of all rhetorical manuals ever written in any language, although, as a literary production, it is inferior to the “De Oratore” of Cicero.  It is very practical and sensible, and a complete compendium of every topic likely to be useful in the education of an aspirant for the honors of eloquence.  In systematic arrangement it falls short of a similar work by Aristotle; but it is celebrated for its sound judgment and keen discrimination, showing great reading and reflection.  Quintilian should be viewed as a critic rather than as a rhetorician, since he entered into the merits and defects of the great masters of Greek and Roman literature.  In his peculiar province he has had no superior.  Like Cicero or Demosthenes or Plato or Thucydides or Tacitus, Quintilian would be a great man if he lived in our times, and could proudly challenge the modern world to produce a better teacher than he in the art of public speaking.

There were other classical writers of immense fame, but they do not represent any particular class in the field of literature which can be compared with the modern.  I can only draw attention to Lucian,—­a witty and voluminous Greek author, who lived in the reign of Commodus, and who wrote rhetorical, critical, and biographical works, and even romances which have given hints to modern authors.  His fame rests on his “Dialogues,” intended to ridicule the heathen philosophy and religion, and which show him to have been one of the great masters of ancient satire and mockery.  His style of dialogue—­a combination of Plato and Aristophanes—­is not much used by modern writers, and his peculiar kind of ridicule is reserved now for the stage.  Yet he cannot be called a writer of comedy, like Moliere.  He resembles Rabelais and Swift more than any other modern writers, having their indignant wit, indecent jokes, and pungent sarcasms.  Like Juvenal, Lucian paints the vices and follies of his time, and exposes the hypocrisy that reigns in the high places of fashion and power.  His dialogues have been imitated by Fontanelle and Lord Lyttleton, but these authors do not possess his humor or pungency.  Lucian does not grapple with great truths, but contents himself with ridiculing those who have proclaimed them, and in his cold cynicism depreciates human knowledge and all the great moral teachers of mankind.  He is even shallow and flippant upon Socrates; but he was well read in human nature, and superficially acquainted with all the learning of antiquity.  In wit and sarcasm he may be compared with Voltaire, and his object was the same,—­to demolish and pull down without substituting anything instead.  His scepticism was universal, and extended to religion, to philosophy, and to everything venerated and ancient.  His purity of style was admired by Erasmus, and his works have been translated into most European languages.  In strong contrast to the “Dialogues” of Lucian is the “City of God” by Saint Augustine, in which he demolishes with keener ridicule all the gods of antiquity, but substitutes instead the knowledge of the true God.