lies not in a point, but admits of a very considerable
latitude." Consider the wide distance, in this respect, between Mr. Pope
and Lucretius. These seem to lie in the two greatest extremes of
refinement and simplicity which a poet can indulge himself in, without
being guilty of any blameable excess. All this interval may be filled
with poets, who may differ from each other, but may be equally
admirable, each in his peculiar style and manner. Corneille and
Congreve, who carry their wit and refinement somewhat farther than Mr.
Pope (if poets of so different a kind can be compared together), and
Sophocles and Terence, who are more simple than Lucretius, seem to have
gone out of that medium wherein the most perfect productions are to be
found, and are guilty of some excess in these opposite characters. Of
all the great poets, Virgil and Racine, in my opinion, lie nearest the
centre, and are the farthest removed from both the extremities.

My second observation on this head is, "That it is very difficult, if
not impossible, to explain by words wherein the just medium betwixt the
excesses of simplicity and refinement consists, or to give any rule by
which we can know precisely the bounds betwixt the fault and the
beauty." A critic may not only discourse very judiciously on this head
without instructing his readers, but even without understanding the
matter perfectly himself. There is not in the world a finer piece of
criticism than Fontenelle's "Dissertation on Pastorals;" wherein, by a
number of reflections and philosophical reasonings, he endeavours to fix
the just medium which is suitable to that species of writing. But let
any one read the pastorals of that author, and he will be convinced,
that this judicious critic, notwithstanding his fine reasonings, had a
false taste, and fixed the point of perfection much nearer the extreme
of refinement than pastoral poetry will admit of. The sentiments of his
shepherds are better suited to the toilets of Paris than to the forests
of Arcadia. But this it is impossible to discover from his critical
reasonings. He blames all excessive painting and ornament, as much as
Virgil could have done had he written a dissertation on this species of
poetry. However different the tastes of men may be, their general
discourses on these subjects are commonly the same. No criticism can be
very instructive which descends not to particulars, and is not full of
examples and illustrations. 'Tis allowed