or the ingenious topics of literary investigation.' This anecdote also shews the veneration some very eminent men, and even Burke himself, entertained for Johnson. Indeed the request is expressed with much more humility than was necessary. They must be excessive admirers of Johnson, who would think so humble a style due to him from several of the signers; or that would suppose that any thing short of perfect equality was requisite, even to Samuel Johnson, from Edmund Burke. Such instances of humble address justify the observation of Dr. Robertson to Boswell, respecting the deportment of his intimates to Dr. Johnson: You worship and spoil him among you. He is certainly a man of very great powers of conversation, an able philosophical critic, and a masterly moral essayist : but in other respects not beyond other men. He has many weaknesses, and will believe any thing against the Dissenters and for the church of England, Dr. Robertson probably thought that, as a political writer, Johnson did not display that superiority which he shewed in moral reflections and in criticism. Burke's speech on American taxation was now published, and greatly encreased, through the nation, the praise of his wonderful talents. Not those only who coincided in his political sentiments, but the most strenuous abettors of the plans of Administration allowed its uncommon excellency. The eloquence of Burke has been frequently compared to that of Cicero. There is, no doubt, a general resemblance between two of the most learned men and greatest orators of the most learned and eloquent ages and countries. Both are men of extraordinary genius: both had acquired an uncommon share of the knowledge of their respective times, and especially of the knowledge most necessary for political disquisition and eloquent orations: both are completely informed on the subjects which they undertake to discuss; both reason with great force and dexterity, arguing closely or loosely, directly or circuitously, as best answered their purpose. We may consider these two great orators, in point of materials, disposition, language, and the purposes to which their respective eloquence was directed. The different circumstances of the times necessarily produced a very considerable difference in the materials of their eloquence. The extent and complication of modern politics required a proportionate comprehension and variety of materials from the British senator, which the more simple relations of ancient politics did not require from the Roman. Besides more multifarious detail, the philosophy of politics is now much farther advanced than in the time of Cicero. There is much more of generalization in politics, as in all subjects. To compose eloquent orations, in the age of Cicero, required neither the same extent and multiplicity of knowledge, nor enlargement of views, as in the age of Burke. On the other hand, it now requires less ability to procure multiplicity of know ledge; because, in fact, there is much more to be attained; and less native vigour of mind to generalize, because habits of generalization are common. Cicero's most distinguished orations were judicial, a species of oratory requiring not so wide a compass of materials as deliberative; even the questions of deliberation among the Romans, who were merely a nation of warriors and conquerors, with little commerce, intrigue, and little variety of relation to foreign states; hardly indeed any other than those which proceeded from command. Their situation afforded less variety of deliberative matter than the Grecian republics, and much less than England. The principal deliberative oration of Cicero, as far as I can recollect, is that (pro lege Manilia) on the expediency of appointing Pompey to succeed Lucullus, with extraordinary powers. This speech turned, first, on the comparative merit of the two generals, as it was easy for the Romans to conquer Mithridates, if they had able com manders, desirous of terminating the war. Secondly, on the personal character of Pompey, as likely to be affected by unlimited authority. The facts ascertaining the merits of the two leaders were not difficult to collect, as they were recent in every one's memory. The character of Pompey was well known; and for Cicero's purposes, the chief object was exaggeration. Cicero certainly gives his materials that order and direction which was most likely to procure the recall of Lucullus and the appointment of Pompey. But on perusing the oration pro lege Manilia, and Burke's speech on American taxation, and estimating them by the true criterion of speeches on momentous business, the quantity of important, particular, and general truth, of information and instruction, which they contain, it appears to me that the stores of Burke's mind, as exhibited in this speech, are greater than those of Cicero. If we take all Cicero's speeches and all Burke's, and compare them in the degree of knowledge and wisdom which they convey, I think few would hesi |