remarks upon Homer, and be pardoned for my industry as the annotator in part upon the Iliad, and entirely upon the Odyffey. I will therefore offer a few things upon criticism in general, a study very neceffary, but fallen into contempt through the abuse of it. At the restoration of learning, it was particularly neceffary; authors had been long buried in obfcurity, and confequently had contracted fome ruft through the ignorance and barbarism of preceding ages it was therefore very requifite that they fhould be polished by a critical hand, and restored to their original purity: In this confifts the office of critics; but, inftead of making copies agreeable to the manuscripts, they have long inferted their own conjectures; and from this licence arife most of the various readings, the burthens of modern editions: whereas books are like pictures, they may be new varnished, but not a feature is to be altered; and every stroke that is thus added, destroys in fome degree the resemblance ; and the original is no longer an Homer or a Virgil, but a mere ideal perfon, the creature of the editor's fancy. Whoever deviates from this rule, does not correct, but corrupt his author: and therefore fince most books worth reading have now good impreffions, it is a folly to devote too much time to this branch of criticism; it is ridiculous to make it the fupreme business of life to repair the ruins of a de ́ayed word, to trouble the world with vain niceties about a letter, or a fyllable, or the tranfpofition of a phrafe, when the prefent reading is fufficiently intelligible. Thefe learned triflers are meré weeders weeders of an author; they collect the weeds for their own ufe, and permit others to gather the herbs and flowers : it would be of more advantage to mankind, when once an author is faithfully published, to turn our thoughts from the words to the fentiments, and make them more easy and intelligible. A kill in verbal criticism is in reality but a skill in gueffing, and confequently he is the best critic who gueffes beft: a mighty attainment! And yet with what pomp is a trivial alteration ushered into the world! Such writers are like Caligula, who raised a mighty army, and alarmed the whole world, and then led it to gather cockle-fhells. In short, the question is not what the author might have faid, but what he has actually faid; it is not whether a different word will agree with the fenfe, and turn of the period, but whether it was used by the author; if it was, it has a good title ftill to maintain its post, and the authority of the manufcript ought to be followed rather than the fancy of the editor: for can a modern be a better judge of the language of the pureft of the antients, than those antients who wrote it in the greateft purity? or if he could, was ever any author fo happy, as always to choose the moft proper word? Experience fhews the impoffibility. Besides, of what use is verbal criticifin when once we have a faithful edition? It embarraffes the reader instead of giving new light, and hinders his proficiency by engroffing his time, and calling off the attention from the author to the editor: it encreafes the expence of books, and makes us pay an high price for trifles, and often for abfurdities. I will only add, with Of partial : Sir Henry Saville, that various lections are now grown fo voluminous, that we begin to value the first editions of books as moft correct, becaufe leaft corrected. There are other critics who think themselves obliged to fee no imperfections in their author: from the moment they undertake his caufe, they look upon him, as a lover upon his mistress, he has no faults, or his very faults improve into beauties this, indeed, is a well-natured error, but fill blameable, because it mifguides the judgment. Such critics act no less erroneously, than a judge who fhould refolve to acquit a person, whether innocent or guilty, who comes before him upon his trial. It is frequent for the partial critic to praise the work as he likes the author; he admires a book as an antiquary a medal, folely from the impreffion of the name, and not from the intrinfic value: the copper of a favourite writer fhall be more esteemed than the finest gold of a lefs acceptable author: for this reafon many perfons have chofen to publish their works without a name, and by this method, like Apelles, who ftood unfeen behind his own Venus, have received a praise, which perhaps might have been denied if the author had been visible. cious cri But there are other critics who act a contrary part, and condemn all as criminals whom they try: Of envious they dwell only on the faults of an author, and maliand endeavour to raife a reputation by dif praifing every thing that other men praise ; they have an antipathy to a fhining character, like fome animals, that hate the fun only because of its bright tics. brightness: it is a crime with them to excel; they are a kind of Tartars in learning, who feeing a perfon of diftinguished qualifications, immediately endeavour to kill him, in hopes to attain juft fo much merit as they destroy in their adversary. I never look into one of these critics but he puts me in mind of a giant in romance: the glory of the giant confifts in the number of the limbs of men whom he has deftroyed; that of the critic in viewing · Disjecti membra Poetæ.” HOR. If ever he accidentally deviates into praife, he does it that his enfuing blame may fall with the greater weight; he adorns an author with a few flowers, as the antients thofe victims which they were ready to facrifice: he ftudies criticifm as if it extended only to difpraise; a practice, which, when moft fuccefsful, is leaft defirable. A painter might juftly be thought to have a perverse imagination, who fhould delight only to draw the deformities and distortions of human nature, which, when executed by the most masterly hand, ftrike the beholder with most horror. It is ufual with envious critics to attack the writings of others, because they are good; they conftantly prey upon the fairest fruits, and hope to fpread their own works by uniting them to thofe of their adverfary. But this is like Mezentius in Virgil, to join a dead carcass to a living body; and the only effect of it, to fill every well-natured mind with detestation: their malice becomes impotent, and, contrary, to their defign, they give a teftimony of their enemy's 5 merit, merit, and fhew him to be an hero by turning all their weapons against him fuch critics are like dead coals, they may blacken, but cannot burn. Thefe writers bring to my memory a paffage in the Iliad, where all' the inferior powers, the Plebs Superùm, or rabble of the fky, are fancied to unite their endeavours to pull Jupiter down to the earth: but by the attempt they only betray their own inability; Jupiter is ftill Jupiter, and by their unavailing efforts they manifeft his fuperiority. Modesty is effential to true criticism: no man has a title to be a dictator in knowledge, and the sense of our own infirmities ought to teach us to treat others with humanity. The envious critic ought to confider, that if the authors be dead whom he cenfures, it is inhumanity to trample upon their afhes with infolence; that it is cruelty to fummon, implead, and condemn them with rigour and animofity, when they are not in a capacity to answer his unjust allegations: If the authors be alive, the common laws of fociety oblige us not to commit any outrage against another's reputation; we ought modeftly to convince, not injuriously infult; and contend for truth, not victory: and yet the envious critic is like the tyrants of old, who thought it not enough to conquer, unless their enemies were made a public fpectacle, and dragged in triumph at their chariot-wheels but what is fuch a triumph but a barbarous infult over the calamities of their fellowcreatures? The noise of a day, purchased with the mifery of nations? However, I would not be thought to |