tion a fufficient excufe. For, to say the truth, the Reader who is defirous of actually knowing the prefent State of polite Learning in Europe, is left to make his own Enquiry, notwithstanding all the information given by our Author: his work confifting, in fact, of little else than the trite commonplace remarks and obfervations, that have been, for fome years paft, repeatedly ecchoed from Writer to Writer, throughout every country where Letters, or the Sciences, have been cultivated. Thefe, to do him juftice, however, he has thrown together in fome tolerable order, and cloathed them in a dress, if not the moft compleat and elegant, at leaft as good as they deferve. Juft, interefting, and manly fentiments fhould, doubtlefs, be conveyed in a correct, nervous, and spirited stile; while the hackneyed frippery of fuperficial Reasoners, is excufably enough set off with the quaintnefs of antithefes, the prettiness of points, and the rotundity of ftudied periods. But if our Author intended to give us, by all this, a fpecimen of fine writing, we must take the liberty to affure him, he is moft egregioufly mistaken; and that, notwithstanding we allow there are many pretty obfervations scattered up and down, and fomething like ingenuity appears thro' the whole of his performance, yet the triteness of those obfervations, and the remarkable faultinefs of his expreffion in general, give it too much the air of plagiarism and selffufficiency.

According to this Writer, Learning is in its decline, both in England and France: he allows, however, it is ftill capable of retrieving much of its former fplendour. In other places, fays he, a decay has already taken place; here it is only beginning. To attempt the amendment of Italy or Germany, would be only like the application of remedies to a part mortified; but here, ftill there is life, and there is hope.

From among a number of inftances of the nonfenfical, to be met with in our Author, we felect only the following fentence. Speaking of the Academy of Berlin, he fays. The members are not collected from among the students of fome obfcure feminary, or ⚫ the wits of a metropolis, but chofen from all the Literati in Eu rope, fupported by the bounty, and ornamented by the producti⚫ons of their royal founder.' Who, or what, is thus fupported and ornamented? Europe, or its Literati: or the Members of the Academy only? The latter may be fupported, indeed, by the royal bounty; but how they are to be ornamented by any literary productions, even thofe of a King, we do not conceive; unless they print his performances on flips, and bedeck themfelves like ballad-fingers at a country Wake.

Again,

Again, after having reprefented the cafe of Spain, Denmark, and Sweden, he fays, Thus we fee in what a low ftate polite Learning is in the countries I have mentioned. Tho' the sketch I have drawn be general, yet it was, for the most part, taken upon the fpot, 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 those 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 so familiarly acquainted with. For inftance, he tells us, that the Hiftory 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 almoft 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 secret among the learned and polite, that a Mallet, and a Cramer, refide at Copenhagen? That the works of the former are in univerfal esteem; and that the Danish Spectator, of the latter, is in much higher reputation than ever 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 false representation 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 fenfible 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 prefent Literati of Germany, as Dunces.

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,' says 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

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 society, he may affect to ridicule phifiological researches as he pleases, 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 interests of society, than thofe of a thousand fuch geniufes as thofe which our Author would, probably, with to fee rewarded.

The foregoing unjust, and illiberal farcafm is immediately aggravated by a lavifh encomium on another literary fociety, and its founder; to which alfo, our Author is evidently a ftranger, except from reading and hearfay. 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 academics 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 science 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

⚫ learned

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 pleased to allow. By this means they are behind the rest of Europe, in feveral modern improvements.' 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 prefent, a great number of ingenious men in Italy, who apply themfelves, to philofophical enquiries; and that, instead of being fo far behind the rest of Europe, as our Author talks of, the rest of Europe have, on the contrary, been obliged to them, not only for the confirmation, but for the earliest notice, of many new and interesting discoveries. In the Belles Lettres alfo, the feveral members of the academy of Cortona are, perhaps, inferior to those of no other in Europe: indeed, the Italians, in general, have not fo little taste for the writings of Maffei, or Metastasio, as he pretends; neither are these 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 these Gentlemen to affert, that Holland abounds with men of equal genius and learning. Within thefe very few years the Dutch have boasted 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 instances, 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 caufe. 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 pleafing.' Very true: and very proper it is, that in one REV. Nov. 1759. D d

fenfa

fenfe it fhould 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 diminished by a strict obfervance of the rules of that art, is an absurdity.

Our Author rails at Criticifm, 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 Ariftotle, it does not thence follow, that he fets the Rules of Criticifin 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 inftance, fhewn himself as eminent a Critic alfo; unless thofe 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 whose 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 thefe rules than he who perufes 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 again't which the Poet may the molt pardonably offend. We could mention feveral modern pieces, wherein all the rules of the Drama are fcrupulously obferved, and which the most rigid Critics would, notwithftanding, much lefs approve of than fome of Shakespear's, when in they are entirely difregarded.

What