If Boileau has bestowed great praise upon Lewis XIV. wherein is he to blame? Where is the flattery? Had not this king fome very commendable qualities? He had his infirmities and frailties, undoubtedly; and what king, what man is without them? Could he be reproached with profcriptions like Auguftus? And yet that emperor was commended by Horace and by Virgil. Could Boileau fee the love of his prince for what was great, for the liberal arts, &c. the favourable reception which diftinguished abilities never failed to meet with, and the rewards that were liberally beftowed upon merit; could he fee this, I fay, without enthusiasm? Was it poffible for him not to be warmed with gratitude, when his prince, fpoke to him in fuch engaging and fuch flattering terms? But who ever praised with more delicacy or dignity than Boileau ? On what occafion are his praifes mean or infipid? In this respect he is fuperior to every poet. In order to be convinced of this Jet me beg of you, Sir, to read once more thofe parts of his works, wherein he fpeaks of Louis-le-grand, his eighth epiftle, the conclufion of his Art of Poetry, &c. What ingenious, what noble, what natural turns of expreffion! Befides, has Boileau praifed none but his prince? All the great men of the age he lived in, in every different walk of life, were praised by him, and he never retracted his praifes. The great Condè, Turenne, Vivenne, Nantouillet, Rochefoucault, Colbert, &c. all received their juft portion of praife. You yourself, Sir, have bestowed as many pompous praises, at leaft, upon Lewis XIV. as Boileau did. But what do I fay? Boileau had the noble courage to fpeak the language of truth to his prince. Read his first epiftle, wherein he expreffes himself with fo much force and spirit against conquerors, and relates the con. verfation of Pyrrhus and Cineas, which is a very adroit cenfure of the vaft enterprizes of Lewis. On peut être héros fans ravager la terre. Il eft plus d'une gloire. En vain aux conquerans Is this the language of flattery, Sir? Is it poffible to speak truth to a king in bolder terms, than to place him in the number of the heureux téméraires? And what renders the character of BoiIcau yet more refpectable, he ftill continued attached to thofe whom he loved, even when they had incurred the king's dif pleasure. When Janfenifm was a crime at court, he was the firft to turn into ridicule the fashionable, madnefs of calling the Janfenifts men of great merit and virtue, with a view to blacken their characters. He did juftice, in the moft public and open manner, to the virtues and abilities of the famous Arnaud, though in difgrace; and confecrated his veneration and ten derness derness for him, by that beautiful epitaph wherewith he honoured his tomb. But have not you, Sir, who accufe Boileau of having flattered Lewis XIV. carried your incense from court to court? Have not you offered it up, with a very liberal hand, not only to fovereigns inferior in every respect to Louis-le-grand, but to a thousand other perfons very little esteemed by the Public? This is a fpecimen of our Author's obfervations upon Voltaire's epiftle to Boileau; we recommend the whole to the attentive and impartial perufal of Voltaire's numerous admirers; although it should tend, in fome degree, to leffen that veneration in which his character as a writer has long been held. ART. XIII. Les Trois Siecles de notre Litterature, ou Tableau de L'Esprit de nos Ecrivains, depuis François 1. jufqu'en 1772: par ordre alphabétique. -The three Ages of French Literature, &c. 8vo. 3 Vols. Paris, 1772. N the preface to this ingenious and entertaining work, the Author draws a very melancholy, though we are afraid, too just a picture of the prefent ftate of Literature and Morals in France. An age of genius, of reafon, of greatness, and of glory, fays he, is fucceeded by a frivolous, weak, giddy, and abfurd age. The theatre of Literature is invaded by three forts of enemies, who degrade it; a tyrannical and contradictory philosophy choaks the very feeds of genius; a falfe tafte deftroys true and folid principles; and a blind facility of admiring every thing banishes emulation and difcourages merit. Rules are defpifed, ranks confounded, and great mafters infulted; knowledge is little honoured, mediocrity favourably received, nay even celebrated, and a bold and daring spirit fupplies the place of genius. We fee almost every moment the moft whimsical publications, aftonishing fuccefs, ufurped reputations, and were it not for fome Writers who are incapable of yielding to the torrent, good tafte and reafon would have neither difciples nor support. In fuch a state of things, it is impoffible for zeal not to raise its voice. Whilft prejudice, or the fpirit of party, continue to difpenfe praise or cenfure, the progrefs of degeneracy will infallibly become more rapid. It is the duty, therefore, of the impartial scholar, the friend of truth and juftice, to combat fuch ufurpations, to open the eyes of the multitude, to pronounce, according to invariable rules, upon the merit or demerit of fo many Authors, forgotten through injuftice, or applauded through feduction. And why should we be afraid of taking this office upon us? The The Republic of Letters is a ftate perfectly free, in which every citizen enjoys the fame privileges, though he does not enjoy the fame honours; the most illuftrious has no rights but what are fupported by merit and talents, and the moft obfcure does not exceed the limits of his power, when he paffes sentence upon them; the only thing neceffary is to found his determinations upon juftice and folid principles. It would be ridiculous, after this, to afk us, what are the mafter picces which you have produced? If the Writers whom we cenfure were to put this question to us, we might answer; the fear of doing no better than you, has. kept us from giving our works to the Public, and the knowledge we have of what is indifpenfably neceffary in a good work has determined us to cenfure yours. If it were necellary to add other reafons, we might fay, Muft one be an excellent Painter before he can have a right to judge of the faults or beauties of the Painter who expofes his pictures to the critical eye of the Public? It is fufficient to be a Spectator. It has been faid a thousand times, that the man who publifhes his works acknowledges every individual for his judge. Dès que l'impreffion fait éclore un Poëte,.. Il eft ejclave nè de quiconque l'achete. Boileau was in the right, and we fubmit to his authority. Let us not be reproached with affuming a decifive tone in the greatest part of our articles. We declare before-hand that our intention is to deliver our own fentiments, and that, by omitting the following modes of expreffion,-it feems to us, it appears to us, in our opinion, &c. we mean only to avoid repetitions. The falfe modefty of fuch language is incapable of producing any other effect but that of weakening the truth, and fatiguing the Reader by a tirefome and difgufting monotony. It would be equally unjuft to find fault with certain ftrokes of criticism, wherein pleafantry drops from us, as it were, of its own accord, at the fight of ridicule; if we had known any other method better adapted to mark and expofe it, we fhould certainly have employed it. The fame may be faid in regard to certain emotions of zeal which particular circumftances have excited in us; the greatnefs of the provocation, and the profpect of impunity have always made the fame impreffions upon every mind that has any fenfibility or regard to juftice; and the judi cious part of our Readers will pardon us the more readily, as they will be fenfible by what they feel in themfelves, that when the caufe of religion, morals, and tafte, is to be vindicated against the errors of feveral popular Writers, one cannot express himself too ftrongly. Writers who attack fociety have no right to demand respect, fince they themselves are wanting in that refpect which every good citizen thinks indifpenfably neceffary. Among Among the Writers whom we have cenfured, the pretended Philofophers of the age will be particularly diftinguished; and this, indeed, they ought to expect, if they are capable of doing juftice to their own characters. Those who do not judge of Authors for themselves, but follow the opinion of the multitude, have hitherto looked upon them as burning and fhining lights, as fuperior geniufes, as the benefactors of mankind; as for us who have read them, who know them, who have ftudied them thoroughly, we affign them their proper rank and station, and throw down thofe altars which inconfideration had erected in honour of them. There is nothing more extraordinary in the hiftory of the human mind, than the foolish enthufiafm which the philofophy of the present times excited, as foon as it began to raise its voice. The volatile geniufes of the capital communicated the enthusiastic spirit to the provinces, and the tyranny of the mode rendered the diftemper epidemical. It was impoffible, indeed, to make any refiftance. The golden age was to appear again under this new Aftræa; new Prometheujes feemed to have stolen purer fires from heaven, to animate the human race, and make it happy. Beneficence, humanity, toleration, knowledge, virtue, happiness, &c. were the bleffings which the Philofophers promifed to mortals; fuperftition, fanaticism, ignorance, flavery, were the anathemas of their zeal. But this bright horizon was foon overcaft; this gracious and gentle philofophy foon affumed a different tone, and exchanged its foft and compaffionate language for that of rage and declamation. Its light became a flaming torch, ready to fet fire to every thing; divine toleration was changed into an inexorable. fury; the most important truths, the moft facred principles, the most indifpenfable duties, heaven, earth, the altar, the throne, every thing, in a word, would have felt its fatal influence, if men had been as ready to practile its maxims, as they were eager to publifh them. All on a fudden errors, lies, calumnies, injuries, abfurdities, torrents of gall and impiety poured forth from the box of this modern Pandora, So glaring and fudden a transformation could not fail to open the eyes of those who had any difcernment. Strange Philofophers, it was faid, who demand favour from every body, and thew it to no body! But people have gone farther; they have not only read the books of thefe Philofophers, but they have followed them into the world, and watched their behaviour in public and private life, and then it was very eafy to fees that what might have been confidered as the mere effect of a momentary delirium, of the rage for fcribbling, of the love of fingularity, as having dropt from their pen undefignedly, &c. was but too frequently realized in their conduct. It has been seen that there is but little harmony among them, that they are jealous of each other, bitter enemies to those who oppofe their opinions, eager to form intrigues in order to increase and fupport their party; and now, to retard the utter ruin of their cabal, these haughty Philofophers are seen cringing to thofe in power, artfully calumniating merit whenever it appears in oppofition to them, and oppreffing the victims of their animofity in the most merciless manner. How natural is it, therefore, to cry out,-Are these the Guides we are to follow, these the Models we are to imitate, these the Idols we are to worship! The interefts of Society too have led to other reflections. To deny the immortality of the foul, to free the paffions from every restraint, to confound the ideas of right and wrong, to reduce every thing to felf-love, to eradicate every virtue, to break every facred tie, to attack the laws, to overturn the most facred principles, to make human life, in a word, a mere compofition of arbitrary motives, perfonal interests, sensual and irregular appetites, animal functions, to terminate it by an utter annihilation, to preach up fuicide-what is this but infulting Society, and giving every member of it a fatal blow? What is this but depriving every mind of its vigour and energy, every foul of its principles and guide, and the moft refpectable prejudices of their advantages and their power? What can be expected from a Philofopher formed in such a school? Abandoned to himself, the sport of his own humours and caprice, the flave of his paffions, the conftant victim of his own deplorable exiftence, wherein can he contribute to the happiness of others, being the most cruel enemy to himself? Accordingly, as the fruit of this baneful, this comfortless doctrine, we fee almost every where a general depravity; a narrowness of foul; an infenfibility of heart; a corruption, or rather an utter annihilation of morals, and a total perverfion of the national genius. Little objects, little views, little motives, little inventions, little amufements, fucceed that warmth, that elevation of foul, which was the glory of our ancestors, who were fuperior to us in every thing, because they were not Philofophers. Alas! of what ufe would fo much reafoning have been to them? they had the talent of acting well! Is it not well known, that a paffion for reafoning always fuppofes an imbecillity of foul? The Athenians, and all the other conquering nations were never fubdued, till they knew better how to reason than how to live and to fight. And have not letters a right to make the fame complaint? This corrofive philofophy has deftroyed talents in their very bud, has feduced them by mere chimeras, has bewildered them in their progrefs, turned them away from their proper objects, weakened |