and the fourth with the fixth. The jingle of the rhymes," he fays, "is thus imperfectly felt, and the reader almoft believes he is perufing blank verfe." (Lect. 53.) It is, however, the opinion of the best critics, that the regular ftructure of the flanza of octave rhyme, and the conftant recurrence of its alternate rhymes, become exceed ingly tiresome to the ear in a long work; and that our heroic verfe allows of a much greater variety of cadence and diverfity of pause, The order in which Mr. Barron confiders the various fpecies of poetic compofition is firft Paftoral, then Lyric, Didactive and Defcriptive poetry, and laftly, Epic and Dramatic poetry. He is peculiarly ample on the subject of Epic Poetry which occupies feven complete lectures. He firft confiders it, according to the plan laid down by Aristotle, in respect to its fable, characters, fentiments, and diction; and then examines the merits of all the great epic writers, according to the ftandard which he thus previously establishes. He finds the Iliad of Homer in perfect con formity to all his canons of criticifm; and well he might, for thefe canons, which he derives from Ariftotle, were themselves founded upon that very Iliad. He need not, therefore, wonder that Homer" is as complete in the conftruction of his fable, as if he had been acquainted with all the critical knowledge of Ariftotle." (Lect. 49.) But he is by no means fo partial to the Odyffey as to the Iliad, and will not, indeed, allow it to be an epic poem, because it does not exactly conform to the rules which the great father of criticifm has established. "Taking, however," fays he," the Odyffey for a narrative or heroic poem, containing many curious incidents, which would very much attract the attention of an unpolifhed age, no fubject could be more happily chofen, no ftory could be more plea fantly told. "Every landfcape, incident, and character," he adds, "are painted in the most lively and glowing colours. Such, indeed. is the captivating and romantic nature of the objects, and the fimple, credible and beautiful phrafeology in which they are exhibited, that the reader appears to traverse enchanted grounds, to wander through the land of fancy, and to furvey characters and forms wonderful and itrange." (Lect. 50.) We can by no means relish this doctrine, that a change in the title will alter the merits of a performance. To whatever clafs of poetry the Odyffey is to be referred, we must always confider it as uniting great beauties to confiderable blemishes. It is defective in unity of fubject; and in many of its parts it dwells by much too long upon trivial and uninteresting details. But the wonderful adventures of Ulyffes will always excite a lively intereft; and the masterly defcriptions of Homer muft enfure a lafting reputation to this work, although by the verdict of every critic, it is to be |