own blunders, mistakes the fense of those he would confute, or, if he chances to think right, does not know how to convey his thoughts to another with clearness and perfpicuity. Aristotle, who was the beft critick, was alfo one of the best logicians, that ever appeared in the world.

Mr. Locke's Essay on Human Understanding would be thought a very odd book for a man to make himself mafter of, who would get a reputation by critical writings; though at the same time it is very certain that an author, who has not learned the art of distinguishing between words and things, and of ranging his thoughts and setting them in proper lights, whatever notions he may have, will lofe himself in confufion and obfcurity. I might further observe that there is not a Greek or Latin critick, who has not shown, even in the ftyle of his criticifms, that he was a master of all the elegance and delicacy of his native tongue.

The truth of it is, there is nothing more abfurd, than for a man to fet up for a critick, without a good infight into all the parts of learning; whereas many of thofe, who have endeavoured to fignalize themselves, by works of this nature, among our English writers, are not only defective in the above-mentioned particulars, but plainly discover, by the phrases which they make use of, and by their confused way of

thinking, that they are not acquainted with the most common and ordinary fyftems of arts and sciences. A few general rules, extracted out of the French authors, with a certain cant of words, have fometimes fet up an illiterate heavy writer for a moft judicious and formidable critick.

One great mark, by which you may difcover a critick who has neither taste nor learning, is this, that he feldom ventures to praise any pasfage in an author which has not been before received and applauded by the publick, and that his criticism turns wholly upon little faults and errours. This part of a critick is so very easy to fucceed in, that we find every ordinary reader, upon the publishing of a new poem, has wit and ill-nature enough to turn feveral paffages of it into ridicule, and very often in the right place. This Mr. Dryden has very agreeably remarked in those two celebrated lines;

"Errours, like ftraws, upon the surface flow;

"He, who would fearch for pearls, muft dive below."

A true critick ought to dwell rather upon excellencies than imperfections, to discover the concealed beauties of a writer, and communicate to the world fuch things as are worth their obfervation. The most exquifite words, and finest ftrokes, of an author are those, which very often

appear the most doubtful and exceptionable to a man who wants a relish for polite learning; and they are these, which a four undistinguishing critick generally attacks with the greatest violence. Tully obferves, that it is very easy to brand or fix a mark upon what he calls verbum ardens, or, as it may be rendered into English,

66

a glowing bold expreffion," and to turn it into ridicule by a cold ill-natured criticism. A little wit is equally capable of expofing a beauty, and of aggravating a fault; and, though such a treatment of an author naturally produces indignation in the mind of an understanding reader, it has however its effect among the generality of those whofe hands it falls into; the rabble of mankind being very apt to think, that every thing which is laughed at, with any mixture of wit, is ridiculous in itself.

Such a mirth as this is always unseasonable in a critick, as it rather prejudices the reader than convinces him; and is capable of making a beauty, as well as a blemish, the subject of derifion. A man, who cannot write with wit on a proper fubject, is dull and ftupid; but one, who shows it in an improper place, is as impertinent and abfurd. Befides, a man, who has the gift of ridicule, is apt to find fault with any thing that gives him an opportunity of exerting his beloved talent; and very often cenfures a

paffage, not because there is any fault in it, but because he can be merry upon it. Such kinds of pleasantry are very unfair and difingenuous in works of criticism, in which the greatest masters, both ancient and modern, have always appeared with a serious and instructive air.

;

As I intend to fhow the defects in the Paradife Loft, I thought fit to premise these few particulars, to the end that the reader may know I enter upon it, as on a very ungrateful work and that I shall just point at the imperfections, without endeavouring to inflame them with ridicule. I must also observe with Longinus, that the productions of a great genius, with many lapfes and inadvertencies, are infinitely preferable to the works of an inferiour kind of author, which are fcrupulously exact, and conformable to all the rules of correct writing.

I fhall add, to this obfervation, a story out of Boccalini, which fufficiently shows us the opinion that judicious author entertained of the fort of criticks I have been here mentioning. "A famous critick," fays he, " having ga thered together all the faults of an eminent poet, made a prefent of them to Apollo, who received them very graciously, and refolved to make the author a fuitable return for the trouble he had been at in collecting them. In order to this, he fet before him a fack of wheat, as it had been

just threshed out of the sheaf. He then bid him pick out the chaff from among the corn, and lay it afide by itself. The critick applied himself to the task with great industry and pleasure, and, after having made the due feparation, was prefented by Apollo with the chaff for his pains."

I fhall now remark the feveral defects which appear in the FABLE, the CHARACTERS, the SENTIMENTS, and the LANGUAGE, of Paradife Loft; not doubting but the reader will pardon me, if I allege at the fame time whatever may be faid for the extenuation of fuch defects.

The first imperfection which I fhall obferve in the fable is, that the event of it is unhappy.

The fable of every poem is, according to Ariftotle's divifion, either fimple or implex. It is called fimple, when there is no change of fortune in it; implex, when the fortune of the chief actor changes from bad to good, or from good to bad. The implex fable is thought the most perfect; I suppose, because it is more proper to ftir up the paffions of the reader, and to surprise him with a greater variety of accidents.

;

The implex fable is therefore of two kinds in the first, the chief actor makes his way through a long feries of dangers and difficulties, until he arrives at honour and profperity, as we see in the stories of Ulyffes and Æneas. In the fecond, the chief actor in the poem falls, from fome