This being the cafe, it cannot but happen, that the allufions of different poets, of the higher class, though writing without any communication with each other, will, of course, be much the fame on fimilar occafions. There are fixed and real analogies between different material objects; between thefe objects, and the inward workings of the mind; and, again, between these, and the external signs of them. Such, on every occafion, do not fo properly offer themfelves to the fearching eye of the poet, as force themselves upon him; fo that, if he fubmit to be guided by the most natural views of things, he cannot avoid a very remarkable correfpondence of imagery with his predeceffors. And we find this conclufion verified in fact; as appears not only from comparing together the great antient and modern writers, who are known to have held an intimate correfpondence with each other, but thofe who cannot be fufpected of this commerce. Several critics, I obferved, have taken great pains to il luftrate the fentiments of Homer from fimilar inftances in the facred writers. The fame fame defign might eafily be carried on, in refpect of allufive imagery; it being obvious to common obfervation, that numberless of the most beautiful comparisons in the Greek poet are to be met with in the Hebrew prophets. Nay, the remark may be extended to the undifciplined writers and fpeakers of the fartheft weft and east, whom Nature inftructs to beautify and adorn their conceptions with the fame imagery. So little doth it argue an inferiority of genius in Virgil, if it be true, as the excellent tranflator of Homer fays, "that he has fcarcely any comparisons, "which are not drawn from his mafter." The truth is, the nature of the two fubjects, which the Greek poet had taken upon himself to adorn, was fuch, that it led him through every circumftance and fituation of human life; which his quick attentive obfervation readily found. the means of fhewing to advantage under the cover of the most fit and proper imagery. Succeeding writers, who had not contemplated his pictures, yet, drawing from one common original, have unknowingly hit upon the very fame. And thofe, who bad, with all their endeavours after novelty, and the utmost efforts of genius to ftrike out original lights, have never been able to fucceed in their attempts. Our Milton, who was most ambitious of this fame of invention, and whofe vaft and univerfal genius could not have miffed of new analogies, had Nature's felf been able to furnish them, is a glaring inftance to our purpose. He was fo averse from refting in the old imagery of Homer, and the other epic poets, that he appears to have taken infinite pains in the investigation of new allu fions, which he picked up out of the rubbifh of every filly legend or romance that had come to his knowledge, or extracted from the dry and rugged materials of the fciences, and even the mechanic arts. Yet, in comparison of the genuine treasures of nature, which he found himself obliged to make use of, in common with other writers, his own proper ftock of images, imported from the regions of art, is very poor and. fcanty; and, as might be expected, makes the leaft agreeable part of his divine work. What What is here faid of the epic holds, as I hinted, of all the more ferious kinds of poetry. In works of a lighter caft, there greater liberty and a larger field of allufion permitted to the poet. All the appearances in art and nature, betwixt which there is any resemblance, may be employed here to furprize and divert the fancy. The further and more remote from vulgar apprehenfion these analogies lie, fo much the fitter for his purpofe; which is not fo much to illuftrate his ideas, as to place them in new and uncommon lights, and entertain the mind by that odd fantastic conjunction, or oppofition of ideas, which we know by the name of wit. Nay, the lowest, as well as the leaft obvious imagery will be, oftentimes, the most proper; his view being not to ennoble and raise his fubject by the means of allufion, but to fink and debase it by every art, that hath a tendency to excite the mirth and provoke the ridicule of the reader. Here then we may expect a much more original air, than in the higher defigns of invention. When all Nature is before the poet, and the genius of H 4 his his work allows him to feize her, as the fhepherd did Proteus, in every dirty form, into which he can poffibly twift herself, it were, indeed, a wonder, if he should chance to coincide, in his imagery, with any other, from whom he had not exprefsly copied. They who are converfant in works of wit and humour, more especially of thefe later times, will know this to be the cafe, in fat. There is not perhaps a fingle comparison in the inimitable TELEMAQUE, which had not, before, been employed by fome or other of the poets. Can any thing, like this, be faid of RABELAIS, BUTLER, MARVEL, SWIFT, &c. ? 11. It only remains to confider the ExPRESSION. And in this are to be found the fureft and leaft equivocal marks of imitation. We may regard it in two lights; either, 1. as it refpects the general turn or manner of writing, which we call a ftyle; or, 2. the peculiarities of phrafe and diction. 1. A ftyle in writing, if not formed in express imitation of fome certain model, is the pure refult of the difpofition of the mind, and takes its character from the predominant |