1804.) 
mendation in the author’s native State of 
Maffachufetts. The partiality of friends 
and acquaintance for the performance of a 
promifing youth, whofe riper years in all 
probability will do much better, is na- 
tural and common. This poem contains 
fome lines which are not only fmooth and 
harmonious, but may lay claim to the 
higher qualities of fpirit, animation and 
Joftinefs. Others are miferably rough, 
hobbling and profaic. It is to be hoped 
that this fpecimen of youthful and ad- 
venturous compofition is only a prelude 
to fome happier exertion hereafter, which 
may fuftain the author’s flight towards 
the elevated and fublime regions of ge- 
nuine poetry. 
For the Monthly Magazine. 
INTRODUCTION to the sTUDY of AR- 
CHEOLOGY, or the KNOWLEDGE of 
ANTIQUE MONUMENTS.—From the 
FRENCH of A.L. MILLIN, CONSER- 
VATOR of the MUSEUM of ANTIQUI- 
TIES iz PARIS, Gc. Ge. 
RCHEOLOGY is the {cience com- 
; monly known by the name of An- 
tiquities. The latter expreffion is too 
vague, feeing that the knowledge of an- 
tiquities, reduced to a theory, ought, in 
common with ail the other {ciences, to be 
defignated by a particular aud univocal 
name. We ought, therefore, to fay 
archeology, as we fay mineralogy, zoolo- 
gy, phyfiology, &c. 
In archeology is comprehended the ftudy 
of antiquities, or, in other words, that of 
the antique monuments and ancient ufages 
which have been tranfmitted to our time. 
Archeology confifts, therefore, in the 
knowledge of whatever relates to the cuf- 
toms and ufages of the ancients. He 
who is thus accomplifhed is ftiled archeo- 
logift, but more commonly antiquarian. 
The foriner of thefe names is, however, 
more cuftomarily applied to the perfon 
who ftudies the cuftoms and ufages: the 
latter, to him who ftudies the monuments, 
and who is likewife entitled archeographer. 
Ernefti diftinguifhes two kinds of ar- 
cheology, that which is properly fo called, 
and that which is purely literary. By 
archeology properly fo called, he under- 
ftands the knowledge of the manners, 
rites, and ufages; and by literary ar- 
cheology, that which treats of the mo- 
numents, but merely in an’ hiftorical 
point of view, without referring to the 
excellence of the art. The term archeo- 
graphy, employed by Spon, appears to 
me to be preferable to the latter: I, there- 
fore, underftand, by archeology, the ge- 
neral ftudy of antiquities ; and of this 
‘ftudy archeography conititutes a part. 
Introduétion to the Study of Archeolory. 1 
Pleafure and Utility of Archeohegy. 
The definition which has ju(t been efta- 
blithed fuffiices to point out the impor- 
tance and extenfivenefs of archeology, 
which, as it treats of man both in his: 
public and privare life, may be confidered 
as the moft intere‘ting’ part of hiftory. 
The ancients themfelves were fenfible 
of the utility of, and acquainted with the 
intereft attached to, refearches having 
antiquities for their obje&t. The works 
of the philofophers, hiftorians, and poets, 
con{tantly abound with traits and allufions 
relative to the nations which were ancients 
to them. The writings of Homer, Hero- 
dotus, Plutarch, Pliny, and Athenzus, 
are replete with details of the cuftoms, 
ufages, and monuments, of the nations 
by which they were preceded. This is 
precifely what renders the perufal of their 
productions fo amufing and inftruétive. 
Archeology is abfolutely neceflary to 
thofe who wifh to acquire a competent 
knowledge of lettess and of the arts. 
Several authors have written on the dif- 
fercnt parts of this fcience ; but few of 
them have undertaken to point out its uti- 
lity. 
Tt is true that Klots has publifhed, in 
the German language, a fmall trearife on 
the ftudy of antiquities, which, from the 
celebrity of its author, it was to be pre- 
fumed, would be of fome utility in ap- 
preciating the charms and advantages of 
this fcience. It is, however, filled with 
common-place phrafes, which are far 
from attaining the aim ir profeffes to have 
in view. Notwithftanding the defects of 
this treatife, its author adduces feveral 
ftrong arguments to confute thofe: who 
conlider the dcience of an iquities as a 
futile acquirement. He thows that this 
opinion is the offspring of ignorance and 
pride; and likewife demonftrates that its 
origin may be traced to thoie who, being 
in other refpects very well informed, 
give themfelves ‘out as connoifleurs in 
antiquities, without being in reality foy 
from a miftaken idea that tafte muft’ be 
conftantly accompanied by eruditicn. He 
concludes by feveral confiderations on the 
utility of the {cience itfelf; and fhows 
that, to be accomplifhed even in the 
fcience of legiflation, a knowledge of 
antiquity is neceflary. 
With the exception of a finall treatife, 
by Birnbaum, on the Nature and Ufe of 
the Study of Antiquities, the above is the 
only work with which I am acquainted, 
that treats of the delight and fatist+Ction 
refulting from the fcience in queftion, 
together with the necefliry of having a 
competent knowledge of archeology, anp 
the amufement it affords. 
