his cudgel on the back; my dear, cries he, these are the last blows you are ever to receive from your tender father; I refign my authority, and my cudgel, to your bufband; he knows better than me the use of either. The bridegroom knows decorums too well to accept of the cudgel abruptly; he affures the father that the lady will never want it, and that he would not, for the world, make any ufe of it; but the father, who knows what the lady may want better than he, infifts upon his acceptance: upon this there follows a fcene of Ruffian politenefs, while one refufes, and the other offers the cudgel. The whole, however, ends with the bridegroom's taking it; upon which the lady drops a courtesy in token of obedience, and the ceremony proceeds as ufual.

There is fomething exceffively fair and open in this method of courtship: by this both fides are prepared for all the matrimonial adventures that are to follow. Marriage has been compared to a game of fkill for life; it is generous thus in both parties to declare they are sharpers in the beginning. In England, I am told, both fides ufe every art to conceal their defects from each other before marriage, and the reft of their lives may be regarded as doing penance for their former diffimulation. Farewell.

LETTER XX.

FROM THE SAME.

THE republic of letters is a very common expreffion among the Europeans; and yet when applied to the learned of Europe, is the moft abfurd that can be imagined, fince nothing is more unlike a republic VOL. III.

F

than

than the fociety which goes by that name. From this expreffion one would be apt to imagine, that the learned were united into a fingle body, joining their interefts, and concurring in the fame defign. From this one might be apt to compare them to our literary focieties in China, where each acknowledges a juft fubordination; and all contribute to build the temple of fcience, without attempting, from ignorance or envy, to obftruct each other.

But very different is the ftate of learning here; every member of this fancied republic is defirous of governing, and none willing to obey; each looks upon his fellow as a rival, not an affiftant in the fame purfuit. They calumniate, they injure, they defpife, they ridicule each other; if one man writes a book that pleafes, others fhall write books to fhew that he might have given ftill greater pleasure, or fhould not have pleafed. If one happens to hit upon fomething new, there are numbers ready to affure the publick that all this was no novelty to them or the learned; that Cardanus, or Brunus, or fome other author too dull to be generally read, had anticipated the difcovery. Thus, inftead of uniting like the members of a commonwealth, they are divided into almoft as many factions as there are men; and their jarring conftitution, inftead of being ftyled a republic of letters, fhould be entitled an anarchy of literature.

It is true, there are fome of fuperior abilities who reverence and efteem each other; but their mutual admiration is not fufficient to fhield off the contempt of the crowd. The wife are but few, and they praise with a feeble voice; the vulgar are many, and roar in reproaches. The truly great feldom unite in focieties; have few meetings, no cabals; the dunces hunt in full cry till they have run down a reputation, and then fnarl and fight with each other about dividing the fpoil. Here you may fee the compilers

and

and the book-anfwerers of every month, when they have cut up fome refpectable name, moft frequently reproaching each other with ftupidity and dulnefs; refembling the wolves of the Ruffian foreft, who prey upon venifon, or horfe-flesh, when they can get it; but, in cafes of neceffity, lying in wait to devour each other. While they have new books to cut up, they make a hearty meal; but if this refource fhould unhappily fail, then it is that critics eat up critics, and compilers rob from compilations.

Confucius obferves, that it is the duty of the learned to unite fociety more clofely, and to perfuade men to become citizens of the world; but the authors I refer to, are not only for difuniting fociety, but kingdoms alfo: if the English are at war with France, the dunces of France think it their duty to be at war with thofe of England. Thus Freron, one of their first-rate fcribblers, thinks proper to characterife all the English writers in the grofs: Their 'whole merit (fays he) confifts in exaggeration, and ' often in extravagance; correct their pieces as you pleafe, there ftill remains a leaven which corrupts the whole. They fometimes difcover genius, but not the fmalleft fhare of tafte: England is not a 'foil for the plants of genius to thrive in.' This is open enough, with not the leaft adulation in the picture; but hear what a Frenchman of acknowledged abilities fays upon the fame fubject: I am at a lofs to determine in what we excel the English, or where 7 they excel us; when I compare the merits of both in any one fpecies of literary compofition, fo many reputable and pleafing writers prefent themfelves 'from either country, that my judgment refts in fufpence I am pleafed with the difquifition, without finding the object of my enquiry.' But left you fhould think the French alone are faulty in this refpect, hear how an English journalist delivers his fentiments of them: We are amazed (fays he)

:

to find fo many works tranflated from the French, while we have fuch numbers neglected of our own. In our opinion, notwithstanding their fame throughout the rest of Europe, the French are the most contemptible reafoners (we had almost faid writers) that can be imagined. However, nevertheless, excepting, &c.' Another English writer, Shaftsbury, if I remember, on the contrary, fays that the French authors are pleafing and judicious, more clear, more methodical, and entertaining, than those of his own country.

From these oppofite pictures you perceive that the good authors of either country praise, and the bad revile each other; and yet, perhaps, you will be furprized that indifferent writers fhould thus be the moft apt to cenfure, as they have the most to apprehend from recrimination; you may perhaps imagine, that fuch as are poffeffed of fame themfelves fhould be moft ready to declare their opinicns, fince what they fay might pass for decifion. But the truth happens to be, that the great are folicitous only of raifing their own reputations, while the oppofite clafs, alas! are folicitous of bringing every reputation down to a level with their own.

But let us acquit them of malice and envy; a critic is often guided by the fame motives that direct his author. The author endeavours to perfuade us, that he has written a good book; the critic is equally folicitous to fhew that he could write a better, had he thought proper. A critic is a being poffeffed of all the vanity, but not the genius, of a fcholar; incapable from his native weaknefs of lifting himfelf from the ground, he applies to contiguous merit for support; makes the fportive fallies of another's imagination his ferious employment, pretends to take our feelings under his care, teaches where to condemn, where to lay the emphafis of praise; and may with as much juftice be

2

called

called a man of tafte, as the Chinese who measures his wisdom by the length of his nails.

If then a book fpirited or humourous happens to appear in the republic of letters, feveral critics are in waiting to bid the publick not to laugh at a fingle line of it, for themselves had read it; and they know what is moft proper to excite laughter. Other critics contradict the fulminations of this tribunal, call them all fpiders, and affure the publick, that they ought to laugh without reftraint. Another fet are in the mean time quietly employed in writing notes to the book, intended to fhew the particular paffages to be laughed at; when thefe are out, others ftill there are who write notes upon notes: thus a fingle new book employs not only the papermakers, the printers, the preffinen, the book-binders, the hawkers, but twenty critics, and as many compilers. In fhort, the body of the learned may be compared to a Perfian army, where there are many pioneers, feveral futtlers, numberlefs fervants, women and children in abundance, and but few foldiers. Adieu.

THE English are as fond of fecing plays acted as

the Chinese; but there is a vaft difference in the manner of conducting them. We play our pieces in the open air, the English theirs under cover; we act by day-light, they by the blaze of torches. One of our plays continues eight or ten days fucceffively;