D'ALEMBEKT. 473 



It is another proof of defective taste that he admires 

 Tacitus beyond all the writers of antiquity, which critics 

 of a much less severe taste than D'Alembert have not 

 been tasteless enough to do. "Prejuge de traducteur a 

 part (says he) comme il est sans comparaison le plus 

 grand historien de 1'antiquite, il est aussi celui dont il y a 

 la plus a recueiller." He goes on to speak of the "various 

 kinds of beauty of which this incomparable writer gives 

 the model," and after mentioning "the energy of his 

 descriptions of men, and the pathos of his narrative of 

 events," ends with this astounding assertion, "qu'il 

 possede dans un si haut degre la veritable eloquence, le 

 talent de dire sirnplement de grandes choses." (CEuv. vii., 

 23.) I own that when I first read this passage I looked 

 to see if there might not have been omitted, by an error 

 of the press, the words "quoique" and "ne pas." It is 

 hardly credible that any one should have singled out 

 for commendation in Tacitus the very quality which he 

 notoriously possesses not. We find the same enthusiastic 

 admiration breaking out in his correspondence: "Quel 

 homme que ce Tacite!" (Cor. Part., (Euv. xiv., 332.) We 

 find him, too, consoling his afflictions in the writings of 

 that historian, whom he quotes in both the letters 

 addressed to Diderot on Mde. Geoffrin's death. (Cor. 

 Part., (Euv. xiv., 251, 261.) 



But it is not only from defective taste and insufficient 

 knowledge, that D'Alembert's literary works fall so im- 

 measurably below his scientific. They are, in general, 

 extremely slight and superficial. His capacity of deep 

 thought nowhere appears. There is sufficient calmness 

 in the tone of the remarks; the discussions, when he 

 does discuss, are conducted with commendable imparti- 



