many cantos. There are even two or three very pleasing specimens of the comic style, for which, however, Schiller had in general but little taste. All these pieces are known by heart through the whole educated portion of the German nation, and if their author had never written any thing else, would have given him a lasting rank among the greatest poets that have ever lived. One of the least attractive to us of the minor poems, is the Walk, an Elegy, which the author himself mentions, in one of his letters above quoted, as among the very best of all his productions. The versification of this piece is imitated from the antique Hexameter and Pentameter, which to our taste has but little charm for the ear, even in German, where it succeeds better than in other modern languages.

The literary activity of Schiller continued undiminished up to the time of his death, which happened at Weimar, on the ninth of May 1805, after a short illness, at the age of five and forty. Occurring in the full maturity of his intellectual powers, and when his countrymen expected so much pleasure from their farther exercise, it excited a strong sensation through the whole of Germany. The theatre at Weimar was closed upon this occasion, and was reopened after a while by a representation of the Maid of Orleans, accompanied by a solemn funeral ceremony in honor of the author. The anniversary of his death has been observed ever since at the same place by a repetition of his tragedy of Wallenstein. He left a widow and five children. The following particulars are given by the biographer respecting his manners, person, and character:

Schiller was tall and thin, though naturally of a powerful make. The activity of his mind had evidently checked the full development of his body. His face was pale, the expression of his eye mild and gentle; his forehead high and open; his cheeks hollow; his chin a little projecting, and his hair reddish. His exterior was not very attractive. In walking, his looks were always bent downwards; and he often passed his acquaintance without recognizing them, but when he perceived them, he greeted them with great kindness. In large companies, and especially at court, his manner was reserved and anxious. In the family circle, or among a few intimate friends, he was easy, cheerful, and talkative. He took particular pleasure in a literary society, which was formed at Weimar after he went to reside there, and of which Goethe was one of the principal members. His disposition was eminently kind and friendly, and he felt for others as

warmly as for himself; often declaring, that he had no other wish than to see every body happy and contented.

'He was not fond of public and noisy amusements, and frequented no places of general resort, except the theatre; to which he was naturally much attached. He also took delight in instructing the actors. The rehearsals of the new pieces were regularly held either at his house or Goethe's; and this circumstance often had a favorable influence on the talent of the players. Schiller's notions were very high in regard to good acting, and it was rather difficult to satisfy him. After the successful representation of any of his later dramatic works, he commonly gave an entertainment to the actors at the town-house, which passed off very pleasantly with songs, improvisations, and all sorts of gaiety."

Having offered in the course of this article such critical remarks as had occurred to us upon the writings of Schiller, it will not be necessary to dwell any longer upon his poetical character. It is much to his honor, that all his writings are distinguished by a pure morality, and an elevated tone of thought and feeling. In making this remark, we mean, of course, to except the Robbers, for reasons, which we haye already explained at length. Though not, strictly speaking, licentious, the moral of this play is certainly exceptionable.The rest of his works, whether in prose or verse, are uniformly fitted to encourage the noblest and most amiable sentiments. Few poets of any country, who have flourished at advanced periods in the progress of civilization, deserve this praise to the same extent. His two great contemporaries, Goethe and Wieland, for example, are by no means so pure as Schiller, though the tendency of their works is, in general, far from being absolutely vicious. In the infancy of letters and society, poetry speaks the language of the gods; but as luxury increases, it is too apt to leave its lofty heights and to dwell in preference on frivolous or sensual subjects. The most esteemed modern poets of England and France furnish many examples of the truth of this remark. It is therefore a great happiness for a nation, when a writer like Schiller, whose talents secure him an unbounded popularity and influence, has the grace to exert them uniformly in the great cause of virtue and human happiness. No compensation in the power of subjects or sovereigns to bestow can be too great for such deserts :

'Quæ tibi, quæ tali reddam pro carmine dona?'

We may say with safety, that the patent of nobility in the de

gree of baron, which the grand duke of Weimar wrought out, as the biographer expresses it, auswirkte, for Schiller, of his own mere motion, was not an extravagant reward, though intended doubtless as a high distinction.

ART. XXVI.-Römische Geschichte, von B. G. Niebuhr.Roman History, by B. G. Niebuhr. 2 vols. 8vo, with two maps. Berlin, 1811 and 1812.

We have several times, in the course of the last two or three years, made a passing allusion to this work; and propose at present to lay a short account of it before our readers. No full notice of it, that we know of, has been as yet submitted to the English or American public; and few publications afford more cause for reflection on the serious obstacles presented to the progress of knowledge, by the multiplicity of languages. The existence of four or five cultivated tongues, some of them radically different from each other, seems really, at times, to counterbalance all the facilities for communication, which the art of printing affords; and amidst all the improvements and triumphs of learning in modern days, it is humiliating to see so little concert subsisting between the minds of different nations, that the most important discoveries in literature may be made and acknowledged in one country, and remain unknown in another, separated perhaps only by a chain of mountains, a river, or a channel.

That this remark applies with great justice to the Roman history of Mr von Niebuhr, is true by general confession. Though it may sound like pedantry to talk of discoveries at this time of day, in such a department of study as Roman history; yet it is notwithstanding extremely analogous to the progress of the human mind in all other branches of investigation, that certain gross popular views, without probability and without foundation, should nevertheless from various causes acquire a general reception, and that their detection when made be entitled to the name of a discovery. This is the case of Mr Niebuhr's work on Roman history. Though not certainly the first author to call in question some of the popular errors in respect to this subject, he is the first who has pushed the test of a philosophical examination to its full extent; and the first also, whose learning and talents have given authority to specu

lations, which before his time were apt to be rejected as the vagaries of literary scepticism. For what had been done before Mr von Niebuhr in this way, and for a general hint at the value of what he has himself accomplished, we may quote a few sentences from the article on the early history of Rome, in the fifty-fourth number of the Quarterly Review :

6 All, however, have not evinced the same degree of historic faith; some have openly revolted against these absurdities of tradition, and have expressed their scepticism in bold and decisive language. The question was discussed with vigor and even with acrimony, in the French Academy, about a century ago, and the chief combatants of the opposite parties, M. de Pouilly and the Abbé Sallier, in that arena, attacked and defended the authority of Dionysius, of Livy, and their followers. Amongst the late sceptics, M. Beaufort is perhaps the most able. In his dissertation on the uncertainty of the early Roman history, he skilfully combats the accounts, which have been transmitted to us, and arrives at a conclusion, which may perhaps startle our prejudices not a little, that nothing is more uncertain, than what we have received as the history of the first ages of Rome. M. Levesque, in his Histoire critique de la République Romaine, has also evinced a very reasonable degree of scepticism on this point.'

The subject has, however, been examined with the greatest accuracy by the literati of Germany. In that country several works have been published upon the historic period under our immediate consideration, which have attracted great and deserved attention. The most remarkable of these writers, for extent of learning and depth of reflection, is M. de Niebuhr, whose Roman history, though written in a style somewhat obscure, is likely, when generally known, to produce a great effect upon the reading and thinking part of the European community. His example has been, in part, followed, and his ideas developed by M. Wachsmuth, a professor at Halle, whose work displays much research and ingenuity.'

"We have thought it necessary to make these preliminary remarks, because we are persuaded, that the subject has not yet received that attention from the English reader, to which it is entitled. The works of de Niebuhr and Wachsmuth have hardly been mentioned in this country; and we can venture to affirm, that not half a dozen persons have read them; and almost as few entertain any scepticism on those points, the credibility of which is called in question. The tales instilled into us at school are retained and believed in manhood; and the rape of the Sabines, the combat of the Horatii, and the self-devotion of Curtius are as

little doubted as the landing of William the Conqueror, or the signing of the Great Charter.'

We have been led to make this extract, as a preparation for our own remarks on Mr von Niebuhr's work. Though it is on the reading and thinking part of the European community' only, that our brethren of the Quarterly anticipate a powerful effect from the perusal of his history, we hope it will not seem intrusive in an American journalist to review it; the rather, since-if this writer be correct in stating, that not half a dozen persons have read it in Great Britain-we feel pretty confident, that it has been as extensively read in this country as in England. We mention not this to the comparative credit of our own country, but as the misfortune, not to say disgrace, of both, that a work of such transcendent merit should have been for ten years published in a kindred tongue, and be yet so little known.

Mr von Niebuhr, who has received the title of Baron from the king of Prussia, is the nephew of the celebrated traveller in the east, of the same name. We have been informed, that the baron in early life was a clerk in the bank of Copenhagen, in which capacity he gave a proof of the almost miraculous power of his memory, by restoring, from recollection alone, the whole contents of a leaf in the bank ledger, which by accident or fraud had been lost. He was afterwards made a professor in the university at Berlin, and the work before us had its origin in the lectures, which he there delivered. Four years after the publication of these two volumes, which are all that has yet appeared, he was appointed by the king of Prussia resident minister at Rome, for the purpose of enabling him to pursue his studies in Roman history, to greater advantage, among the ruins of the ancient Roman capital. It was among these ruins, that Gibbon informs us he was himself inspired with the idea of writing the history of the decline and fall of the Roman empire. The mission of Mr von Niebuhr for an object like this, is one of the many judicious acts of literary patronage, which do honor to the present king of Prussia, and will entitle him to the charity of after ages, when the royal congresses and holy alliances, of which he is a member, will be forgotten, or remembered with disgust. On his way to Italy, in a visit of only two days at Verona, Mr von Niebuhr made the brilliant discovery of the rewritten manuscript of the institutions