1799.] De Sales Philofophical Sketch of the Pragrefs of Literature. 703 
and fecondary part in the philofophic 
work, whofe plan I trace? Each object, 
little or great, does it not contribute to 
the general harmony of the whole, if its 
fituation is properly cifpofed of, and its 
proportions natural? 
I grant there are fome immenfe plans 
which feem to exclude the unton I contend 
for. Bayle, for example, the philofopher, 
both from his genius and perfeverance beft 
calculated to undertake the hiftory of di- 
terature and literary men, in extending his 
Lives to four enormous volumes 7 folio, 
has been prevented, by his plan, from 
combining with his feparate details a wide 
and connected view of the whele. This 
general view, fpringing naturally from 
its conftituent parts, ought to be dif- 
tinguifhed by its precifion; it is a focus 
of rays, which loles its activity in pro- 
portion as the fphere of its infuence is 
extended. Befides, what unity can there 
‘be in the work of Bayle, if his lives of 
celebrated and ob(cure charaéters form four 
Solio volumes, and the general philofophi- 
‘cal furvey, defigned to forma key to the 
whole colleGlion, fhould find itfelf reduced 
to the extent only of thirty pages? 
But let us reduce to juft propertion the 
coloflus, more dazzling in appearance than 
valuable in reality, of this famous diéti 
onary, and the problem will be eafily 
folved. It may be made to appear, that 
Bayle himfelf had the temerity to fupprefs 
articles of geography and other circum. 
ttances which did nor immediately anfwer 
his puypofe; that he paffed over a crowd 
of theologians, or at leaft jumbled their 
obfcure names together with a carelefs 
hand ; that he fpoiled thefimplicity of his.text 
by the oftentatious erudition of his netes, 
.and fo far reduced the edifice, that its 
foundations feemed to want afuperftructure. 
The confirmation of the fyftem I pro- 
pofe, refults from thefe obfervations, that 
a philofophicad difplay of literature cannot 
exift without a feries of generating ideas, 
whicly may vivify the detached hiftories of 
literary men; and that it is net impoffible 
to give to all parts of this grand work 
the proportions of nature, which never 
fuffers the general effeét of the whole to 
be injured by the too great prominency of 
the component parts. 
Now the foundations are laid, you may 
fee at what period of hiltory the epocha 
fhould commence, which unites the gene- 
ral furvey of literature with the indivi- 
dual portraits of literary men. 
The-philoforhical obferver may remark 
three ages, very diftin& in the political 
exiftence of civilized nations: that of mo- 
rality, which marks youth ; that of laws, 
which announces maturity; and that of 
luxury, which is the forerunner of decay. 
The empire of knowledge, like the focial 
empire, has alfo three diftin&t epochas: 
there is anage of erudition, which betokens 
youth; an age of tafte, declaratory of — 
mature perfection; and an age of philofophy, 
which, by degenerating into luxury, falls 
to decay. 
It only feems given to a few individuals 
to appear with fplendor, either in the politi- 
cal world, or that of letters ; and to thofe 
principally, by. whofe genius thefe three 
eras have been effected. 
European literature feems at this mo-~- 
‘ment to have arrivedat the third age., To 
fee the dependency of this epocha on the 
two preceding ones, it is neceflary to af- 
cend as high as the moft adventurous phi- 
-lofophy will permit; to endeavour to 
feize, in the clair obfcur of the, picture, 
that Jine half diffolved in fhade, which fe- 
parates the as rays of the Au- 
guftan age from the long twilight which 
preceded the times of Michael Angelo and 
Raphael. 
After long meditation, for fear of error 
in the beginning of my refearches, it ap- 
peared, that reafon and fact pointed out 
the clofe of the Auguftan age, about the 
end of the reign of Marcus Aurelius., 
The reign of that man, who could 
place the fovereignty in the laws, and oc- 
cupy himfelf, for twenty years, in throw- 
ing a veil over the defpotifm of the firft 
Crefars, and above al! over the crimes of 
republican Rome, is worthy to form an 
epocha in the annals of politics, and muft 
undoubtedly yield fome faint rays to gild 
the horizon of literaturee I fhall not 
fpeak here of Aulus Gellius, who has 
eiven celebrity to the Attic Nights, a work 
filled with paltry hiftoric faéts, and 
garbled grammatical difcuffions ; neither 
of Athenzus, who, in the courfe of his 
five books of Dezpuofphiftes, informs pof- 
terity only how the Romans contrived to 
make a bad repaft at a creat expence : 
but the tutelary reigns of the Antonini, 
written by more diftinguifhed names, are 
thofe works which reflect the departing 
fplendor of the Auguftan age. 
Of this number was Apuleius, the fa- 
mous hiftorian of the Golden Afs, from 
whom Raphael and Fontaine have taken 
their Loves of Pfyché; Celfus, one of the 
cracles of medicine; and Maximus of 
Tyre, whofe philofophical differtations 
conitituted him preceptor to Marcus Aus 
relius. 
But above thefe pofterity has always 
extolled’ Lucian, who ridiculed with 
the beft philofophic good-nature all the 
AX2z {uper- 



