As a critic, he had acuteness, and a fine tact for illustrating his author by brief comments. Daniel Heinsius, a pupil of Joseph Scaliger, was appointed a professor in Leyden, in his twenty-fifth year. He was a man of various learning, historical and philological. His Greek and Latin poems are written in good taste. His son,

Nicholas, who died at the Hague, in 1681, edited Claudian, Ovid, Virgil, and other Latin authors. His Latin and Dutch poems are, also, highly commended. J. F. Gronovius had great merits as a critic and translator. He was professor of eloquence and history at Deventer, till 1685, when he succeeded the elder Heinsius at Leyden. His son, J. Gronovius, was born in 1645, and studied at Oxford and Cambridge. He is now principally known by his immense Thesaurus of Greek Antiquities, and by his fierce disputes with Bochart, Salmasius, and others. Of the remaining philologists of Holland, who lived in the seventeenth century, and in the beginning of the eighteenth, we may name Perizonius, whose work on the Antiquities of Egypt and Babylon has still a popular character; Graevius, before named, a scholar of immense learning, and of unwearied industry; Havercamp, the editor of Josephus; the two Burmanns; J. P. D'Orville; Drakenborch; and Wesseling, the editor of Herodotus.

But the light, that was to outshine all the others that have been named, and who was, in an important sense, the restorer of philology, in Holland, was Hemsterhuys. The influence, which he exerted while living, and the enduring reputation which his works have earned, will justify a somewhat detailed account of his life and character. The materials are chiefly drawn from the elegant eulogy, pronounced soon after his death by his affectionate pupil, Ruhnken.

TIBERIUS HEMSTERHUYS was born at Gröningen, in North Holland, February 1, 1685. His earliest studies

a

were conducted in part by his father, who was a physician, and a man of cultivated taste. He appears to have been one of those precocious children, whom we look upon with fear and trembling, and who, if they survive childhood, not unfrequently sink down into a dull mediocrity. In his fourteenth year, he joined the university of his native city, which was then rendered illustrious by the lectures of John Bernouilli, the prince of mathematicians, and the friend of Leibnitz and Newton. He is said to have confidently predicted the future fame of his young pupil, affirming, that, in mathematical knowledge, he was without a rival in the university. The grateful scholar was wont to say, that Bernouilli had conferred upon him divine gift. After he had spent some years in Gröningen, he went to Leyden, to enjoy the instructions of Perizonius, professor of history, eloquence and Greek. As a proof of the high character, which he had then acquired, it may be mentioned, that the curators of the university assigned him the duty of arranging the manuscripts in the library, which were then in a scattered state. From this mark of distinction, it was generally inferred, that he would succeed the aged Gronovius in the Greek professorship. The place was given, however, to Havercamp, not so much by the will of the public authorities, as by the exertions of some individuals, who feared, that their own light would be eclipsed, if Hemsterhuys should be chosen.

In 1704, and in the nineteenth year of his age, Hemsterhuys went to Amsterdam, as a teacher of mathematics and philosophy in the Athenaeum. Some persons, entering upon a profession of that nature, would have abandoned the pursuit of elegant learning. Hemsterhuys, however, did not confine his attention to his professional studies, but extended his researches over a large field, justly considering, that all the branches of science and literature are connected by a common bond.

Amsterdam was then the residence of several scholars, who became his intimate friends. Among these were Broukhuys, a learned interpreter of the Latin poets, Bergler, and Kuster; Bergler was skilled in ancient philosophy, Kuster, in criticism, and both, in Greek literature. By the influence of Broukhuys, he became deeply interested in the Roman poet, Propertius, while Kuster awakened an enthusiasm for Aristophanes.

About this time an incident occurred, which turned the attention of Hemsterhuys more decidedly to the study of Greek literature. As a new edition of Julius Pollux was soon to be published at Amsterdam, inquiry was made for an editor who would supply certain deficiencies in the work. Application was made to Hemsterhuys, who, on the strong recommendation of Graevius, undertook the labor, and supplied a commentary, betraying marks of juvenility, indeed, but winning the applause of the scholars of Holland. In a short time, he received letters from Richard Bentley, the British Aristarchus, commending the labor bestowed upon Pollux, but containing emendations on the passages from the comic writers, where Pollux endeavored to support his position by examples. In correcting these passages, Hemsterhuys, also, had taken unwearied pains, fully aware, that this was the main point for inquiry. But when he had read the criticisms of Bentley, he at once saw, that his own toil had been thrown away. Excessively mortified, he resolved to abandon Greek literature for ever. For two months he did not touch a book in that language. Subsequent reflection, however, convinced him of the injustice of comparing his juvenile productions with those of a veteran scholar, and he resumed, with wonted cheerfulness, his Greek studies. But Bentley's admonition had such an effect, that he determined, before trusting himself again to this dangerous

precipice, to compass the whole circle of knowledge, and, especially, that he would make no further attempt in respect to the verses of the comic writers, the point where he had been criticised,—until he had obtained a thorough insight into the various kinds of metres employed by the writers in question. As a guide and model in these investigations, he selected his great adviser himself, preferring him to all other critics, and not concealing his displeasure, if any one invidiously carped at the learning of a scholar whom he was able in no manner to rival.

With the design of adding to his stores of learning, he studied, with untiring energy, the ancient writers, beginning with Homer, the fountain of genius. Indeed, he so selected and disposed of his various knowledge, that whatever related to the genius of the two classical languages, to history, to the manners and customs of the people, or to the wisdom of the ancients, was put into a condition for ready use.

The manner which he pursued, of beginning with the earliest writer, and going on chronologically, he was accustomed to recommend with great earnestness to others. Proceeding in this course, we can determine more satisfactorily, not only the age of particular terms, but the significations assigned to single words and forms, an exact observation of which is of great importance in all languages. Again, it is obvious, that there is no happy thought or expression in the writers of antiquity,-whose works we commend as the law and model of accurate thinking and writing, which the ingenuity of later writers has not copied in various ways. Now, the felicity of the imitation cannot be perceived, unless the source whence it is drawn is known. For example, Hemsterhuys had become so familiar with the profound reflections and exquisite style of Thucydides, that he could trace Polybius, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Plutarch,

or other writers, when they attempted to imitate the great historian. It will thus be readily seen, that he was prepared to suggest many and beautiful expositions of the most difficult passages.

In ancient times, as is well known, mathematics and the various branches of philosophy were included in a course of liberal education. Classical usage, in this particular, was followed by the restorers of learning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Soon afterwards, however, the circle of studies was much narrowed, by the exclusion of mathematics and philosophy. The result was, that two parties were formed, who became thoroughly inimical to each other. The student of grammar, history, poetry, and eloquence, looked down with contempt upon him who was plodding with lines and angles, or plunging into the depths of metaphysics. On the other hand, the pursuits of elegant literature found no favor with the disciples of Euclid and Aristotle. Hemsterhuys, as might have been expected, had no sympathy with these narrow prejudices.

The study of geometry tends to withdraw the mind from sensible objects, and fix it upon those which are perceived by reflection. It also renders the intellect acute and discriminating. Who can doubt, but that philologists, if disciplined in this manner, will possess a keener perception, than such as have never drawn a diagram? Those who are acquainted with the writings or conversation of Hemsterhuys, know how much benefit he derived from geometry. Whatever flowed from his lips, whatever he committed to writing, even in matters pertaining to criticism, at once revealed an intellect accustomed to the precise reasoning of exact science. He never laid down his premises incautiously; but, from well-known and admitted principles, he proceeded to state, in an orderly manner, the inevitable inferences.