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 qull, 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 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 sel, dom 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 acciden tally 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 executioners. Indeed there is some show of reason in the complaint, that anonymous reviews are an un

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 undoubt edly 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 hterature of Europe was just awaking from its long repose in the cloisters of monks, and the

Bayle began the Nouvelles de la Republique de lettres, in 1684, but it was discontinued in 1687, on account of his ill health. Basnage de Beauval wrote a sequel of them under the title of L'Histoire des ouvrages des Seanant, which commenc ed in 1687, and was concluded in 24 vols. 12mo. in 1709. Le Clerc conducted the Bibliotheque 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 Literaize from 1713 to 1722.

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 fre quent 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 preced. ents, 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 pot 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 starvling 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 ablé 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 pub lick 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 ultimate 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 former 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 author should remember, that he forever retains the right of primogeniture, 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 disappointed authors I have long perplexed myself to find a remedy for their chagrin. I can recommend no better mode of avenging them selves on the criticks and on the publick, than by obstinately refus ing 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 per haps 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 piît 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 auroit 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 qne parmi les femmes; car combien de fois commencent-ils un nou veau dessein, avant que d'avoir achevé le précédent. Ainsi l'cn 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 fou. dre; 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 embarrasseroit un peu si on les défioit dans les formes d'executer leur menace. Ils aimercient mieux qu'on se gouvernât à leur égard, comme l'on fit envers Apollon, qui se vit très- ·