in these representations must depend both on his own genius and on the refinement - which has taken place in the moral taste of the age. If duly qualified, however, for the task he has undertaken, he can seldom fail of drawing models of conduct higher than can be found in the life of any of his contemporaries and this seems to be all that is required.

Such, then, it would appear, are the advantages which may arise from works formed upon this plan, provided they be properly conducted, and not indulged in to excess. Many persons, however, have been of a different opinion; and have condemned all attempts to exhibit characters which rise in any degree above common life. It may be proper to consider some of the arguments which have been advanced in support of this opinion.

Some have thought it sufficient to observe, that no such characters were to be found in real life; that they were faultless monsters, which the world ne'er saw.' This argument is evidently founded upon the idea, that the

proper office of fiction is to give a faithful representation of human life; an idea which I have examined at length, in a former part of the work. Ishall only observe in addition, that, upon this supposition, the art of writing would be placed on a footing inferior to those of painting and statuary. We never reproach the painter for assembling, in one, the beauties of different landscapes; nor the sculptor for drawing finer forms than were ever moulded by the hand of nature. The mere copying of real objects is obviously an inferior department of these arts; while the other is that which has been always occupied by the great mas ters. But, if external forms may thus be embellished at pleasure, shall the painter of mind alone be reduced to the rank of a mere imitator? One striking difference which exists between them, is completely in favour of the latter. The former are merely objects of taste, and have obviously no tendency to pro duce any improvement on the form of the spectator. But, in the case of moral painting, a man both possesses a power, and naturally feels an impulse, to form himself to

some resemblance of the object which he admires.

It has been objected also, that such characters are not capable of being rendered very interesting. There is certainly ground for this objection, in regard to some of those which have been drawn even by writers of genius. The art of drawing imaginary perfect characters, like every other art, must be progressive and though many faults may be discovered in a few of the first, this affords no sufficient presumption against future attempts being attended with greater success. Two causes seem to have been chiefly instrumental in occasioning the defect here complained of. Writers have often considered perfection too much as a negative quality. They have been more anxious to render their heroes free from blame, than distinguished for active and virtuous exertion. Now, negative virtue is no doubt of great importance in itself. As, however, it leaves the character very incomplete, so, in narrative, the figure it makes is particularly insipid.

Another cause may be, that this perfect

character has been represented as too entirely governed by reason. That faculty has been made, not merely as it ought to be, the ruling, but the sole, principle of action; to the entire exclusion of imagination and feeling. This, as man is now constituted, cannot be considered as forming the perfection of his nature; and, in a work of this kind, it must be peculiarly ill calculated for interesting and affecting the reader. But, where the different faculties preserve their due proportions, and the situations are such, as to give them full opportunity of displaying themselves, I cannot think that, to persons of just taste, the character would appear insipid or uninteresting.

It might tend to obviate any danger of this kind, if, while the hero is not deficient in any good quality, he should possess some one in a peculiar and eminent degree. The virtue chosen for this purpose should be such as his circumstances and situation more particularly call for.

The next objection is, that characters raised very much above the ordinary level are

apt to produce despair, rather than emulation. Here we may observe, that it is neither to be expected, nor perhaps to be wished, that any one should study such a work with the express view of making his conduct coincide, in every respect, with that of its hero. A tame and pedantic character would be the natural result of such a servile imitation. It is sufficient, that he should regard his conduct with high sentiments of interest and admiration, should enter into the views by which he is guided, and be formed insensibly to the same mode of thinking and acting. Besides, we never think of requiring the moralist to bring down his instructions to the level of ordinary practice. Men must always be expected to fall somewhat short of the standard they have formed to themselves. The great danger, then is, of that standard being too low, not of its being too high. Even if some little abatement be thought necessary, it ought to be general, and to run through the whole character. To represent a striking failure in some particular virtue, is productive of bad effects which have been

B