In the highest quarter, whence all gentility derives its origin, an amiable predilection has lately been evinced in favour of tight shoes. This predilection, influenced no doubt by motives, of patriotic economy, is evidently intended for imitation, and I move, in consequence, that our soldiery be compelled to follow the discreet example, with an assurance to the house-if the house yet feel an interest in the prosperity of the kingdom-that at the end of the year there will be a truly astonishing reduction. I do not address myself to Lord Liverpool on the subject, because I consider him a staunch member of the opposition; and still less do I apply to the honourable secretary for foreign affairs, when I reflect that in every-even the most trifling instance of his diplomacy,-he has exhibited more monstrous specimens of incredible truckling than the whole history of Parliamentary tergiversation-frutiful as it is in such obliquities-can parallel.

"Mr. C- -g.-That's a lie.

"Here the confusion and cries of order, order,' became general; Mr. B- mrose to depart, and the whole business seemed likely to have an hostile termination. Anxious, however, to restore harmony, the member for Corfe Castle modestly proposed, that the disputants should cool themselves by perusing each two chapters of his Constitutional History of Rome. A punishment so heavily disproportioned to the offence alarmed the compassionate justice of the whole house; and Sir J. M- -h, in tones of the kindest sympathy, was heard to whisper something about the Criminal Code and the Law of Nations. An awful pause ensued, during which Mr. We slipped behind Mr. B- m, and thrust into his hand the Whole Duty of Man,' while Mr. B-tt-h presented Mr. C- g with 'Baxter's Call to the Unconverted.' Order being at length restored by an indirect apology from Mr. Cg, and a few words respecting the rules of the house, melodiously expounded by Mr. Wn, and enforced with equal beauty of intonation by his brother, Sir W. W. Wn, Mr. Bm thus proceeded." P. 129. B

Mr. Canning's speech, which follows, is in all respects inferior. In wit it soars no higher than a few mediocre puns, and in the more elaborate passages it stops short at bombast. Perhaps no greater proof can be offered of the high standard of the Right Hon. Secretary's eloquence, than the defiance with which it appears to withstand those attempts at parody which succeeds so well when applied to others.

We have exceeded the limits which we intended to assign to our notice of this amusing volume. If it be really written (and public opinion so attributes it) by the authors of the Rejected Addresses, we are glad to see them once again in their masquerading habits. We do not mean any disrespect, and we trust they will so understand us, when we observe, that as far as the press is concerned, we like them better in any character than in their own.

ART. VI. History of Roman Literature, from its earliest Period to the Augustan Age. By John Dunlop, Esq. Author of the History of Fiction. 2 vols. 8vo. 17. 11s. 6d. Longman & Co. 1823.

THE history of literature in general is much more intimately connected with national history than is most commonly supposed. In the civil history of a nation, we are presented merely with a chronicle of events; and the leading differences which exist between the histories of different nations, consist less in the facts recorded, than in the order of their succession. The annals of every country furnish us with wars, invasions, expeditions, and revolutions; and the causes of these public events are almost in all instances the same, ambition and tyranny. But the literary histories of different nations differ essentially; and the reason of this is best explained by the consideration that man, in his public relations, exhibits usually more of the characteristics of his species, and fewer of his individual peculiarities, than when seen in his domestic relations. In proportion as he converses with those who share his feelings, interests, and confidence, his character will be open and unreserved, and the colourings of his mind discoverable. The idiosyncrasy of the national mind will therefore be always more conspicuous in its literary than its political transactions; and there will be scarcely more difference between the correspondences of friends and diplomatists, than will exist between the literary and civil histories of nations, as regards information, with respect to the philosophy of the national mind.

As the literature, therefore, of a people is not only interesting for itself, but, as the picture of the public mind, so is its history interesting, as the history of that mind of which. it is the picture. We learn far more of the real state of society, and of national, and even of individual feeling, from Aristophanes, than from Thucydides; from Horace, than from Tacitus; from Chaucer, than from Hollinshed or Hall. The progress of the national literature is the progress of the national mind; and in the literature, or literary history of a country, the philosophic student of general history will not unfrequently be enabled to detect the secret springs of public conduct, which he might have vainly endeavoured to investi gate in the writings of the historian or biographer.

Taken in this light, as a guide to the mental influences which operate upon the conduct and fortunes of nations and public individuals, there is no literary history, which, at first sight, opens so attractive a field to the inquirer into human

intellect as that of the Romans. The singular destinies of this astonishing people, and of the heroic minds who originated and conducted them (which indeed seem less to be the sober records of history, than the sublimest creations of romance), might be supposed to give the literature of Rome and every thing connected with it an interest the most exalted and intense. It is, however, a remarkable fact, that the literary history of Rome is, of all others, the most deficient in those qualifications which would render its study interesting to the philosopher of mind; and, with the exception of Juvenal and Horace, Rome has scarcely a writer from whom any thing can be collected concerning the private life and feeling of the citizens. This seems to be the reason that “ while its warlike exploits and the principles of its political institutions have been repeatedly and laboriously investigated, less attention has been paid to the history of its literature, than to that of any other country, possessed of equal pretensions to learning and refinement; and, in the English language at least, no connected view of its rise, its progress, and decline, has been, as yet, presented to us." Pref. p. vi.

There are two causes which have unfortunately concurred to render the Roman literature almost valueless, as a picture of the national mind, and consequently to destroy that natural connection which would otherwise subsist between the literary and civil history of Rome. The first of these is, that, for the first five centuries of their national existence, during which some of their noblest achievements occur, the Romans had no literature; and the second, that, when the conquest of the Greek colonies, and subsequently of the mother country, exhibited to the astonished conqueror the wonders which had been wrought in literature and civilization by that parent and nurse of all liberal attainments, the Roman mind wasimpressed rather with the spirit of admiration and awe, than with that of emulation; and from this impression it never entirely recovered. Hence the literature of Rome is a picture, not of the Roman character, but of the Greek; and, even in this point of view, it has little interest, as it is not drawn from the life, but is a copy of a copy.

At Rome, the pursuit of literature was neither a native nor a predominant taste among the people. The Roman territory was always a foreign soil for letters, which were not the produce of national genius, but were naturalized by the assiduous culture of a few individuals reared in the schools of Greece. Indeed, the early Roman authors, particularly the dramatic, who, of all others, best illustrate the prevalent ideas and sentiments of a nation, were mere translators from the Greek. Hence those delineations, which, at

first view, might appear to be characteristic national sketches, are, in fact, the draught of foreign manners, and the mirror of customs which no Roman adopted, or of sentiments in which, perhaps, no Roman participated. Since, then, the literature of Rome exercised but a limited influence on the conduct of its citizens, and as it reciprocally reflects but a partial light on their manners and institutions, its history must, in a great measure, consist of biographical sketches of authors, of critical accounts of their works, and an examination of the influence which these works have exercised on modern literature." Pref. p. xvi.

These facts appear to be the reasons why the literature of Rome has not met with any regular historian before Mr. Dunlop; and certainly it is not a theme which holds out much promise of interest, either to the historian or to his reader. Mr. Dunlop, however, has contrived to produce a work of considerable interest on the subject; and, in his examination of the influence of Roman literature on that of modern times (which we cannot consider with him to be a part of his subject), he has been eminently successful; and indeed we regard this as at once the most novel and interesting part of his work. The lives of the Roman poets, or such particulars concerning them as have been preserved, are generally well known; and, when known, are generally of little interest; but a judgment on the exact original merit of writers who confessedly borrowed assistance from their Latin masters, detailed in a connected and historical form, was wanting in the history of those operations which mind performs upon mind. In this view, the portion devoted to the consideration of Plautus, is perhaps the most engaging in Mr. Dunlop's work. To quote a part of this would be only to injure it; and as the whole would far exceed our limits, we must content ourselves with recommending its perusal to the classical student, as an exercise from which he will derive much amusement and some profit. In the period which preceded the Augustan age, there is so little interest in the literary history of Rome itself, and the works then published have exercised comparatively so slight an influence on modern writing, that we cannot but regret that Mr. Dunlop did not give us the literary history of the Augustan age, which he now only promises. For this he would have been eminently qualified; and his discussions on the effect which the writings of Virgil, Horace, Ovid, and the contemporary elegiac poets have produced on the poetry of modern times, would have been read with the greatest interest and delight.

In adverting to the Augustan period, we may also be permitted to remark, that, as its literature is more intrinsically

excellent, its literary history is more illustrative of national character than that of any other epoch of the Roman annals. In this respect, the writings of Horace are most valuable. His sketches of individual character are, perhaps, unequalled by any writer in any age; many are drawn from the life, and in the rest the great artist had before his eye the abstraction of the national sentiment and manners. His lounge in the Via Sacra is bright with all the freshness of life; and its reader seems to breathe the air, and mingle with the bustle of ancient Rome. Not less striking are his incidental pictures of the same scene; business calls him to distant parts of the city; his positive misery and his various escapes from bodily danger, are detailed with a precision which would do credit to a walker in our own capital, and which give us as perfect a general idea of Rome in its external life, as can possibly be conceived. In the entertainment of Nasidienus, we are admitted within doors, and see the Roman character in its convivial moments; of this a still more striking instance is exbibited in the xxviith ode of the first book; which, from beginning to end, is life itself. Independently of his poetic fire, Horace possessed the great art which he himself so highly extols in a poet; he knew how to give all his characters their appropriate manners. Ovid also, and even Virgil, throw considerable light on the national character of the Romans.

In that period however, of Roman literature, of which Mr. Dunlop is the historian, such illustrations sparingly occur. The only authors from whom we could hope for any thing like an account of the domestic life of the Romans are Lucilius and Afranius; and the writings of these poets have perished. Nævius and Ennius, although they wrote on Roman affairs, probably gave no further insight into the peculiarities of the national mind than we can collect from Livy. Plautus and Terence are mere copyists from Aristophanes and Menander; and Lucretius is occupied in expounding Greek systems of philosophy. We cannot, therefore, expect to find in Mr. Dunlop's present history the philosophic features which we may hope to contemplate in his projected draught of the Augustan literature; yet he has shown himself not inattentive to such circumstances as occasionally occur in illustration of the state of early Roman society.

In the following remarks on the causes which influenced the early Roman comedy, Mr. Dunlop, has, we think, stated with much acuteness and plausibility the real circumstances which proved fatal to the originality of a department of their literature, from which better things might have been expected.