fuch juft allegories, fuch nice fatire, fo thorough a knowledge of the human heart, fo many comic graces, which are continually fucceeding to the ftrongest ftrokes of terror, and, in a word, by fuch innumerable beauties of every kind, that he has found the fecret of forming a monster that we cannot but admire.

With regard to the Iliad, let every reader ask himself, what he would think if he was to read for the first time, this poem, and Taffo's Gierufalemme, without knowing the name of the authors, or the time when thofe works were compofed, and to judge only from the pleafure he felt? Could he do otherwife than give the preference to Taffo in all refpects? Will he not find in the Italian more conduct, more interest, more varie

ty,

ty, more juftness, and a greater number of graces, with that delicacy which fo enhances the fublime? In a few ages more, perhaps, they will be no longer placed in comparifon." I can allow Taffo and Ariofto their juft merit. But yet I think quoting thefe words fufficient to refute them: All Europe, even the best Italian critics, allow the unrivalled greatnefs of Homer; nor fhall I fuppofe Voltaire's opinion of confequence enough to bear down the united teftimony of three thoufand years. Let me also observe, that this fuperficial author, who aims at being univerfal, goes to the bottom of nothing. Several Italians, among the reft Martinelli, have proved that he does not understand their language, although he has tranflated it. It is certain that he showed the most total ignorance of it,

when he rendered a paffage in Danté into French; and as to the Greek, not a fingle paffage in all his works gives us the leaft reafon to affign him a greater knowledge of that language. But if the reader will compare what he fays in his Effay on Epic Poetry, with the above quotations, he will perceive fome abfolute contradic-. tions.

Milton's divine poem of Paradife Loft deferves every commendation that we can beltow on it. Yet it certainly has been praised, rather in a prejudiced manner by Mr. Addison. That critic, like Scaliger, was prejudiced in favour of his author; and feldom cares to point out the defects in the Paradise Loft. A particular criticifm on the beauties of that performance would now be tedious, as it is to be met with already in fo popular a book as

the

the Spectator but there are fome parts of it which being far from equal to the reft of the poem, Mr. Addison has either paffed over in filence, or palliated. Some of these I fhall take the liberty to quote, not with defign to attack the memory of the greatest poetical genius our nation ever produced (that task I leave to the Lauders of the age) but to give a fair criticism on what Mr. Addison has omitted to mention,

In respect of fable, the above-mentioned critic has pointed out the principal defects in that of the Paradife Loft; but in fpeaking of the characters, I think he is too particular in his praife, when he says, "The angels are as much diverfified in Milton, and distinguished by their proper parts, as the gods are in Homer and Vir

gil*."

gil * "

I cannot apprehend this to be the cafe; there is to be fure fome difference between them, but then it is but paint, and not so strikingly characteristical as thofe of Homer.

Indeed it was not in Milton's power to make any ftriking and characteristical difference between his angels; for how can we comprehend that mixture and variety of traits in them, which form the characters of men, fuch as Homer drew. A divine brightness must blaze in all, and confequently there must be a famenefs throughout them; for one paffion or affection, though it may be variously painted, if, when it reigns in fo many characters in the fame poem, it will prevent fuch vaft variety as we

Spectator, Vol. IV. N° 273.

meet