ing your little merit, you are, vou fay, not fubject to the errors of celebrated men. True, because it is neceffary either to run, or at least to walk, before one can fall. When you boaft of the juftness of your understanding, methinks I hear cripples glory in making no false steps. Your conduct, you add, is often wifer than that of the men of genius. Yes, because you have not within you that principle of life and of the paffions, which equally produces great vices, great virtues, and great talents. But are you more worthy of commendation for this? Of what importance is it to the public, whether the conduct of a particular perfon be good C or bad? A man of genius, had he vices, is still more worthy of efteem than you: in fact, he ferves his country either by the innocence of his manners, and the virtuous example he fets, or by the knowlege he diffufes abroad. Of thefe two ways of ferving his country, the laft, without doubt, moft directly belongs to genius, and is at the fame time that which procures the greatest advantages to the public. The virtuous example given by a particular perfon, is fcarcely of ufe to any befides the fmall number of those with whom he conyerfes on the contrary, the new light the fame perfon spreads over the arts and sciences, is a benefit to the whole world. It is then certain, that the man of genius, even though his probity fhould be very imperfect, would have a greater right than you to the gratitude of the public,

• The declamations of the men of folid understanding against those who are distinguished by their genius, must doubtless, at times, impofe on the multitude: nothing is more eafy than to deceive them. If the Spaniard, at the fight of the fpectacles, which fome of his teachers conftantly wear on their nofes, perfuades himself, that these Doctors have almost pored themselves blind with reading, and that they are very wife; if we every day take vivacity of gesture for that of wit, and taciturnity for knowlege; we may also take the ufual gravity of the men of understanding for an effect of their wifdom. But the delufion vanishes of itself, and we foon call to mind, that gravity, as Madmoiselle de Scudery says, is only a fecret of the body, to conceal the defects of the mind.'

As there are more men of common understanding in the world than men of genius, we are apprehenfive the majority of our Readers will hardly fall in with Mr. Helvetius's opinion, in all the above particulars. We imagine, indeed, they will think probity as needful in a man of genius, as in any other; fince, certain it is, as it lies in his power to do the community more good than a common man, fo he has it

equally

equally in his power to do it more harm at leaft, as a man of genius, in his difcoveries and the publication of them to the world, he ought to be a man of the stricteft probity.

It is yet very certain, as our Author obferves, that the ge nerality of mankind exclaim against the vices and fingularities of great men, more out of a spirit of envy, than from a real regard to modefty or virtue.

Among those who declaim with fuch heat, against the fin 'gularities of men of wit, how many are there who believe ⚫ themfelves folely animated by the love of juftice and truth! However, let me afk, why do you attack with fuch fury a ridicule, which is frequently attended with no injury to any one? A man affects fingularity? Laugh at him, and wel come: you would thus behave to a perfon without merit, and why should you not treat a man of genius in the fame 'manner? It is becaufe his fingularity attracts the attention of the public: now their attention being once fixed upon a perfon of merit, it is employed about him, they forget you, and your pride is wounded. This is the fecret principle, both of the respect you affect to fhew for the customs of the world, and of your hatred of fingularity.

You will tell me, perhaps, that what is extraordinary makes an impreffion, and that this adds to the fame of the 'man of wit; that fimple and modeft merit is lefs esteemed, which is an injuftice you are willing to revenge, by decrying fingularity. But does envy, I reply, prevent your perceiving where affectation is, and where it is not? In general, men of fuperior abilities are but little fubject to it; a lazy and thoughtful difpofition may be attended with fingularity, but will never produce much appearance of it. • The affectation of fingularity is then very uncommon.

What activity does it require to fupport a fingular character? What knowlege of the world muft fuch a perfon • have, nicely to chufe fuch a ridicule as will render hím neither defpicable nor odious to other men; to adapt that ridi'cule to his character, and proportion it to his merit? For, in fhort, it is only a particular degree of genius that is allowed to be particularly ridiculous. Have we this; we may make use of it, the ridicule, far from injuring us, is of fer'vice. When Æneas defcended into Hell, in order to pacify the monfter at its gates, that hero, by the advice of the Sybil, provided himself with a cake, which he tofled into the mouth of Cerberus. Who knows whether merit, in ⚫ order to appease the hatred of its cotemporaries, ought not

thus

thus to caft into the mouth of envy the cake of ridicule?' • Prudence requires this, and even human nature renders it ⚫ neceflary. If there appeared a perfect man, it would be neceffary for him, by fome. great follies, to foften the hatred of his fellow-citizens. It is true, that in this refpect we may truft to nature, fince fhe has provided every man with a fufficient number of faults to render him fupportable.

A certain proof, namely envy, under the name of justice, is let loose against the follies of men of genius, fo that all their fingularity does not offend us. A grofs fingularity that flatters the vanity of a man of moderate abilities, by making him perceive that the man of merit has faults, from which he is exempt, by perfuading him that all men of genius are fools, and that he alone is wife, is a fingularity always very proper to conciliate his good-will. Let a man of genius, for instance, drefs himself in a particular manner, moft men who do not diftinguifh wisdom from folly, and < know it only by the length of a peruke, will take him for a fool; they will laugh at him; but like him the better for it. In exchange for the pleasure they find in ridiculing him, they will freely allow him the praife that is his due. People cannot frequently laugh at a man, without talking much of him. Now this, which would ruin a fool, increases the ⚫ reputation of a man of merit. They do not laugh at him • without acknowleging, and, perhaps, even exaggerating his fuperiority, with respect to his diftinguishing excellence; and by outrageous declamations, the envious, unknown to themselves, even contribute to his glory. What gratitude • do I owe you? will the man of genius freely say, your hatred makes me friends! The public will not long be deceived by the motives of your anger: you are offended, not by my fingularity, but at my reputation. If you dared, you would like me be fingular: but, you know, that an affected fingularity is extremely flat in a man without wit; your inftinct informs you, either that you have not, or at least that the public does not grant you the merit necessary to appear particular. This is the true caufe of your abhorrence of fingularity. You refemble thofe artful women, who,

• in

To the fame caufe we ought to attribute the love which almoft ⚫ all fools affect to have for probity, when they fay, we fly the men of wit, they are bad company, and dangerous men. But it may ⚫ be faid, the church, the court, the magiftracy, and the treasury, furnish men as worthy of cenfure as the academies. Moft men of learning have not even an inclination to become knaves. Besides, the defire of esteem, which always fuppofes the love of study, ferves them,

inceffantly exclaiming against the indecency of all modern dreffes proper to fhew the fhape, do not perceive, that they owe their refpect for antient fafhions only to their perfonal ‹ deformity.

Whatever we have that is ridiculous, we always conceal <from ourselves, we only perceive it in others. I fhall mention on this fubject a fact pleasant enough, which is faid to have happened in our days. The Duke of Lorrain gave a 'grand entertainment to his whole court. The fupper was ferved up in a veftibule, which opened on a parterre. In the midst of the fupper a lady thought the faw a fpider: fhe ' was feized with fear, fcreamed out, left the table, fled into the garden, and fell down on the grafs. At the moment of • her fall, fhe heard fome body near her; this was the Duke's prime minifter. "O Sir, faid fhe, " you revive my courage, how much am I obliged to you! I was afraid I had "been guilty of an impertinence." "O Madam, who could ftay there? replied the minifter: but tell me, was it a "very large one?" "Dear Sir, it was quite frightful." "Did it fly near me?" added he. "What do you mean? "the spider fly?" "How, returned he, is it only for a fpider that you make all this to do? Go, Madam, you are "very weak: I thought it had been a batt!"

66

66

66

This fact is the hiftory of all mankind. We cannot fupport our own ridicule in another; we reciprocally offer abufe, and in this world it is always abfurdity that laughs at folly.

We fhall here take leave of this moft ingenious and entertaining Writer, by exprefling our great regret, that the tranflation is fo much unequal to the original. We had fome intention of particularizing a few of the defects in the latter, to juftify our cenfure; but as they are fo exceedingly numerous, and fo obvious to every one who has the leaft knowlege of the two languages, or of the fubject, we thall fpare ourselves the difagreeable task of pointing out the miftakes or inaccuracies of a hafty tranflator †, and the errors of an incorrect printer.

them, in this respect, as a prefervative. Among the men of learning, there are few whofe probity is not confirmed by fome virtuous actions. But even fuppofing them as great cheats as the blockheads, the qualities of the mind may at lealt compenfate for the vices of the heart; but the fool has nothing to atone for them. Why then do they fly from the men of genius? It is b caufe they are humbled by their prefence, and take that for a love of virtue, which is only an avertion to perfons of fuperior abilities.'

For which, perhaps, the Bookfeller ought chiefly to be accountable; for thofe gentlemen are generally in fuch a hurry, that they regard the quicknes, rather than the correctness of a tranflation.

REV. Auguft 1759.

Ι

The

The Pfalter in its original Form: or, the book of Pfalms reduced to lines, in an eafy and familiar ftyle, and a kind of blank verse of unequal measures, anfwering, for the most part, to the original lines, as fuppofed to contain each a sentence, or fome entire part of one. With arguments pointing out the general defign of each Pfalm; and notes, accounting for fome paffages in the tranflation; opening and explaining alfo, in fome places, the prophetic views. To which is added, a like plain translation of the laft words of David, with notes. By the Author of "Thoughts on the Hebrew titles of the Pfalms." 8vo. 5s. Longman.

TH

THOUGH the name of the Author of this treatife is omitted in the title-page, yet we learn from an advertisement at the end of it, that it was written by the Reverend George Fenwick, B. D. Rector of Tallaton, in Leicestershire, who was fome time fellow of St. John's College, in Cambridge. He chufes to be known as the Author of a piece published in the year 1749, which was compofed principally with a view to the fame end, which is the declared object of his last publication; viz. that the Pfalms were wrote in the fpirit of prophecy, with a special and direct reference to Chrift and his church, in the different ages and periods of the Chriftian difpenfation. He is of opinion, that we fhall ftrangely deceive ourfelves, and lofe fight of what they were defigned to fet before us, if we confine our thoughts to David, Afaph, or any other, as compofing or writing them with no other view but that of recording and acknowleging fome private and particular mercies to themselves, or even to the Jewish people. That,whatever were the particular occafions on which they were any of them wrote, which we fhall in vain employ ourfelves in enquiring after, any further than fome few of their titles may help us, they would never have been used all along by the Christian as well as Jewish church, in their most folemn offices of worship and devotion, if they had not been supposed to have been wrote throughout in the fpirit of prophecy. This Mr. Fenwick obferves is a thing confeffed by all the learned Rabbies, and plainly fuppofed by the Chaldée paraphrafe, as well as by the Septuagint, Syriac, and Arabic versions, and by the fathers of the Chriftian church. Upon these weak and fuperficial grounds, the mere vifionary and conjectural fyftems of uninspired Writers, our Author enquires, to whom can thefe prophecies relate, but to Chrift and his church,-the Meffiah OUR GOD and KING? And why then should wedoubt of his being the Menazzch, or great conqueror, to whom they are fo many of them afcribed; as well as the Fahrah elchenu, the Lord our God, our redeemer, our re

6

'fuge,