lites equal to its importance, which is very great with regard to the brighteft reign in the English annals; we mean in former times. MR. Pope was the editor of Parnel's poems, and, like Dr. G. was perfuaded by his book feller to midwive into the world the beauties of the Italian poets who wrote in Latin. —He did not, however, perceive that his friend Parnel had impofed upon the public as an original compofition (and it is confidered as one of his beft) a pretty close translation of a poem from Augerelli, one of the Italian poets he himfelf had publifhed. We mention this as an inftance how very mechanical the employment of an editor may become, when taken up merely on the credit of a name. Angeriani was another of thofe Italian pocts; but we do not find that our bard ever discovered that his friend Atterbury stole his celebrated epigram on a lady's fan from the compofitions of that elegant but unfortunate nobleman. The author of the selection that lies before us, proceeds by the fump, which undoubtedly is the most fagacious method of performing the office he has undertaken. Nothing is fo common and yet fo abfurd as affectation in criticifin. The defire (we Ipeak the words of his preface) of being thought to have a more difcerning tafte than others, has often led writers to labour after error, and to be foremost in promoting deformity.' In confequence of this very diffident declaration, our poet ufhers in his collection with Mr. Pope's Rape of the Lock, which is (fays he) perhaps, the moft perfect in our language. It exhibits ftronger powers of imagination, more har、 mony of numbers, and a greater knowledge of the world, than any other of this poet's works. In the preface to the fecond and third poems of his collection, the 11 Penferofo and L'Allegro, he tells us, with the fame tone of modeft indecision, that the introduction to both hurts an English ear. We agree with him, that the Elegy written in a Church-yard is overloaded with epithet; and we hope to see our countrymen fix the standard of poctical merit or demerit according to the fcarcity or redun dancy of that ftilt in compofition. Unmeaning epithets are the high heels of poetry, and fpoil the graceful vigorous tread which if nature does not give the bard, the disowns him, as a baftard: well-chofen epithets, at the fame time, are her greatest ornaments. In the fame meek fpirit of diffidence and indecifion, the editor diflikes the imitation of our old English poets, in general, in order to pay a compliment to mediocrity of genius recommended by good-humour and philanthropy. Cooper's Hill is admitted into this collection as one of the beauties of English poetry. Dr. Goldsmith perhaps would have acted with more confiftency, had he pointed out the beauties of that beauty.— We cannot think with him, that the letter of Eloifa to Abelard may be confidered as fuperior to any thing in the epiftolary way. The very harmony of numbers for which he commends it, we think destroys its merit; or, if the reader will pardon a pun, Abelards it as to its epiftolary qualities. This editor might have faid, with great juftice, that no compofition, in any language, can equal its warmth, its paffion, its ecftafy, and wildness. What countryman was Ambrofe Philips, who wrote the Epiftle to the earl of Dorfet from Copenhagen, the introduction to which this gentleman pronounces to be incomparably fine ? Let the reader judge of this paragon from the four following lines. "The hoary winter here conceals from fight All pleafing objects that to verse invite. The hills and dales, and the delightful woods, What profufion of unmeaning epithet! what namby-pamby in this incomparably fine opening! Our unaffected editor, to advance his reader's tafte, though not to impress him with any exalted ideas of his own, finds a drinefs in the numbers of Addison's Letter to lord Halifax from Italy, which greatly leffens the pleasure excited both by the poet's judgment and imagination. He fays, at the fame time, that ⚫ had the harmony of this been equal to that of Pope's verfification, it would be inconteftibly the finest poem in our language." -We moft humbly differ from the doctor as to both his propofitions. We think Addison's numbers, in this letter, are as fucculent (if not more fo) as any of Mr. Pope's; and with all fubmiffion, we think, that in whatever dress it had been cloathed, it would not have been inconteftibly the finest poem in our language. We adopt this gentleman's fentiments concerning the two odes for St. Cæcilia's day by Dryden and Pope. We know not whether the Shepherd's Week can be admitted as Mr. Gay's principal performance. Captain Macheath fhall judge. We have no exception to his introduction of Mac Flecknoe by Dryden, and the Rhapsody of Swift. He ought to have told us that Mr. Pope's poem on the Ufe of Riches is a groupe of different publications 4 publications printed with pecuniary views. We never knew till this editor informed us, that Garth's Difpenfary has been more praised than any other poem; and we think he ought to have omitted all mention of it, for the reafon he himself alledges. We however agree with him in his fentiments of the remaining pieces exhibited in this volume. The fecond volume of this publication is introduced with fome pieces from Dr. Parnel, though we cannot agree with the extravagant praises bestowed on him by Dr. G. What countryman was Parnel ?-We know not.-We are fenfible that Thomson, author of the Seasons (whom this writer pronounces to be a verbose and affected poet) was a Scotchman. His episode of Palemon and Lavinia is here introduced rather for being much efteemed by the public than by the editor. Is this practice conformable to the profeffions made in the Doctor's preface? Why did he not, for the fame reason, print Pomfret's Choice, which has gone through more editions than perhaps any piece of poetry in the English language. If Savage was (as is moft certain) but an indifferent poet, why did he reprint his Baftard? We have no objection to his character of Mr. Moore; and we think he does no more than justice to Mr. Nugent's epiftle. Prior's Hans Carvel, notwithstanding its merit, ought to have been omitted in a felection of this kind. We are not abfolutely certain whether Mr. Tickell was or was not an Hibernian; but we agree that the two specimens of his writing here produced, have great merit, though not to the extravagant degree this author fuppofes. Dr. Smollett we all know is a Scotchman, and must confequently be deficient in tafte. Waller's Elegy on the death of Cromwell is next introduced; but a compofition fo bombaftic and boisterous ought not to have been introduced to exemplify the strength of thinking. We are forry to find Dr. G. fpeak with fuch coolness of Dr. Young's Night-Thoughts, and, with something worse than coolness, of his Satires.If Mr. Shenstone's ballads are not excellent, why were they admitted to a place in this collection, unless it was to ferve as foils to the two admirable ones by Dr. Byron and Mr. Rowe, which follow ? Dr. Goldsmith fays very juftly, that the Effay on Poetry by the Duke of Buckingham, has been praised more than it deferves; we think a great deal more; and we are therefore furprised to find it in the volumes before us. Our author thinks that Swift's Story of Cadenus and Vanessa is but ill conceived in itfelf; and he does not know what Prior meant by his Alma, or the Progrefs of the Mind, with which this selection is clofed. We have used unufual freedom with the obfervations and collection of this editor, whofe name we think deferves a refpectable place in literature. We apprehend however, that in this production he did not fufficiently reconnoitre his ground. Its being defigned for boys rather than men, ought to have rendered him cautious of being wanton in his criticifms, or unguarded in his publications; and national prepoffeffions ought to be banished from the republic of letters, which knows no country but the extent of the terraqueous globe. III. An Inquiry into the Principles of Political Oeconomy: being an Effay on the Science of Domeftic Policy in Free Nations. By Sir James Steuart, Bart. In two Vols. 4.10. Pr. 2 l. 2 s. in boards. Millar, and Cadell. [Continued.] IN N our laft Number we brought down the review of this work to the fourth chapter of the fecond book, in which the author treats of the difference between the prime cost, and felling prices of commodities. He thinks, that the more exactly every circumstance with regard to the whole analysis of manufactures is examined, the eafier it is for a statefinan to correct every vice or abufe which tends to carry prices beyond the proper standard. The author, we hope, will pardon us in faying, that we can have no idea of any statesman interfering in the commercial concerns of a free country. They are too delicate to be touched even by an affembly of statesmen (for fuch we shall suppose the British parliament to be); nor does that august as fembly ever interfere in them, nifi dignus vindice nodus, but upon great and extraordinary occafions. Nothing ought to appear more uncontrouled, or can be more permanent, than the principles of commerce; and nothing ought to be fo independent of a statesman, because they are felf-evident; and, as they spring from mutual neceffities, they never can be mistaken. The ftate, it is true, has in Great Britain left the ftandard of the staff of life to be fixed on certain occafions by proper magiftrates; but that regulation confiders bread not as a mercantile commodity, but as a neceffary means of fubfiftence to fociety. In fhort, we do not know, at present, a board in England that has a power to regulate the price even of a pound of any commodity (except that of bread). Our author diftinguishes between paffive commerce (by which he means drawing ftrangers to market) and active foreign trade, or the distribution of native commodities among other nations. He thinks that trade naturally encreases the numbers of man kind in every country where it is established. He next returns to his statesman, and the principles which he must keep in view, in order to carry trade to perfection, by rendering it a means of promoting eafe and affluence at home, as well as power and fuperiority abroad. We have no idea of a statesman having any connection with the affair; and we believe that the fuperiority which England has at prefent over all the world, in point of commerce, is owing to her excluding ftatefinen from the executive part of all commercial concerns. A single inftance will illuftrate what we mean. Lewis XIV. and his mi nifters took it into their heads to regulate their American provinces; and Charlevoix has given us an account (we believe a very just one) of the feveral operations, alterations, regulations, and arrangements they underwent !-What was the confequence -The crown, company, and all concerned, year after year, were lofers, and the Jefuits were the only gainers, becaufe their traffic was in fouls; a commerce in which no ftatefman has any concern. It is true, the legislature has a right to make trade contribute to the neceffities of the ftate; but when we confider the fyftem of British commerce, the whole of it, even in its feverest restrictions, tends to felf-preservation, and to prevent thofe evils which private intereft might introduce. This writer very accurately defines the difference between demand and competition in trade; and his reafoning on that head is full and fatisfactory. He next confiders the proportions between demand and supply, and examines how the equal ba lance between both comes at last to be destroyed. He thinks that domestic vices alone are not fufficient to ruin a trading nation; she must have rivals who are able to profit of them. He divides the degrees of fubordination between man and man into four; 1. That of flaves upon their masters. 2. That of children upon their parents. 3. That of labourers upon the proprietors of lands. 4. That of the free hands, employed in trades and manufactures, upon their cuftomers. We are forry to obferve too much of a foreign caft in this author's ideas. The dependence of flaves upon mafters has no existence in England. Even a negro bought by the master's money is no flave, because the laws will oblige that master to maintain him, and will punish him if he mifufes him. The dependence of children upon parents has no relation to any species of political economy, because it refults from a common principle of naThe dependence of labourers on the proprietors of lands in England, we think, is a convertible term, because we are not fure, whether the proprietors of lands may not more properly be faid to depend upon their labourers. The fame obfervation extends to the relation between manufacturers and cuf ture. tomers. |