Again, after having reprefented the cafe of Spain, Den, mark, and Sweden, he fays, Thus we fee in what a low * ftate polite Learning is in the countries, I have mentioned, Tho' the fketch I have drawn be general, yet it was, for the most part, taken upon the spot, nor are the affertions hazarded at random."

Would not one be apt to think, that a Writer who talks thus confidently, fhould know fomething of the matter, from actual obfervation and experience? And yet nothing appears to us more true, than that our Author's principal information is taken from books, (and thofe erroneous ones too) and that he is totally ignorant of the real State of Learning, nay, even of the names of the learned Men now celebrated, in the countries he pretends to be fo familiarly acquainted with. For inftance, he tells us, that the Hit'tory of polite Learning in Denmark, may be comprized in 'the life of one fingle man; that it rofe and fell with the late famous Baron Holberg.' It is yet almost impoffible, we think, that any Pretender to Letters fhould be ignorant how much both Science and Literature have been indebted, in Denmark, to the present Sovereign of that kingdom. Is it ftill a fecret among the learned and polite, that a Mallet, and a Cramer, refide at Copenhagen? That the works of the former are in univerfal efteem; and that the Danish Spectator, of the latter, is in much higher reputation than' eyer was that of Holberg?

His cenfure of the Germans has been the ftanding reproach of almoft two centuries; and, tho' it might have paffed well enough when the Encomiafts of Lewis XIV. made it a matter of folemn difputation, whether or not a • German could be a Wit,' it conveys a very falfe reprefentation of the prefent State of Literature there. Had our Author ever been entertained by the spirited and ingenious writings of a Gellert, or a Gleym, or the nervous, and senfible performances of a Lichtwern, and, at the fame time, known that their works are univerfally read, admired, and imitated, he could not have ftigmatized the present Literati of Germany, as Dunçes.

His reflections on the learned Univerfity of Gottingen, and that which he cafts on its royal Founder, are, to the loweft degree, illiberal. The Elector of Hanover,' fays he, established it at an expence of no less than an hundred thousand pounds. The fourth part of which fum, had it • been given to reward genius in fome neighbouring coun-1 tries,

tries, would have rendered the Donor immortal, and added to the real interefts of fociety.'

A Sovereign can no where diftribute his munificence with greater propriety than among his own fubjects: and it may be queried, whether a like fum, diftributed even among the Literati in England, and in the manner our Author would have it, would redound more to the honour of the Donor? And as to what concerns the real interefts of fociety, he may affect to ridicule phifiological researches as he pleafes, under the ludicrious notions, of pickling monfters, and diffecting live puppies, but, we will venture to fay, the labours of a Haller bid fairer to promote the real interefts of fociety, than thofe of a thoufand fuch geniufes as thofe which our Author would, probably, wifh to fee rewarded.

The foregoing unjust, and illiberal farcasm is immediately aggravated by a lavish encomium on another literary fociety, and its founder; to which alfo, our Author is evidently a ftranger, except from reading and hearsay. The praise or cenfure, however, of a man, who affects to treat with contempt all phyfical and mathematical fcience, will, on this head, perhaps, be little regarded.

The real merit of a beneficence of this kind depends, in a great degree, on the motives of the Founder; and a Prince, who may have no very diftinguished tafte for the Arts, or profound knowlege of the Sciences, may, nevertheless, deferve much better of mankind, for an inftitution of this nature, made from a motive of benevolence, than another, more celebrated for both, who acts on different motives. It is well known by those who are better acquainted with foreign academies than our Author appears to be, that neither a princely generofity, nor a real love for fcience, has contributed fo much to the inftitution and protection of fome of them, as a ridiculous affectation in the protectors, to be thought entitled to a more general fuperiority, than nature and education have allotted them. It was faid by one of the antients, there was no royal way to the fciences. Modern Princes, however, have found one. We could name a court on the Continent, famous for the encouragement of fcience and literature, where not a man of genius, even from the Metaphyfician down to the Fidler, prefumes to know more than the Sovereign, his Patron.

In what this Writer tells us of Italy and Holland, he is alfo greatly mistaken. Of the Philofophers of the former, bred up, fays he, all their lives in colleges, they have

fearned

learned to think in tract, fervilely to follow the leader of their fect, and only to adopt fuch opinions as their univerfities, or the inquifition, is pleafed to allow. By this means they are behind the reft of Europe, in feveral modern im⚫provements.' And with refpect to Tafte, and the Polite Arts, the Genius of Nature, he fays, feems to have entirely left the country with Metaftafio. Now, it is well known, there are, at present, a great number of ingenious men in Italy, who apply themfelves, to philofophical enquiries; and that, inftead of being fo far behind the reft of Europe, as our Author talks of, the reft of Europe have, on the contrary, been obliged to them, not only for the confirmation, but for the earliest notice, of many new and interefting difcoveries. In the Belles Lettres alfo, the feveral members of the academy of Cortona are, perhaps, inferior to thofe of no other in Europe: indeed, the Italians, in general, have not so little taste for the writings of Maffei, or Metaftafio, as he pretends; neither are thefe the only excellent Poets of Italy. Algarotti, Frugoni, and Battinelli, are an honour to their country, and their works are justly in high esteem.

As to the Dutch, he does not know that they have any national character, in this refpect: and gives us up Gaubius and Muffchenbroeck, as their prefent literary Champions. It were no detraction, however, from the merit of either of thefe Gentlemen to affert, that Holland abounds with men of equal genius and learning. Within these very few years the Dutch have boafted a Van Effen, a Van Haaren, a Feytama, a Struyk, with many others; and we can truly affirm, that Science and Literature are growing every day more general and more extenfive among them; as the publication of the Vaderland's Hiftory, the establishment of a Literary Society at Haarlem, and other inftances, may abundantly justify.

But, fuppofing the decay of Science and Polite Learning to be as certain as our Author would infinuate, and that he has given a juft reprefentation of the State of Literature in Europe-let us attend to the cause. To what is it owing? Why, according to this Writer, it is chiefly owing to Critics, Commentators, and Literary Journalists! Thofe very measures which have been taken to correct and refine the productions of genius, have, it feems, contributed only to its decay for we are told, Genius is decayed too, as well as Literature. Rules,' fays he, render the Reader more • difficult to be pleased, and abridge the Author's power of • pleasing.' Very true: and very proper it is, that in one REV. Nov. 1759. fenfo

Dd

fense it should be fo; otherwife the Reader might often admire a bad piece, and an Author have the power of pleafing when he deferves to be hiffed. But, to fuppofe the power of carrying any art to perfection, to be diminifhed by a strict obfervance of the rules of that art, is an abfurdity.

Our Author rails at Criticism, as fome wrong-headed Writers do at Religion; arguing, from its abuse, against the use of it. Write what you think, regardless of the Critics, is his advice; and, in fome cafes, it may, perhaps, be advifable but to write whatever comes uppermoft, regardless of Criticifm too, is, certainly, the ready way to fall into contempt. Every Writer fhould be, and if he excels, he neceffarily will be, a good Critic; and altho' this may frequently happen, without his confulting either Longinus or Aristotle, it does not thence follow, that he fets the Rules of Criticifm at defiance.

Will it be objected, that Shakespear was an excellent Writer, but no Critic *? the latter part of the objection we deny. Wherever Shakespear has fhewn excellence in writing, he has, in the very fame instance, fhewn himself as eminent a Critic alfo; unless those who know how to write well, are supposed to have lefs critical judgment than those, who only know what is well written. Mr. Pope, however, feems to be of a different opinion.

Let fuch teach others who themselves excel,

And centure freely, who have written well.

Not fuch only, as have ftudied the rules, but those from whofe practice fuch rules are taken :

Rules but difcover'd, not dev's'd,

And Nature only methodiz'd.

Is the man of taste and genius then, who reads the original volume of Nature, to be deemed more ignorant of these rules than he who peruses them only in the copies of Art?

* This has been often faid of Shakespear, by Voltaire, and other fuperficial Critics, who, confidering him merely in the light of a dramatic Writer, object to his tranfgreffion of the unities of time and place; without reflecting how far thefe unities have their foundation in Nature; or whether they are not, of all others, thofe rules against which the Poet may the most pardonably offend. We could mention feveral modern pieces, wherein all the rules of the Drama are ferapuloufly obferved, and which the moft rigid Critics would, notwithtanding, much lefs approve of than fome of shakefpcar's, wherein they are entirely difregarded. What

1

What should we fay to the prefumption of the Connoiffeur, who should deny an excellent Painter of Landfcapes, to be a critical Judge of fuch pieces, because he might be a stranger to the geometrical rules of Perspective? On the other hand, however, who could be fo abfurd as to fuppofe the knowlege of those rules deftructive to the Painter's abilities; or the pursuit of them detrimental to his labours?

How abfurdly then does our Author condemn Criticism as pernicious to Tafte! but, tho' he is himself a proof, that pretended Critics have fometimes fo little of it, that they know not what it is; it will yet be ever generally allowed, that true Taste is infeparable from juft Criticism: a good Critic being as neceffarily a Man of Tafte, as an excellent Writer a good Critic.

May we now afk farther, why contempt of Criticism is particularly recommended to Gentlemen Writers? Thofe rules which are founded in Nature, and on examples from the best Writers, ought furely to be submitted to by the worst. But, perhaps, our Author thought, if fuch Gentlemen were confined to rules, they would not be able to write at all. Perhaps fo; and perhaps, fo much the better. This ill agrees, however, with his advice to the Poets, whom he would have strictly confined to rhime; a reftraint, whether needful or not, at least as great as most others: yet, according to this Writer, fuch a reftriction on the thought of a good Poet, often lifts and increases the vehemence of every fentiment; for fancy, like a fountain, plays higheft by diminishing the aperture.' If we fhould ftrictly enquire into the meaning, or propriety, of this paffage, we fhould, perhaps, lift the vehemence of our Author's anger; we fhall, therefore, leave the Reader to make the best of it.

The decline of Literature in France, we are told, has been, in a great degree, prevented by the countenance given to its profeffors among the fair fex. A man of fashion at Paris,' fays he, however contemptible we may think him here, must be acquainted with the reigning modes of Philofophy as well as of Drefs, to be able to entertain his miftrefs agreeably. The charming Pedants must be purfu⚫ed at once through all the labyrinths of the Newtonian fyftem, and the mazy Metaphyfics of Locke.'

We fhall not take upon us to determine, whether our Author is right or wrong here; but oppofe to what he has faid, a paffage from a French Author, who is of a very different opinion. Speaking of the progrefs, and once flourishing state of learning in that country, he fays, "Les chofes parurent

Dd 2

66 prendre