52

art; they are not, however, as yet agreedconcerning the object of their purfuit. Le Clerc. Coufin, Des-Maifeaux, St. Marthe, have all defined it differently. For my part, I think every one of them too partial or too pofitive. Criticism is, in my opinion,the art of forming a judgment of writings and writers; of what they have faid; of what they have faid well, and what they have faid truly ". Under the firft head are comprehended grammar,a knowledge of languages,and manuscripts; a capacity of distinguishing fuppofed from genuine performances, and of reftoring the true reading of corrupted paffages. Under the fecond, is included the whole theory of elocution and poefy. The third opens an immenfe field, the inquiry into the circumftances and truth of facts. Thus the whole generation of critics may be distinguished under three kinds, grammarians, rhetoricians and hiftorians. The exclufive pretenfions of the first have not only been prejudicial to their own endeavours, but to those of their whole fraternity.

XXIV. All that relates to what men are, or have Materials of been; all that creative genius hath invented; that criticism. the understanding hath confidered; together with all which industry hath collected, are included in the department of criticifm. A clear head, a fine taste, acute penetration, are all neceffary to form a good critic. Follow the man of letters into his ftudy, you will fee him furrounded by the literary productions of all ages; his library is stocked with them; and his mind informed without being overburdened by their perufal. He looks about him on all fides; nor is the author, whofe writings may have the most diftant relation to the fubject of his thoughts, for VOL. VII.

H

The task of a @ritic.

Criticism good logic.

gotten he may happen to meet there with fome accidental and ftriking paffage, to confirm the dif coveries of the critic or ftagger his hypotheses. And here ends the bufinefs of the fcholar. The fuperficial reader looks no farther, but admires the reading and memory of the commentator; who is not lefs the dupe of the encomnium, and mistakes the materials of building for the edifice itself.

XXV. But the true critic is fenfible his task is only begun. He deliberates, compares, hefitates, and decides. Impartial as exact, he fubmits only to reafon, or to authority", which is reason with regard to facts. The most refpectable names yield fometimes to the teftimony of writers, who pwe all their weight to mo. mentary circumstances. The true critic, ready and fertile in resources, but void of falfe refinement, fcruples not to facrifice the most brilliant, the moft fpecious hypothefes to truth, nor prefumes to talk to his mafters in the language of mere conjecture. A profeffed advocate for the truth, he feeks that kind of proof his fubject admits of, and is fatisfied. He employs not the desperate scythe of analy fis, in gathering thofe delicate flowers that fhrink and fade at the leaft ungentle touch. At the fame time, as little content with infipid admiration, he fearches into the most fecret emotions of the human heart, to discover the caufes of his pleasure or disguft. Diffident and fenfible, he deals not out conjectures as truths, reafonings for facts, or probabilities for demonstrations.

XXVI. Geometry has been called a good fpecies. of logic, which has been thought also a great encomium on that science: as it is certainly more noble

to difplay and improve the faculties of the human mind than to trace the limits of the material univerfe. But has not criticifm alfo the fame pretenfions to logic? It has more: Geometry is employed only in demonstrations peculiar to itself: criticism delibe‐ rates between the different degrees of probability. It is by comparing thefe we daily regulate our actions, and often determine our future deftiny". Let us examine here fome critical probabilities.

History.

XXVII. The prefent age, which imagines itfelf Controverfy deftined to introduce change into every thing, has on the Roman adopted a hiftorical fcepticism, as dangerous as it may be useful. M. de Pouilly, a sprightly and fuperficial genius, who generally quoted more than he read, was dubious concerning the certainty of the five first ages of Rome"; but, little adapted for fuch kind of refearches he readily gave up the point to the erudition and criticism of M. Freret and the Abbé Sallier M. de Beaufort revived this controverfy; and the Roman hiftory has fuffered not a little from the attacks of a writer, who not only knew to doubt, but to determine.

and Carthage.

XXVIII. A treaty, concluded between the Romans of a treaty be and Carthaginians, became, in the hands of this tween Rome author,a most powerful objection. This treaty is found in Polybius a hiftorian as accurate as fenfible The original was in his time at Rome. And yet this authentic monument contradicted all the hiftorians. It appeared by this, that L. Brutus and M. Horatius were confuls at that time; although Horatius was not invested with the confulfhip till after the death of Brutus Again, a people are therein called Roman fubjects who were at that time only allies, and we hear of the

This treaty cleared up.

Of the Roman fubjects.

marine of a nation that began to conftruct fhips only in the time of the first Punic war; two hundred and fifty years after the confulfhip of Brutus. What morti fying conclufions might not be drawn from thefe contradictions! How greatly to the disadvantage of the hiftorians!

XXIX. This objection of Mr. de Beaufort greatly embarraffed his adverfaries. They fufpected the authenticity of the pretended original. They even altered its date. Let us fee, if by a probable explanation, we cannot reconcile this monument with the hiftorians. To do this we shall begin by feparating the date from the body of the treaty. The former agrees with the time of Brutus: the latter resembles the manner of Polybius, or that of his Roman antiquaries. But the names of their confuls were never inferted in their folemn treaties, in the fœdera confecrated by all the ceremonies of their religion. The minifters of that religion, the feciales, only figned them and in this confifted the diftinction between the fœdera and the fponfiones. The account of this circumstance, for which we are indebted to Livy, obviates the difficulty. The antiquaries miftook the feciales for the confuls; and, without thinking of the mistake as nothing obliged them to be precife in their explanation of their public monuments, they diftinguished the year, of the expulfion of their kings, by the celebrated names of the author of their liberty,and the founder of the capitol. It little concerned them, whether they were confuls at the fame time, or not.

XXX. The people of Ardea, Antium and Terracina, were not then fubjects of Rome; at least, if they were, historians have given us very falfe ideas

of the extent of that republic. Let us imagine ourselves existing in the time of Brutus ; and we fhall deduce, from the politics of the Romans, a definition of the term Ally, very different from what we should lay down at prefent. Rome, although the laft colony of the Latins, begun very early to form the project of fubjecting the whole nation to its laws. Its difcipline and police, its heroes, its victories, foon manifefted its inconteftible fuperiority. The Romans, not lefs politic than bold, made ufe of this fuperiority with a difcretion worthy of their good fortune. They knew well that cities hardly fubjected would stop the progress of their arms, would waste the treasures, and corrupt the manners of the republic. Under the more fpecious name, therefore, of allies, they reconciled the vanquished to the yoke of fubmiffion; while the latter confented with pleasure to acknowledge Rome as the capital of the Latin nation, and to furnish it with a quota of troops in its wars. The republic, in return, afforded them only bare protection, the mark of that fovereignty which cost its vaffals fo dear. These people were indeed denominated allies to Rome; but they foon found themfelves no better than her flaves.

XXXI. This explication, it may be faid. diminishes the difficulty, but does not remove it. Tannoci, the word Polybius in this place makes use of, taken in its proper fenfe, fignifies a fubject. I will not dispute it. But it must be observed, we have only a translation of this treaty ; and though we should conditionally admit the copies to be depended on, as to the main fubftance and tenor of it, their expref