approv'd of the Sentiments and the Diction, but did not fall in with the Design. That it was play'd at last was owing to Mr. Hughes, who wrote the Siege of Damascus, a Tragedy. He had read the Four Acts, which were finished, and rightly thought it would be of Service to the Publick, to have it represented at the latter End of Queen Ann's Reign, when the old English Spirit of Liberty was as likely to be lost as it had ever been since the Conquest. He endeavour'd to bring Mr. Addison into his Opinion, which he did so far as to procure his Consent, that it should be acted if Mr. Hughes would write the last Act, and he offer'd him the Scenary for his Assistance, excusing his not finishing it himself on Account of some other Avocations. He prest Mr. Hughes to do it so earnestly, that he was prevail'd upon and set about it. But a Week after, seeing Mr. Addison again with an Intention to communicate to him what he had thought of it, he was agreeably surpris'd at his producing some Papers, where near half of the Act was written by the Author himself, who took Fire at the Hint that it would be serviceable, and upon a second Reflection went thorough with the Fifth Act: Not that he was diffident of Mr. Hughes's Ability, but knowing that no Man could have so perfect a Notion of his Design as himself, who had been so long and so carefully thinking of it. I was told this by Mr. Hughes, and I tell it to shew that it was not for the Love Scenes, that Mr. Addison consented to have his Tragedy acted, but to support the old Roman and English Publick Spirit, which was then so near being suppressed by Faction and Bigotry. The most cunning of their Leaders were sensible of it, and therefore very dexterously stole away the Merit of the Poem, by applauding the Poet, and patronizing the Action and Actors. It is therefore obvious, that a severe Critick may find a Colour for his Severity, with Respect to the Design of the Play, but that will not hinder its captivating every one that sees or reads it. The Graces and Excellencies, both of Thought and Expression, do much more deserve our Admiration and Applause, than the Deficiency in the Fable deserves Censure. However, as to Dryden's Virgil and Cato, ask those that admire the one or the other what it is that pleases them? And I doubt it will be found to be the very Places, which should have most displeased, where Dryden offended most against the Character of Epick Poetry by imitating Ovid's Softness, and an eternal Jeu des Mots, Playing upon Words, and where Cato suspends the Action and Passion of the Scene to teach the Audience, Philosophy and Morality.

It is common for the most discreet and delicate Authors to take Care of themselves, when they are treating of any of the Sciences. You will always find the Divine, the Lawyer, the Mathematician, the Astrologer, the Chymist, the Mechanick, &c. reserving to themselves the Merit of their particular Sciences when they are discoursing of the Arts in general. A merry Instance of this in the Astrologer is mention'd by the very learned Gregory out of Albumazer, who asserted, that all Religions were govern'd by the Planets; the Mahometan by Venus, the Jewish by Saturn, and the Christian by the Sun: Nay, he adds, that one Guido Bonatus a Gymnosophist affirms in his Parallells, that Christ himself was an Astrologer, and made use of Elections. The Spectator, with all his Modesty, has discover'd something of this Self-love in that of the Sciences, and could not help giving into this Infirmity. Every one knows what a fine Talent he had for Writing, and particularly how beautiful his Imagination was, and how polite his Language. Himself was not a Stranger to it; and we therefore read in the Spectator, N^o 291; I might further observe, that there is not a Greek or Latin Critick, who has not shewn, even in the Stile of his Criticisms, that he was Master of all the Elegance and Delicacy of his native Language. Here does this excellent Author forbid any one's Claim to the Character of a Critick, who is not like himself Master of the Delicacy and Elegance of his native Tongue; though I am apt to believe, that as a Man may be a very good Judge of Painting without being himself a Painter, so he may make very good Criticisms in Poetry and Eloquence, without being a Poet or an Orator. What would have become of our famous Critick Rymer, whom Mr. Dryden has so much commended, and so much abused, if his Criticisms must not pass, on Account of his not being Master of the Elegance and Delicacy of our Language, as it does not appear he was by his Translation of Ovid's Epistle from Penelope to Ulysses.

The Bantring and Napping, the Skipper, the Dowdy Wife, the Cupboard, the Means, and the Blood and Soul, agree admirably with the Royal Characters of King Ulysses and Queen Penelope, and the courtly Manner of Ovid. Radcliff's Letter, from the Skipper's Wife of Newcastle to her Husband at St. Catherine's, can hardly have more of the Burlesque in it.

The Truth is, Mr. Addison, in the above Quotation, has a Fling upon the Author of the Critick upon his Cato. A few general Rules extracted out of the French Authors, with a certain Cant of Words, have sometimes set up an illiterate heavy Writer, for a most judicious and formidable Critick. I know no Instance wherein that Gentleman loses his Temper so much as in this. There were but three Authors in our Time who were Criticks by Profession, Rymer, Dennis, and Gildon. Rymer is own'd by himself to be a masterly Critick: He himself knew Mr. Dennis did not want Learning; and as to Fire, he has perhaps rather too much of it, than too little. I can't help thinking, that the Ode he writ on Dryden's Translation of the 3d Book of the Georgicks, in Tonson's Fourth Miscellany, deserv'd a kinder Word than illiterate or heavy.