the critick by the author himself. Every man who publishes, virtually offers a challenge to the publick, or at least courts their decision. By claiming praise, he runs the hazard of censure; and they, in whose power it is to confer the one, have undoubtedly a right to administer the other. S'ils veulent avoir en nous des admirateurs, il faut qu'ils nous permettent d'oser etre leurs juges,' says the charming La Harpe, in the introduction to his Lyceum. But if we have a right to judge, we must have also a right to laugh; for nothing can compel us to read with gravity in print, what would have convulsed us with merriment, if we had heard it in conversation. If indeed we laugh at what is not laughable, or applaud what is not commendable, or hiss at what is not absurd, we run the common hazard of a critick in the pit, when he has clapped in the wrong place, and is sufficiently disgraced by finding himself alone.

It is plainly no violation of the laws of literary courtesy to hold up dulness and absurdity to the derision of the publick; for it has long since been tacitly agreed, that if an author has a right to be dull, the critick has a right to be severe. Common equity declares, that one side ought not to claim a monopoly of privileges. Nothing but the immunity of satirical criticism can impose the slightest restraint on the vanity of authorship. By ridicule too, the taste of the publick is insensibly corrected and refined; for many, who have no time to listen to a reason, are always ready to join in a laugh; and thousands, who understand nothing of the principles of taste, can see an absurdity when exposed by another. How far it is lawful to distress an author by ridicule or censure, with out transgressing the laws of chris

tian benevolence, I am not casuist enough to determine. I will give you the opinion of the greatest master of moral science, as well of literary discussion, which the last age produced. "As it very seldom happens, that the rage of extemporary criticism inflicts fatal or lasting wounds, I know not that the laws of benevolence entitle this distress to much sympathy. The diversion of baiting an author has the sanction of all ages and nations, and is more lawful than the sport of teizing other animals, because, for the most part, he comes voluntarily to the stake, furnished, as he imagines, by the patron powers of literature, with resistless weapons and impenetrable armour, with the mail of the boar of Erymanth, and the paws of the lion of Nemea." [Johnson's Rambler, No. 176.]

Authors boldly encounter the silent neglect of the publick, and at the same time complain of the opinion of an individual, and imagine themselves outraged by the censure of a reviewer. While they see with much composure their favourite productions quietly devoured by the moths, those merciless reviewers, who have no more respect for a polished than for a clumsy period, and make as hearty a meal upon a genius as upon a dunce; they will take instant offence at a critick, who presumes to separate in their works the dry from the nutritious, who accidentally makes a wry face at what is nauseous, or involuntarily rejects what is insipid. It is a common trick of incensed authors to rail against reviewers, as men who have impudently set themselves up as guardians of publick taste, or rather as a band of literary ex ecutioners. Indeed there is some show of reason in the complaint, that anonymous reviews are an un

just assumption of authority, because they in some measure include the power of punishing, as well as of judging; which powers, in every free state, should be kept perfectly distinct. To explain this anomaly I will attempt to give you some hints, which I have gathered from Bayle, who was long a dicta-, tor in the republick of letters.

The commonwealth of learning is the only permanent example of pure and original democracy. In this state, under the protection of truth and reason, whose authority alone is acknowledged, wars may. be carried on with the utmost innocence, though not always with impunity; for here every man is sovereign, and every man also under the jurisdiction of every other. The laws of civil society have in no degree abridged the independence of the state of nature, as to errour and ignorance. No man can be excluded by the social compact from his unalienable right to be a fool; and, on the other side, every man retains the right of the sword, and may exercise it without a commission. "If it is asked," says Bayle, "why the civil authority should leave every one at liberty to expose the mistakes and follies of authors, it may be answered, that to criticise a book tends only to show, that the author does not possess a certain degree of knowledge or of talent. Now, as an author may enjoy all the rights and privileges of the community, in which he lives, not withstanding this defect of knowledge and of talent; and as his reputation, as an honest man and a good subject of the commonwealth,, does not receive by it the least blemish, it is evident, no usurpation is made on the majesty of the state, by showing to the publick the faults of a book." [Bayle's Dict. art. Catius. Note D.]

If then the correlative rights of publishing and of censuring nonsense remain alike unimpaired by the conventions, and established by the immemorial customs of society, it follows, that, if every writer of a book may publish anonymously, the writer of a review cannot be compelled to declare himself; and, as the object of criticism is not persons, but works, there is no cowardice in this concealment. There is nothing dishonourable in firing at a senseless mark out of an ambush, or from behind a tree.

It will perhaps be esteemed a more difficult task to maintain the expediency, than to establish the right of critical severity, in the present state of American literature. It will be said, that our country is young, and therefore her infantile productions in the field of letters deserve rather to be cherished by the gentle and perfumed gales of flattery, than to be checked by the chills of neglect, or beaten down by the blasts of angry criticism. It will be said, that our most able minds will continue to shun the dangers of authorship, if every thing, which issues from the press, must be subjected to the unrelenting severity of anonymous remark. But is he a friend to the literature of his country, who wishes to excuse it from examination? Does he think, that the easy multiplication of feeble works will eventually establish a solid basis for our future fame? No: the everlasting oaks of our forests were not raised in a hot-house. The indul gent remarks of candid friends, the simpering smiles of kitchencriticks, the puffing advertisements' of newspapers, and the lullaby strains of poetasters, will never patronize the growth of solid learning, nor confer immortality on the authors of our country. We have yet to learn, that to write correct

ly and to think sensibly ought to be made inseparable habits; if then, when a poet is a dunce, we say that he is a genius; when an orator talks fustian, we say that he is eloquent; when a writer is solecistical, we say that he is a little inaccurate; or when a book is composed in a Babylonish dialect, we excuse it because it is American, we are only feeding children with sweetmeats, or wrapping them up warm against the cold, and thus laying the foundation of perpetual vanity, imbecility, and idiotism.

The earliest reviews, which appeared in Europe, were undoubtedly the most gentle in their animadversions. It is true also, that they were recommended by some of the most celebrated names, which the annals of literature can furnish. Bayle, Le Clerc,Basnage, and S'Gravesande* did not disdain to be editors of literary journals. But the first has always been cer sured for the encomiastick strain of his remarks, and the others commonly restricted themselves, except where their peculiar prejudices were concerned, to bare analyses of the works, which they announced. Since that time the state of the republick of letters has essentially altered. Then the Eterature of Europe was just a waking from its long repose in the cloisters of monks, and the

Bayle began the Nouvelles de la Re ublique de lettres, in 1684, but it was discontinued in 1687, on account of his ill health. Basnage de Beauval wrote a se quel of them under the title of L'Histoire des ouvrages des Scavans, which commenced in 1687, and was concluded in 24 vols. 12mo. in 1709. Le Clerc conducted the Bibliothèque Universelle from 1686 to 1693, 25 vols. 12mo. the Bibliothèque Choisie from 1703 to 1718, 28 vols. 12mo. and the Bibliotheque Ancienne & Moderne from 1714 to 1727, 29 vols. 12mo. S'Gravesande, the celebrated philosopher, edited Le Journal Literaire from 1713 to 17222

legends of popish superstition. The liberty to think, and the disposition to write, demanded every stimulus and every encouragement. Now the licentiousness of the press has become a greater evil, than its inactivity, and instances of superfetation are more frequent than of sterility. Then the laws of fine writing were imperfectly established, and rarely understood; now they are or ought to be familiar to school boys and abecedarians. Then the method of conducting literary journals was to be ascertained by experiment, and an author was to be flattered into a quiet acknowledgment of their privileges; now every candidate for fame has it in his power to consult innumerable precedents, statutes, and declarations of criticism, by which the verdict of the publick and the sentence of the reviewer may be previously and probably conjectured. Then authorship had not become a trade; plagiarism was not practised with unblushing effrontery; nor were the scraps of every author's scrutoire swept out upon the publick; now every starving pedant writes for bread, and all that is necessary to constitute an author is, the industry to borrow or to steal materials, till he is able to swell out a volume. In such a state of things, it is not enough that a review contains an analysis of a work, for some works defy analysis; neither is it enough correctly to state the subjects of a book, for that might be done by transcribing the table of contents; but the faithful reviewer is daily called upon to detect literary thefts, to expose absurdities, to correct blunders, to check the contagion of false taste, to rescue the publick from the impositions of dullness, and to assert the majesty of learning and of truth.

In stating these lofty pretensions of the critick, we had almost for gotten the claims of the author. If I am asked, what redress can an author obtain, who has been ignorantly criticised, or unmerci fully castigated; I answer; the redress of an author, who deserves any, will always be found in the tltimate decision of the publick. "The satire of Pope," says Johnson," which brought Theobald and Moore into contempt, dropped impotent from Bentley, like the javelin of Priam." Besides, the name of an author will always command more intrinsick respect, than that of a critick. The for mer naturally takes rank of the latter in the ceremonial of literature. It requires less ability to detect faults, than to avoid them; but even if it were not so, the au thor should remember, that he forever retains the right of primo geniture, and the advantage of pre-occupying the attention of the publick; and while authors may exist without criticks, the latter cannot maintain themselves a moment, if writers should withhold the customary prey.

As to the herd of vain and dis appointed authors I have long perplexed myself to find a remedy for their chagrin. I can recommend no better mode of avenging themselves on the criticks and on the publick, than by obstinately refusing to publish any more. It is true that there are many inconveniences, which would follow so decisive a measure; for the world would thus be deprived of much harmless diversion, and perhaps some of the brethren of the type would be thrown out of employment; but whenever I begin to be alarmed by these solemn consequences, and tremble at the growing tyranny of criticism, I find myself relieved by the hu

mour of the following passage in Baillet, with which I will close the present number.

..." L'inconvenient de voir le monde sans livres ne sera jamais à craindre, puisqu'il est à présumer qu'il y aura toujours plus d'ecrivains que de gens sages. Ceux qui remarquerent que S. Augustin exhortoit fortement toute le monde à la continence, se crurent obligez de lui remontrer, qu'il prît garde aux desordres qui en pouvoient naître, & qui se chacun vouloit garder sa virginité, le genre humain periroit en peu de tems. S. Augustin se moqua d'eux, parce qu'il savoit bien qu'il ne seroit jamais pris au mot, & qu'il y aurois toujours assez de personnes de l'un & de l'autre sexe, qui ne quitteroient pas leur part des plaisirs du mariage. Que l'on dise tout ce qu'on voudra pour la continence, cela n'empêchera point les enfantemens; l'on peut assurer aussi que quelque chose que l'on dise, ou que l'on fasse contre les auteurs, rien ne sera capable d'empecher qu'ils n'enfantent livre sur livre. La superfetation est incomparablement plus fréquente parmi eux que parmi les femmes; car combien de fois commencent-ils un nouveau dessein, avant que d'avoir achevé le précédent. Ainsi l'on ne se doit pas allarmer de leurs menaces; il est vrai que quand ils voyent qu'on maltraite leurs ecrits, ils forment le même dessein qu' Apollon forma lors que son fils Phaeton fut tué d'un coup de foudre; je veux dire qu'ils songent à ne plus répandre la lumiere dans l'univers; mais cela ne dure pas, ils reviennent de ces premiers mouvemens; & on les embarras seroit un peu si on les déficit dans les formes d'executer leur menace. Ils aimeroient mieux qu'on se gouvernât à leur égard, comme l'on fit envers Apollon, qui se vit très