by his majesty with the kindest expression of countenance, and words full of affection. He began by saying that he was right glad to see me, after such long expectation, and hoped that my coming to his kingdom would be a happy event; and he added, I wish I could contrive to make you forget your own country.' Thereupon, he began to talk about literature, and to mention the recent attack upon him by the Romanists." He happened to have in his hands the diabolical books published by Reboul, which attacked this powerful king with such madness that the book seems to have been written with the aid of the furies. His majesty suspected that Perron was the author of the book. But we proved at length that it was the work of Reboul, an irreligious fanatic. May God destroy this and the like pests, or give them a better mind! When the king had retired to change his dress, and soon after came forth from his chamber, we were sent for by his command, and stood by his side at supper and throughout the meal; and the whole time was spent in conversation chiefly on theology." In this conversation I learned, among other things, that bishops had never been entirely dispensed with in Scotland; but when the vain superstition of our party had entirely removed the ancient hierarchy, they could not prevent one or two from remaining. After the king's supper, we returned with our companions, Dr. Martin, Dean of Winchester, Dr. Charrier, and the chaplain of Lord Dunbar, to the village, where our lodging was, returning hearty thanks to God for allowing me to see and converse with so great a monarch.

9th Nov.-We returned to the court in the morning, and saluted his majesty at his levee," and told him something about Reboul's book. Then, because it was Tuesday, which the king used to celebrate privately, on account of the death of the brothers Gowrie, we attended the sermon which was delivered before of the king. Afterwards we had a long discourse with this very powerful and most wise king, on every kind of literature. The conversation turned on Tacitus, Plutarch, Philip de Commines, and others. The king having remarked that those were in error who considered Tacitus the only master of political knowledge," and I having said that

I had come to the same conclusion a year before, in the preface to Polybius, then this most learned king said that he was very glad that I agreed with him in opinion. He blamed Plutarch for his unfairness to Julius Cæsar, Commines for his hasty judgments and malicious praise of the English. Why should I enlarge on this subject? It was not without astonishment that I heard so powerful a monarch pronouncing opinions on literature. Soon after dinner we returned to London, in high spirits,13 had not the health of the archbishop disturbed our happiness.

11th Nov.-I spent the morning at St. Paul's, and in addition to the other rites I saw the administration of the Eucharist, certainly very different from the French practice. Therefore do I the more cling to thee, O Church of England, as being nearer to the primitive church. May the Lord Jesus grant us to see a truly reformed church! After dinner I was summoned to the king. Accordingly I went to court, saw this most gracious and wise sovereign, and spent several hours with him. His majesty is equally distinguished by his kindness, his learning, and his piety. He wishes to retain me as his private chaplain. Although I confess myself unworthy of so great a honour, I commit the event to thy providence, O Everlasting God, and beseech thee to order all my affairs between the Queen of France, to whom I am bound, and this admirable king, and to preserve me, my wife, and children. Amen.

14

Exercise LXIV.

Eulogium on Professor Porson.

I WAS running on farther, had I not been stopped both by the expiration of the time allowed to me,' and by your reasonable expectation of hearing at last a simple eulogium. If I shall be briefer in this than the dignity of the subject demands, my brevity will be excused by my knowledge of

the fact that Porson's name is not so forgotten in this place that it should stand in need of a long commemoration. But as all panegyrics ought to reply to two questions-what kind of a man was the subject of the encomium? and what were his doings?—I will act in accordance with this rule.

Such

And if any one asks me what kind of a man Porson was, I shall not have to seek far for an answer to this.2 If any man ever possessed that quality, he was distinguished by the inspiration of inventive sagacity; and in that part of criticism which depends on the correction of corrupt passages, he was decidedly entitled to the first place, so that, if I may use Cramer's most accurate but rather inelegant expression, he might be called a dead shot at an emendation' (Philol. Mus. ii. p. 688). Then he had such a boundless memory of innumerable facts, that there was nothing, however slight, trivial, or hastily noticed, that he did not recollect. was his candour, that he never hesitated to confess his mistakes, which however were very rare. Such was his love of truth that he utterly abominated all compliment and flattery, and, like the Achilles of Homer, absolutely hated any man who said one thing and thought another. And what shall I say of his magnanimity? Every one knows that, when a sort of Gothic conflagration had consumed his notes, and as he used to say had destroyed the fruits of twenty years of his life, he resolutely overcame his annoyance, and at once applied himself to do the work over again. Why should I mention the other endowments which were so conspicuous in Porson? That the whole account may be closed, I remember that Dr. T. Young, who was himself not slightly versed in almost every branch of learning, has declared that Porson was such a man that whatever study he had embraced in all probability he would have taken the lead in it. In a word, he was a man not to be praised once for all in such a juvenile panegyric' as this, but one whose example might be held up to the imitation of all who wish to tread the rugged path to fame.

5

Lastly, if any one asks what Porson did, for my own part, to employ the words of Adrastus in Euripides (Suppl. 901):— Τύδεως ἔπαινον ἐν βραχεῖ θήσω μέγαν,

and I am glad on your account, whom my tediousness has tried long enough, that I can do so. Now I say and main

tain, that our knowledge of the Greek language, and our higher critical science have made greater advances in the last fifty years than in the thirty centuries before, and that this advantage must be attributed either wholly or mainly to the example and authority of Porson. This being laid down-and it is so obvious that it needs no proof-what greater or more striking encomium can be passed on a critical scholar?

Such then, and so great a man, my accomplished hearers, was your Porson; such were his performances. In his particular department and vocation the world has not seen his like or one to be compared with him. That some distant day will do so is rather a matter for hope than for expectation."

Exercise LXV.

On the Persæ of Eschylus.

3

THE argument of the Persa is simple and simply treated, rather after the fashion of an epic poet' than after that of a tragedian, if we are to abide by Aristotle's definition. Nearly the whole play is described in narrative, for what the ghost of Darius says by way of interlude, has little or nothing to do with the action. Hence, perhaps, it has happened that Hermann, a very acute critic, considers the Persæ nothing else than a noble rudiment of newly-born art. This, I am afraid, cannot safely be inferred from the simplicity of the plot; for in treating such a subject, there is scarcely any room allowed for a complicated story." This tragedy was brought out only seven years after the battle of Salamis, which is described in it. Whatever about that time had happened to the Persians must have been well known to the Athenians. Besides, the subject itself was so noble and sublime that it would have been a sin to depart a finger-breadth from the truth of history. Especially as nothing could be imagined

8

more complimentary to the Athenians than a simple and unembellished narrative of their exploits in that way. I do, however, very much wonder that any one should have imagined it was chylus' design to show that the disaster of the Persians had arisen from their excessive confidence and pride being justly punished by the gods. The poet had no such thought. The only object he had proposed to himself was to gratify the eager vanity of the Athenians, to recommend his play to the people, and so to conquer his rivals.' Accordingly, as I think, nothing else remained for Æschylus than to treat his subject simply in regard to the action-grandly in regard to the images and diction. In accomplishing this, I have observed only three violations of probability. (1st.) Because at the beginning of the prologue, the chorus announces that no messenger has come to Susa from the army. (2nd.) Because the ghost of Darius is utterly igno. rant of the nature of the disaster which has afflicted the Persian nation, and yet, a few verses after, narrates how the army of Xerxes had overthrown the temples of the gods, and describes the torn garments of the absent Xerxes himself. (3rd.) Because the chorus speaks of Darius as though he had never been unsuccessful1o in military expeditions. As to the fact that" the poet introduces the Persians as sacrificing after the manner of the Greeks, this springs from the necessity of the case, and he is not to be blamed on that account. It must, however, be confessed that in the conclusion of the Persæ, Æschylus has in some measure abandoned the dignity of tragedy. Very absurd is the character of Xerxes with his lamentations, his rags, and his empty quiver; but much more ridiculous is the obedience of the chorus, while, under the instruction of Xerxes, it employs various modes of expressing grief. But I think that this was done designedly 12 by the poet, to excite the laughter of the Athenians, and perhaps for the same reason he invented so many names of Persians to tickle the ears of the Athenians, with a sort of ludicrous cacophony.13 Here, then, we have a comic passage in ancient tragedy. Euripides has committed the same fault in his Orestes. In this respect both poets are to blame, and Eschylus might have been called a patcher of rags1 with as much justice as Euripides.