below I could not find, to fee one of the angels I defcribed, in all his intended grace and glory, as refembling Maia's fon, which is, I think, MerAnd does no one's fenfitive plant of tafte even shrink and fhudder at the touch? What! a real divinity coupled to, exalted by, a pagan and poor imaginary one!

cury.

But in another point of view, has no one, especially of one fort of men, felt, and made, objection; I mean no less than in the frightful article of blafphemy? A fpeech from God, a fpeech in converfation with God;-a speech from Chrift, a speech from the devil? What if I asked the fuppofed effect of all this, tranflated in Perfia, China, &c? Does nothing of the "Incredulus odi" come in here? One might go on much farther with this, but it would draw to too great length.

In faying this, no one will furely arraign me as a traducer of Milton as a poet; yes, I can even believe (fee back what I know and have told of my fellows) that fome may, however confounding thereby every idea of consistency, and every fentiment of nature. No, Milton I respect very much as a poet, without ever having much read him; but what I have seen or heard of his Allegro and Penferofo, his Comus, &c. &c. to me prove him thus refpectable. Whether in Pope or any other, I may allowably have strong objection to fome particular paffages, approving in general; in Milton, I have objection to a particular I will name, exclufive of all the above, to me defects of choice; yes, and even while that particular part I object to is given forth as a striking beauty, and again by that great critical authority Addison; still regardless of names and authority. Let my reader here be informed, that I cannot find my paffage of Milton I allude to; and perhaps no great harm, fince it would ftill delay that conclufion I am writing fo hard to obtain, my printer now waiting only for this my Postscript for our deliverance.

Suffice it then to say, that the paffage was where the fign Libra was introduced, and compared with God's compaffes, and to my taste and judgment,

as

as far as I recollect, in general, even with the highest abfurdity. This many years ago I had occafion to particularize in writing, and to fhew it to a man of quality ftill alive, and a very good judge of literature, and he completely agreed to my objections; I remember them not now at all exactly, but fo far I remember, that the ideal and nominal Libra, or compaffes, of the Zodiac are brought as comparative to real compaffes of God himself, wherewith to weigh I forget what imaginary thing belonging to metaphor: reality, and name or fancy, (nay fure and quibble, for is the fign Libra more like scales than a perriwig?) all jumbled together in fo prepofterous a manner (must not any manner be fuch) as could become Bedlam alone; and this Addifon extols to the sky. The curious reader may perhaps find or know the paffage, and then judge for himself more particularly than I can hereby give him to do. When too, and where, may it not be fuperadded, was the very name or idea of Libra at all introduced to our knowledge?

I stoop, or pretend to stoop, may it not be faid, to great game; and what petty hawker may not do it to small game? But metaphor apart, Is it not, I had almost faid, a national concern not to give its feal and fanction of approbation to objects undeserving of them? And might not even the whole literature of the nation fuffer revision: for where does not authority and false taste creep in? Often I confess it, as I have been reading things of high general estimation, have even my poor fingers itched in a manner may, however, be a little guessed at by my present inspectors. But is it not manhood and nature's concern not to fix our opinions and tastes on other people's judgments instead of our own, which can alone command them? What I offer in criticism of Pope, &c. is my own at least, fubmitting it with every humility to that of every body's elfe, and only defiring the fame freedom I grant to all around me.

Too long furely has Pope reigned as a philofopher and didactic writer. If I have thought him even most completely the contrary, I have at least given my reafons for it all through, and fhould have had many more to offer had I pursued my plan of verfification. This I will own, that as I

have gone on in the examination, I have aftonished my own felf, fo far as even from the very quantity and fort of error and contradictions, and futility I have fallen upon, to doubt fomewhat of my representation of them; fince furely (have I faid to myfelf) all the world cannot have overlooked all this fo long, nay, have applauded it! Have I not then, myself, (has my foliloquy continued) overlooked and mistook no where, where I am not aware of it? Certainly I have, and can have, no intereft in finding defects in Mr. Pope, or any one elfe; and fhould this work happen to gain confequence enough to be taken notice of in reviews, or elfew here, even my curiofity will be gratified in feeing things in favour of Mr. Pope from any of his prefent friends or admirers, which I now do not fee or know any thing of. I mean, however, in reprefentation, not of friendship, habit, and so on, but of truth.

Defective to no small degree, I think, his Effay muft at all events remain ; and confequently the above related astonishment impoffible to be quite done away. I have really reflected a good deal upon it, and on the footing of, and in conjunction with, whatever may have been faid or thought of, either by Mr. Pope or myself, through the paft pages, relative to his, and in confequence my own fubject,

the fudy of Mankind is Man."

If I am at all right in what I fay, both of Mr. Pope and his judges, of fo many years back, I would really ask if it flings no new light on that subject, MAN? To me it has, I must own, done fo, and I will beg leave to stop at this place longer than I had hoped to do in this my P. S. I fo ardently with to fee an end of, tired, fatigued, as my mind is, in truth, with my subje&t;' then how much more with the ungenial drudgery I am at once fo unfit for, and fo neceffitated to undergo, I mean in refpect to the mechanifm of putting letters, fyllables, fentences, flops, &c. &c. right in the printing them; all lying heavily on my own fhoulders. And fay, all you, with accumulated rays of genius, to him who may perhaps have caught here and there one, the ill luck, on fuch occafion, to have done fo.

But

But what I allude to is fo very material to the grand fubject and object of confideration propofed by Mr. Pope, viz. "The study of Mankind is Man," and confequently the definition, knowledge, afcertainment of his nature, as far as we can gain it; (a thing really and truly, perhaps, ridiculous to think of, as fo much too liable to Shakespeare's query, "Tell me, Brutus, can you fee your face.") As, I fay, this is fo material, (to our fancy at least) I am very defirous to fay a word or two in regard to a characteristic part of man indeed, I mean whether he is properly to be confidered a rational or inflinctive creature. It may have been obferved I have harped not a little on this already, tho' not very diftinctively, nay, have brought inftances, particularly where Hope is concerned, to fhew him manifeftly the latter. Yet I have too, in another article, brought inflint and reafon together, drawing the line between them, defining each, and fhewing demonftratively their dif ferent characteristics and natures; I mean where, in oppofition to my friend Prior's authority, I refufe reafon to the creatures as an actuating principle, and give it to man, as is there seen.

How then is this? Is there no contradiction in it? Let me in this confideration offer this query; If reafon be an actuating principle in us, can it be fo at one time and not at another? And ftill more, add this query; Can it ever (I fay ever) refuse its affent to a queftion or propofition laid before it, which is one of demonstration to its poffeffor's own understanding and fenses? I fay his own; for that is very material, fince a thing ever so certain, ever fo clear per fe, if not the fame to me, can never be expected to be received, adopted by me. On the other hand too, if my nature be fuch as not to fee felf-evidence, I know not how I can be defined a rational animal.

I beg leave to refer to my quondam work on this occafion; and I hope it now will be called neither pride nor affectation, nor impropriety, though at first it may have been obferved I felt a fort of delicacy in doing it; many of my actual fentences having been, though undefignedly, involved in my verse almoft nominally, and many others in fpirit and tendency;* * While I am writing all this, I am feeling too how much I want my authority of old Montaigne to support me

Y 2

but

but here the two works feem incorporated together, fo as for the mention of the one to be almoft virtually mentioning the other. Let the reader then please to attend to the following fentences:

"There are, methinks, two forts of understandings; one naturally, and " almost mechanically, comprehends two objects at once, the effect and the caufe, and is diffatisfied with the first whatever it be, till it fees the second. "The other fees only the first, and seeks not, wants not, to see the second. "The last of these understandings may fee truth oftener than the first, but "the first will certainly mistake falfehood for truth feldomer."

་་

And alfo (I beg pardon) this; viz. "You would know how a man talks to judge of his understanding, and yet poffibly, however great the paradox, "the very contrary might be lefs fallible; the knowing how he hears might' "fhew it you much better: there is a kind of mechanical flow belonging to man's conversation, which, when put in motion, goes perhaps roundly "and ingeniously, and yet seems sometimes less the operation of reason than habit; he may at the fame time be deftitute of the faculty of dividing, weighing, distinguishing, and judging. Hearing then may perhaps be more the test of fenfe than Speaking."

་་

And now I have been at the trouble of writing this, (this laft fentence I mean) I perceive that it is exactly what I wrote t'other day without knowing it; I mean in the critical ideas I pretty minutely indulged myself in when following Mr. Pope's Essay on Criticism; but if true, no matter where they are, and still lefs how often or much repeated."*

As

* It is very true that I wrote, if not these words, their purport, in that long critical note the reader has feen, and fome, I prefume, read; but I might have been more explicit than my usual hurry gave me to be: I would say then here, that my idea of your critic and judge you may apply to for his opinion of your performance (let it be, for instance, my own first Canto) is, that he should give it you not in a lump or in general, but line for line, or at least thought by thought, even through the inconfiderable ones; and just (as to mode I mean) the fame as I have done by Prior in my quotation of him, only still more fully; elfe how is it poffible for you to appreciate your performance, or (I most assuredly muft add) your critic