Rome, might hope to exercise its injustice, with impunity.

Certain it is, that two of the great critics of antiquity, from whose sentence there could lie no appeal, were it pronounced, on a fair hearing, and full deliberation, have treated the Rhodian poet, in a manner, that seems to justify the coldness and neglect, which he has now experienced from succeeding ages. But may not these respectable and amiable writers, Quintilian and Longinus, of whose exquisite taste, and sound judgment, no doubt can be entertained.-May they not, in this instance, have been borne away, by fashion?-May they not have yielded, in some measure, to the prejudices of the times, and neglected Apollonius, because they found him neglected, by others? -May they not have hastily taken his character on trust, and adopted the opinion of his mediocrity, without a diligent perusal of his writings? -May they not, through excessive admiration of Homer, have wished to decry the founder of a new school?

It is to be remembered, that the critics, whom I have mentioned, were enthusiastic admirers, as, indeed, who among the ancients was not, of the poems of Homer. To him they referrred, as to the standard of excellence. From his works, in their opinion, all the rules of good

writing

writing were to be drawn. Bold, and perhaps unfortunate, at the same time, was the poet, who, in such a disposition of the literary world, ventured to deviate from the paths, that Homer trod; and to establish a new school of writing. The productions of the mighty father of epic song were marked, by an unlaboured and unaffected greatness, a sublime simplicity, a stile plain, flowing, and unstudied. Stranger to toil, and modern refinements; his poetry exhibited more of divine inspiration, than of human art. The founders of a new school and sect in composition, the authors of a stile different, in some measure, and boldly presuming, to refine and improve on that of Homer, had many difficulties to encounter, among the idolatrous worshippers of that venerable poet. Like the apostle of some new poetical heresy, he incurred the danger, of being torn to pieces, by the orthodox and pious rage of devout and zealous critics. At any rate, he could only expect, from the generality of readers, the contempt, or the persecution, that usually await all teachers of heterodox opinions, and novel practices. Apollonius was among the leaders of a new school in poetry, less vigorous, but more gorgeous, less sublime, but more elaborate, less forcible, but more graceful than that of Homer. For such is the character of the Alexandrian

school,

school, and of Virgil, who adopted its man

ner.

There may be another reason, why the popularity of Apollonius Rhodius was not fully adequate to his poetical merit. His details of religious ceremonies, of mythology, history, and pedigree, though they render his poem highly valuable to the curious antiquarian, as a treasury of ancient literature, impede the rapidity of the story, and damp the ardour and attention of the reader. Homer, it is true, sometimes admits them, but more sparingly, and his poems are so full of action and incident, that the weight of these episodic dissertations is less felt. It must be confest, there are many passages in Apollonius, which will appear sufficiently tiresome to the generality of English readers; and I presume the case was nearly the same, with the Roman. Certainly, in a moderate degree, such details increase the interest of the narrative; and produce a very happy effect. They give a venerable air of antiquity. They fill the mind with a pleasing awful gloom; and excite that kind of sensation, which we experience on our entering some ancient Gothic cathedral. Remote antiquity has naturally in it, something awful and imposing; so that the very names of ancient heroes, their atchievements and destinies, though, not in themselves, per

haps

haps very great or memorable, possess a magical attraction, that allures and captivates the mind, and fills it with a secret admiration. Hence it is, that we peruse with so much delight, the legends, and ancient ballads, that tell of Arthur begirt with British and Armoric knights; and of Charlemagne, with all his peerage. Particular details, such as I have mentioned, further add to the interest of the narrative, by giving to it a form and semblance of veracity, an appearance of reality. They seem to be a sort of corroborating pledges, which the author gives to his reader, for the truth of what he narrates. Such may be the advantages of this practice, if employed with moderation; but, nothing in excess, is a maxim, as true, in matters of taste, as in morality. Apollonius, it must be confest, indulged his predilection for antiquarian details, and religious descriptions, or rather complied, with the reigning taste of the day, and of the country, to which he belonged, at the expence of his general reputation, as a poet; and, like many others, sacrificed to fashion and present popularity, the hopes of posterity.

Another circumstance, to render the poem of Apollonius less popular, may be his adoption of the chronological order, and historical form, in place of the epic integrity of action, and suc

cinctness

cinctness of duration. Historical poems will ever be found, to excite less powerful interest, than those, which are modelled on the truly legitimate epic plan. The judicious practice of Homer, who hurries his reader in medias res non secus ac notas, has been applauded by critics, in all ages. Apollonius, as well as some other writers, has adopted a different method, and his poem has suffered in proportion. And there are periods in the narrative, at which the poem might have opened with superior advantage. Such as the meeting with Phineus.

Such are the objections, which may justly be made to Apollonius. But, surely, his beauties are so numerous, and so splendid, that they should completely exempt him, from the imputation of mediocrity. I think I shall be justified, in my manner of accounting for the treatment he has received, from two consummate critics; and in my suspecting them (though I do so with a reverential hesitation) of some degree of prejudice, or, at least, of precipitation, in the sentence, which they have passed; if we consider, and examine their expressions, in speaking of our poet. Their censures vague, and convey little of that precise instruction, and appropriate remark, which we might naturally expect from such excellent and acute crities. The characters are not sufficiently discriminated,

are