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 style plain, flowing, and unstudied. Stranger to toil and modern refinements, his poetry exhibited more of divine inspiration than of human art. The founder of a new school and sect in composition, the author of a style different, in some measure, and boldly presuming to refine and improve on that of Homer, had many difficulties to encounter among the adolatrous 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, and of Virgil, who adopted its manner.

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 confessed, 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 achievements and destinies, though not in themselves perhaps very great or memora ble, 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 confessed, 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 expense 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 succinctness of duration. Historical poems will ever be found to excite less powerful interest than those which are modeled 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 cen

sures are vague, and convey little of that precise instruction and appropriate remark, which we might naturally expect from such excellent and acute critics. The characters are not sufficiently discriminated, descriptive, or apposite, which they have respectively given of Apollonius. Their censures come from them only incidentally, and bear evident marks of haste and carelessness.Longinus, for instance, bestows on him a praise which he does not seem entirely to merit, while he withholds that which is fairly due to him; and then, to obscure him entirely by superior and transcendent brightness, he places him beside Homer; a situation, which not even Virgil himself can bear.-Longinus calls Apollonius drтτος, a writer, who never falls into faults or inequalities;' a commendation, which, unless we confine it to the singular beauty and correctness of his versification, style, and diction, cannot be applied to Apollonius; who exhibits many inequalities, and occasional lapses, blended with great beauties. He selects him as an example of the humble mediocrity of genius, that scapes censure only by fearing to risk any thing great or sublime; and, in the words of Horace, Serpit humi tutus nimium timidusque procellæ. Without deigning to bestow a critical examination on Apollonius, he condemns him, in the gross, by an insulting interrogation Who would choose rather to be the poet of the Argonautics than Homer?'-No man surely. But does it follow, from that unfair comparison, and from his inferiority to Homer, that Apollonius should rank with the poets of mediocrity?-Suppose the same question should be asked, with respect to Sophocles, to Euripides,

to Virgil? I believe there are few who would answer in the affirmative'.

The words of Quintilian, who coldly damns Apollonius with faint praise, are-Non contemnendum edidit opus æquali quadam mediocrate.— Words, that have in them much of the sweeping generality in which assuming and superficial criticism is wont to delight; and carry with them a supercilious pertness of summary condemnation, not unworthy of the modern critical loungers in the shops of booksellers. The attribute of even level mediocrity is by no means descriptive of the character of Apollonius. Sometimes, it is true, in his fondness for the picturesque or the antique, he stoops, with a minute littleness, to the description of local circumstances, manual operations, and religious rites; a failing, from which Homer himself is not exempt. But the Argonautics abounds (as much, perhaps, as any of the remains of antiquity) in some of the most elevated parts of poetry-bold and excursive flights of fancy-daring and original poetical fictions-new and beautiful similitudes, strikingly apposite and happily illustrativeluminous and exquisite descriptions of persons and things, joined with a learned and accurate display of sentiment and character. These were the charms that captivated the discerning and judicious Virgil, and led him to imitate our author so largely. And are all these to be condemned, by one stroke of a dictatorial pen, to the degrading station of a plebeian mediocrity?

1 Scaliger (with the violence and presumption natural to him) prefers Virgil, and endeavours to degrade Homer. He, doubtless, would answer in the affirmative,