IPHIGENIA gives a comparative idea of concifeness in the fifter art of Poetry. All expreffions of grief were exhausted by the other relations; and the father had only to hide his face with his garment, which most effectually completes the distressful scene.

Prolixity in fudden transports of paffion is unnatural, and conciseness pushes forward upon the foul a thought, which is weakened, if not ruined, by description. How much more confiftently had LIVY put short speeches into the mouths of his heroes, before a battle, than those folemn florifhes, whose tediousness gives the lie to reality! Though our excellent SHAKESPEARE (who, from his admirable adherence to nature, eclipfes the rays of the ancient drama) expands his abilities more ufually in a vein of fentiments which " come

home to men's bofoms," he poffeffes a fhare of merit in the more direct road of concifél nefs. The late Dr. YOUNG, who formed his Zanga upon Othello, is excellent in this difplay of the pathos; and has likewise happily imitated his master in the former quality

of

of description, which is indeed the more immediate characteristic of his genius. The first and laft fcenes of the Revenge will furnish many proofs of both.

A generous fpirit cannot entertain fervil ideas, or defcend to meaner actions. The foul cannot be impreffed with greatness, if the thoughts and actions difagree. The critic's fentiment in the text has its rife in this mental elevation; and it is worthy of the conqueror of Afia.

A fine anfwer is given in Leonidas to a faint-hearted half-friend, who afferted, That the Perfian enemy would launch fuch a fhower of javelins, as to obfcure the fun.'

"Then fhall we join the battle in the shade," DIENECES replied.

SALMASIUS, who (though conceited of his abilities) was a more than ordinary critic, was in company with two fons of erudition.

One of them jocularly faid, "We three, "SALMASIUS, joined together, might chal"lenge the whole world in point of learning." SALMASIUS, eyeing him fternly, replied, "Do you, fir, and your companion, league "with the universe, and I will be a match "for you all."-Such is the character of great, but prefuming talents!

The critic proceeds to fhow the difference of genius in different poets, and contrafts HESIOD'S defcription of Melancholy, with that of HOMER'S Discord: the fublimity of the latter ought scarcely to be named with the paltry fulfomeness of the former.

How much fuperior is Difcord, who "On earth high tow'ring ftalks with swelling fize, "And all-enormous heaves into the skies ;"

to Melancholy,

"From whofe nofe

A filthy moisture driveling flows!"

an expreffion, which always recalls to my mind the defcription of old age, nauseous

ཉ

indeed (but how can it in juftice be reprefented otherwise ?) in JUVENAL, Sat. x.

'

"Quàm continuis, et quantis longa fenectus "Plena malis, deformem et tetrum ante omnia ❝ vultum,

Diffimilemq;fui,atq;horrentem pro cute pellem, "Pendentefq; genas, et tales afpice rugas, Quales

"In vetula fcalpfit jam mater fimia bucca; -cum voce trementia membra, læve caput, madidiq; infantia nafi.”

66

DRYDEN in his tranflation feems to have equalled, if not excelled his original.

1.

The pagan piety of HOMER, represented by LONGINUS, is admirable; but how much furpaffed by the facred writers in their fentiments of the true deity!

Let the fea, and all its inhabitants, bow fubmiffive to the Neptune of HOMER; let the Neptune of VIRGIL affert his dominion over the tides, and put the storms to filence: yet will he fall to nothing at the fight of our

bleffed

bleffed Creator, who can lay all nature in afnes at a frown, and recall all its beauties. with a smile; at whose chiding the springs of waters were seen, and the foundations of the world were discovered at the blaft of the breath of his difpleasure. The earth quaked, and the very foundations of the hills fhook, and were remoyed-because he was wroth,

ORIG.-Γίνηται φως, καὶ φως ἐγένετο

The long-difputed paffage of MOSES now appears before us; it has been admired and condemned by literary merit: whether LONGINUS had dipped into the facred writings is by no means material, though his faulty quotation of the prefent paffage may be one argument that he did not: the main point is, whether the paffage in question is fublime.

That fublimity as frequently has its rife from fimplicity, as from grandeur of style, is evident, particularly from the inspired, as