e decline of the art than
of the greatness of the Roman empire in the time of Diocletian. If such
was indeed the state of architecture, we must naturally believe that
painting and sculpture had experienced a still more sensible decay.
The practice of architecture is directed by a few general and even
mechanical rules. But sculpture, and above all, painting, propose to
themselves the imitation not only of the forms of nature, but of the
characters and passions of the human soul. In those sublime arts, the
dexterity of the hand is of little avail, unless it is animated by
fancy, and guided by the most correct taste and observation.

It is almost unnecessary to remark, that the civil distractions of the
empire, the license of the soldiers, the inroads of the barbarians, and
the progress of despotism, had proved very unfavorable to genius, and
even to learning. The succession of Illyrian princes restored the
empire without restoring the sciences. Their military education was not
calculated to inspire them with the love of letters; and even the mind
of Diocletian, however active and capacious in business, was totally
uninformed by study or speculation. The professions of law and physic
are of such common use and certain profit, that they will always secure
a sufficient number of practitioners, endowed with a reasonable degree
of abilities and knowledge; but it does not appear that the students in
those two faculties appeal to any celebrated masters who have flourished
within that period. The voice of poetry was silent. History was reduced
to dry and confused abridgments, alike destitute of amusement and
instruction. A languid and affected eloquence was still retained in
the pay and service of the emperors, who encouraged not any arts except
those which contributed to the gratification of their pride, or the
defence of their power.

The declining age of learning and of mankind is marked, however, by the
rise and rapid progress of the new Platonists. The school of Alexandria
silenced those of Athens; and the ancient sects enrolled themselves
under the banners of the more fashionable teachers, who recommended
their system by the novelty of their method, and the austerity of their
manners. Several of these masters, Ammonius, Plotinus, Amelius, and
Porphyry, were men of profound thought and intense application; but by
mistaking the true object of philosophy, their labors contributed much
less to improve than to corrupt the human