step: it is nothing but specious obscurity and ignorance: This is not my opinion. In the first place, metaphysics is the theoretical science of the human mind: and it would be strange if mind was the only science not worth studying, or the only science in which real knowledge could not be acquired. Secondly, it is the theoretical science of the universe, and of causation, and must settle, if ever they can be settled, the first principles of natural religion. As to its uncertainty, I cannot conceive that any one with an unprejudiced mind can read what has been best written on free-will and necessity, on self-love and benevolence, and other grand questions, and then say that nothing has been attained, and that all this is impertinent and senseless waste of words. I would particularly recommend bishop Berkeley, especially his Principles of Human Knowledge, and Hume's Treatise of Human Nature, and Hartley's Observations on Man. Your own Jonathan Edwards has written excellently on free-will; and Hutcheson and Hazlitt on self-love and benevolence. The title of Hutcheson's book is, An Essay on the Nature and Conduct of the Passions and Affections, and of Hazlitt's, An Enquiry into the Principles of Human Action. No young man can read Andrew Baxter's Enquiry into the Nature of the Human Soul, without being the better for it.

It is time that I should now come to the consideration of Language. Language is as necessary an instrument for conducting the operations of the mind, as the hands are for conducting the operations of the body; and the most obvious way of acquiring the power of weighing and judging words aright, is by enabling ourselves to compare the words and forms of different languages. I therefore highly approve of classical education. It has been of ten said by the wise men of the world, what a miserable waste of time it is, that boys should be occupied for successive year after year in acquiring the Greek and Latin tongues! How much more usefully would these years be employed in learning the knowledge of things, and of making a substantial acquaintance with the stu dies of men! I totally dissent from this. As to the knowledge of things, young men will soon enough be plunged into the mire of cold and solid realities, those things that it is the calamity of man that he should be condemned to consume so much of his mature life upon; and I should wish that those who can afford the leisure of education, should begin with acquiring something a little gener ous and elevated. As to the studies of men, if boys begin with them before they are capable of weighing them, they will acquire nothing but prejudices, which it will be their greatest interest and highest happiness with infinite labor to unlearn. Words are happily a knowledge to the acquisition of which the faculties of boys are perfectly competent, and which can do them nothing but good. Nature has decreed that human beings should be so long in a state of nonage, that it demands some ingenuity to discover how the years of boys of a certain condition in life, may be employed innocently, in acquiring good habits, and none of that appearance of

reason and wisdom, which in boys surpasses in nothing the instructions we bestow on monkies and parrots. One of the best maxims of the eloquent Rousseau, is where he says, the masterpiece of a good education is to know how to lose time profitably. Every man has a language that is peculiarly his own; and it should be a great object with him to learn whatever may give il lustration to the genius of that. Our language is the English. For this purpose then I would recommend to every young man, who has leisure, to acquire some knowledge of the Saxon and one or two other Northern languages. Horne Tooke in his Diversions of Purley, is the only man that has done much towards analysing the elements of the English tongue. But another, and perhaps still more important way, to acquire a knowledge and true relish of the genius of the English tongue, is by studying its successive authors from age to age. It is an eminent happiness we possess, that our authors from generation to generation are so much worth studying. The first resplendent genius in our literary annals is Chaucer. From his age to that of Elizabeth we have not much; but it will be good not entirely to drop any of the links of the chain. The period of Elizabeth is perfectly admirable. Roger Ascham and Golding's translation of Mornay's Trewnesse of the Christian Religion, are among the best canonical books of genuine English. Next come the translators of that age, who are worthy to be stu died day and night by those who would perfectly feel the genius of our language. Among these, Phaer's Virgil, Chapman's Homer, and sir Thomas North's Plutarch are perhaps the best, and are, in my opinion, incomparably superior to the later translations of these authors. Of course I hardly need say, that lord Bacon is one of the first writers that has appeared in the catalogue of human creatures, and one of those who is most worthy to be studied. I might have brought him in among the metaphysicians; but I preferred putting him here. Nothing can be more magnificent and impressive than his language; it is rather that of a god, than a man. I would also specially recommend Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy, and the writings of sir Thomas Browne. No man, I suppose, is to be told that the dramatic writers of the age of Elizabeth are among the most astonishing specimens of the human intellect. Shakspeare is the greatest, and stands an immense distance from all the rest. But, though he outshines them, he does not put out their light. Ben Jonson is himself an host: of Beaumont and Fletcher I cannot think without enthusiasm; and Ford and Massinger will deserve to be studied.-Even French literature was worthy of some notice in these times, and Montaigne is entitled to rank with some of the best English prose-writers, his contemporaries.

In looking over what I have written, I think I have not said enough on the subject of modern history. Your language is English; the frame of your laws and your law-courts is essentially English. Therefore, and because the English moral and intellec

tual character ranks the first of modern times, I think English history is entitled to your preference. Whoever reads English history must take Hume for his text. The subtlety of his mind, the depth of his conceptions, and the surpassing graces of his composition, must always place him in the first class of writers. His work is tarnished with a worthless partiality to the race of kings that Scotland sent to reign over us; and is wofully destitute of that energetic moral and public feeling that distinguishes the Latin historians. Yet we have nothing else on the general subject, that deserves the name of composition. I have already spoken of the emphatic attention that is due, to the age of chivalry. The feudal system is one of the most extraordinary productions of the human mind. It is a great mistake to say that these were dark ages. It was about this period that logic was invented: for I will venture to say that the ancients knew nothing about close reasoning and an unbroken chain of argumentative deduction, in comparison with the moderns. For all the excellence we possess in this art, we are indebted to the schoolmen, the monks and friars, in the solitude of their cloisters. It is true, that they were too proud of their new acquisitions, and subtilized and refined till occasionally they became truly ridiculous. This does not extinguish their claim to our applause, though it has dreadfully tarnished the lustre of their memory in the vulgar eye. Hume passes over the feudal system and the age of chivalry, as if it were a dishonour to his pen to be employed on these subjects, while he enlarges with endless copiousness on the proofs of the sincerity of Charles the First, and the execrable public and private profligacy of Charles the Second.

Next to the age of feudality and chivalry, the period of English history most worthy of our attention, lies between the accession of Elizabeth and the Restoration. But let no man think that he learns any thing, particularly of modern history, by reading a single book. It fortunately happens, as far as the civil wars are concerned, that we have two excellent writers of the two opposite parties, Clarendon and Ludlow, beside many others worthy to be consulted. You should also consult as many lives of eminent persons connected with the period then under your consideration, as you can conveniently procure, Letters of state, memorials, and public papers are in this respect of inestimable value. They are to a considerable degree the principal actors in the scene, writing their own history. He that would really understand history, should proceed in some degree as if he were writing history. He should be surrounded with chronological tables and maps. He should compare one author with another, and not put himself under the guidance of any. This is the difference I make between reading and study. He that confines himself to one book at a time may be amused, but is no student. In order to study, I must sit in some measure in the middle of a library. Nor can any one truly study, without the perpetual use of a pen, to make notes, and ab,

stracts, and arrangements of dates. The shorter these notes, and the more they can be looked through at a glance, the better. The only limit in this respect, is that they should be so constructed, that if I do not look at them again till after an interval of seven years, I should understand them. Learn to read slow-if you keep to your point, and do not suffer your thoughts, according to an old phrase, to go a wool-gathering, you will be in little danger of excess in this direction.

*

My best wishes attend you.

No. II.

*

Skinner Street, March 19, 1818. MY DEAR SIR,-Whatever was left imperfect in your second letter, as to my Paper of advice, is fully made up in your last, and I am more than satisfied.

The question you ask, why am I silent in this paper on the sub ject of politics? is a very natural one, and I will give you an ingenuous answer. The person who asked my advice as to the course of his studies, I naturally concluded had some respect for my literary character; and I therefore thought it superfluous (as far as it could be avoided) to repeat any thing I had said in my public writings, or to refer directly or indirectly to any thing therein treated. Even the person, who without ever having known me, should have sufficient respect for my advice to make it in any degree his compass to steer by, would hardly, I thought, be so indolent or indifferent, as not to inquire what I had myself written for the amusement, improvement, and instruction of my species generally. The species of composition denominated novel, a sort of proseepic, and in my opinion a memorable addition to the stock of human literature, which with a few exceptions, did not assume its present consummate form till the age of Fielding and Richardson: but I am a writer of novels; and for that reason principally I was silent under that head. I have also written on the science of politics; and though my work is twenty five years old, I am sorry to say, I am grown very little wiser under that article: if I had to write my work over again, I could correct many errors, but scarcely any thing that strikes my mind as fundamental. In my inquiry concerning Political Justice, I have not only laid down, as well as I was able, the principles of moral and political truth, but have also made a point of commemorating, and delivering a candid and sincere judgment respecting almost every considerable political writer that fell in my way. What therefore could I have added in my Letter of advice, to what in that work I have delivered?

I inclose you a copy of my letter, printed on a sheet of paper, which I caused to be so printed, merely because it has happened to me very many times to have the same request made to me by young men, which from you, occasioned the writing these pages; and I thought it might save some trouble, and be the means of some good, to have the paper always at hand, to give away to any person to whom I judged it might be desirable. This copy is sent

merely to gratify your private curiosity: as I would not be the means, or appear to be the means, of checking any additional sale which the insertion of my letter might bring to Mr. Constable's magazine.

No. III.

Skinner Street, April 27, 1818.

You say that since the arrival of my paper, you have been sedulously engaged in the study of the old English authors, and of the classics.' I am not sure that this is right as to the first. I had some doubts on this point when I penned my advice; that is, I doubted whether it was right for readers in general, though I was sure that what I put down was reasonable for you. For I was obliged to consider in writing, though I did not name the consideration, that part of your object was to collect books, and that you could not suddenly add old and scarce books to your collection when you were once fixed in I cannot better express the ground of my doubt above conveyed, than by a quotation from Ben Jonson's Discoveries. He says, Therefore youth ought to be instructed betimes, and in the best things; for we hold those longest we take soonest. And as it is fit to read the best authors to youth first, so let them be clearest; as, Livy before Sallust, Sidney before Donne. And beware of letting them taste Gower and Chaucer at first, lest falling too much in love with antiquity, and not apprehending the weight, they grow rough and barren in language only. Now if there is any thing in this caution of Ben Jonson, he and his contemporaries are now somewhat obsolete to us, as Chaucer was to him. The best model perhaps for a modern English style, would be a due mixture and medium of Burke and Hume, adding, when you have gained this substratum, as much wealth from the elder writers, as may be consistent with this platform and system in building.

Again, as to what you say of the classics, I have some doubt about the indiscriminate use of your pen in making translations. I know it is good in part, for this is the sure way of discovering whether we perfectly understand our author. But, I know also, that we ought frequently, while we read books in another tongue, to forget for the time that there is any other language than that we are reading. It is thus we shall come to relish their idiom; while on the other hand, if we are continually seeking for equivalent phrases in English, we shall go on much as children do in beginning to talk or write French, whose phrases and construction are English, and the words only borrowed from our neighbour tongue.

I am also inclined to disapprove the very limited list of classics you now set down. Latin and Greek are not to be laid aside, as we lay aside our old clothes. My own method through the greater part of my life has been, to devote at least one hour of every day to the classics, and by this means I found the book-shelves of my

1