105 
181],] Modern Genius not inferior to ancient. 
dred works, the moderns, by means of 
the press, have produced ten thousand 
equally usefuJ, and nearly as perfect, 
which have been instrumental in dilFusing 
knowledge among the mass of the peo¬ 
ple, thereby multiplying the percep¬ 
tions of virtue, and the capacity for lite¬ 
rary enjoytnent. 
An apparent objection to this train of 
reasoning is the common observation of 
classical editors, that the transcribers of 
ancient manuscripts constantly deformed 
them by verbal errors.—Do not pritUers, 
however, do the same, as irremediably in 
modern works? Is it not on the other 
hand to be supposed, that many trail- 
scribers had taste enough to point out 
deformities to authors, and, when not 
under the controul of the author, were 
possessed of judgment enough to remove 
errors by their own authority ?—Is it not 
certain that professional transcribers 
would always be preferred, who were 
men of taste, and whose manuscripts 
were consequently the most perfect co¬ 
pies of their author?—Hence, in two 
or tlu-ee centuries after the death of 
an author, though his work might liave 
received five thousand series of liis own 
emendations, it would be likely to re¬ 
ceive ten thousand others pointed out to 
transcribers by persons of approved taste, 
or made by transcribers themselves, 
whose,, success in their profession would 
depend on their approved skill, aijd to 
whom the exercise of taste in §uc4 
matters would be habitual. 
Can we wonder then at the tj^cquired 
perfection, the logical perspicacity, qnd 
the mathematical precision of the favou¬ 
rite or fortunate ancient authors. There 
doubtless existed vital stamina in such 
of their works as have survived to 
our days;-—they merited the attention 
which they received; but that attention 
also led to their progressive improve¬ 
ment, and present perfection. 
A necessary effect of the very oppor¬ 
tunities of making indefinite corrections 
and improvements would in time be, in 
itself, the actual reputation of their 
works. The taste too of transcribers in 
after ?.ges tended to complete the living 
endeavors of the author. Yea, even 
since tliese works have been committed 
to the printing press, nuroerous editors, 
assuming perfection as their proper cha¬ 
racteristic, have‘successively laboured to 
remove any remaining faults in them! 
To such a degree of absurdity and idolatry 
is this spirit of improvement carried, 
that the profound critic, who is so happy 
as to be able to justify the correction of 
a phrase, in Horace, or Virgil, considers 
himself entitled to a niche in the temple 
of Fame, by the side of the original au¬ 
thor ! 
Is it not then cherishing the prejudice 
of childhood to maintain that the ancient 
authors were individually and intrinsi¬ 
cally superior to modern authors?—Is 
it not evident that they have been in¬ 
debted for their reputation to adventi¬ 
tious causes, and not to any exclusive 
perfection inherent, or co-existeni in 
the minds, which originally fabricated 
the w’orks which bear their names? —Is it 
not hereby demonstrated, that the ap¬ 
proximating and analogous works of the 
moderns w'ould equal, or greatly tran¬ 
scend those of the ancients, were they 
multiplied by means which afforded the 
same advantages of constant and inde¬ 
finite correction ? 
What then are the practical deduc- 
,tions which can be usefully and fairly 
made from the preceding premises? 
1. That the Genius of Man has not 
suffered any deterioration since the days 
of Thales, Pythagoras, and Plato. 
2. That the last two hundred years 
will transmit as many classics to* the 
age of the year 3,500, as any two hundred 
ye^rs of the existence of the Greek and 
Roman states have afforded to the pre¬ 
sent age. 
3. That new editions of works of mo¬ 
dern authors, of a certain standard, ought 
to receive from their authors and editors 
free revisions and improvements, in the 
same degree, as ancient works received 
from their authors and transcribers their 
innumerable corrections. 
4. That authors should print small 
numbers of the first edition of their 
works, and solicit the observations of 
their friends preparatory to a" new and 
revised edition. 
5. That authors, who can afford the 
expense, should print a' small number of 
proof copies, and circulate them among 
their friends for their opinions and criti¬ 
cisms, before they issue their work to the 
world. Their literary^ might Ire 
considered less personal, frut it would be 
on a par with that w’hich is conferred 
individually on tlie authors of antiquity, 
and their works would be less exposed 
to the carpings of cotemporary critics 
and to the conceited sneers of pedatrc« 
gues and pedants. Common Sinse* 
July 26, 1811. 
02 
