Ann. reduced confols In Ann. B. 1726.| 60 1 60 61 PRICES of STOCKS, & in JANUARY, 17800 India South Sea Old S. S. New S. S. 3 per C. | 3 per C. 3 per C, 3 per C. 13 perC.B.4. P. C3 B. Lon. A. In. B. NavyB. Lottery Wind Weath Stock Ann. Stock 1751 Conf. 1758 61급 Prem. Difc. Tick. at Deal London 28 Wheat. Rye. |Barley, | Oats. Beans. 1. d. 1. d. s. d. s. d. 1 9 2 I AVERAGE PRICES of GRAIN, by the Standard WINCHESTER Bufhel. Wheat. Rye. Barley. Oats. | Beans. Wheat. Rye. Barley. 1. d. s. d. O 1. d. O 2 2 8 d. 3 29 Scotland. 2 3 2 3 5 2 7 THE GARTER AND THE BATH, &c. &c. &c. THE CONTINUATION, FOR THE CURRENT YEAR, OF THEIR LONG ESTABLISHED AND UNIVERSALLY APPROVED MISCELLANY OF INSTRUCTION, INTELLIGENCE, AND ENTERTAINMENT, IS MOST RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED, BY HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS'S MOST OBEDIENT HUMBLE SERVANTS, THE PROPRIETORS. THE LONDON MAGAZINE, FOR JANUARY, 1780. THE HYPOCHONDRIACK. No. XXVIII, Interea fidos adit haud fecurus amicos Utque velint inimicum animum frontifque fevera Hos iterum atque iterum rogat, admonitufque latentis "He feeks his friends nor trufts himself alone, Pape maintains the opinion, that fuccefsful authours have been very rigid criticks upon their own works. For he tells us they "Lofe half the praise they would have got, "Were it but known what they difcreetly blot." But I am not fure that this is a juft remark, though its quaintness has a VIDA. PITT. decifive appearance. If it is meant that they lofe half the praife they would have got, had they preferved what they have blotted, their blotting was not difcreet. And if it is meant that their additional praise would have arifen from their difcretion in blotting being known, I think it is rated too, high, if it is to have half as much praife as excellent compofition. It has been again and again recommended to authours to diftruft their own opinion of their works, and to have recourfe to the judgement of friends. This we know has fuggested to fo many authours, that one should think they would now be ashamed of it as worn out, the plaufible pretext of publishing at the request, or by the advice of friends. I know not if too much diffidence be either reasonable or at all advantageous; and it feems to me ftrange to fuppofe that a mind capable of producing performances worthy of praife fhould be fo deftitute of the faculty of judgement as to be altogether unconscious of their merit, and on the other hand that they fhould not not be fenfible of failing when their intellectual powers are occafionally enfeebled, or the light of their genius obfcured. Vida reprefents as an example in his didactich poem, an authour filled with extreme diftruft of himself, and the mott abject fubmiffion to the opinion of his friends, in fo much as even acquiefcing in what his judgement tells him and can demonftrate to be wrong in their fentence upon his works. That this is an example which au thours fhould imitate I cannot agree. For he who has not a decent confidence in himself must be fo weak that nobody will fet any value upon him, or upon his works. That a fondness for our own compofitions may prevent us in many instances from perceiving their faults I allow; and therefore the opinion of impartial friends may be of ufe. But unless I am convinced that my friends are in the right I will not comply with their opinion. Merely faying that a compofition, or any part of a compofition does not pleafe, without explaining why, is faying nothing that thould influence an authour. It is only another instance of what has ever been and ever will be, that there are different taftes; fo that if an authour himself, after having his critical attention awakened, is not fenfible that what is objected to fhould not please, he would be much in the wrong to make an alteration. A ftory is told which being probable is very likely to be true, that an authour put a play which he had written into the hands of a number of his critical friends feparately, begging to have their candid remarks upon it; and that when their remarks came to be collected and compared, he found that all of them had objections to parts of the performance, but that each had happened to object to a different scene. If therefore he had been to follow implicitly the judgement of his friends in ftriking out what was objectionable, he would not have had the veftige of a play left. But would have refembled the man in the fable who had two wives, a young one and an old one, each of whom wishing to have his hair of her own colour, one pulled out the grey hairs and one the black, till the poor fubmiffive husband was left quite bald. There is, I am afraid, in general, as little tenderness of confcience in Criticism as in any thing which men are ever engaged. If injuries, as they certainly are, be great in proportion to the pain which they occafion, Criticifm often injures our neighbour more than hurting him in his body or estate. Yet with what inattention and levity, with what wantonnefs of abuse do we find people decide upon the writings of others. I do not recollect that lawyers have mentioned this as a species of injury upon which an action would lie. To be fure it would be difficult to empannael a jury to try the iffue of a fuit upon a charge of being unjustly called a blockhead, or a dunce; and therefore I believe the merits of fuch queftions must be left as heretofore to the grand affize of the publick. Some of those whom an authour calls his friends, take a haughty malignant pleasure in treating his performances upon which they are confulted, with capricious feverity. But it is no lefs cruel to deceive an authour by false commendation, till he publithes works by which he may fuffer both in his fame and fortune. There is a delicate evasion, which every authour of any difcernment will underftand, by which his friends may show him that they totally difapprove of his performance, without fhocking him by faying fo directly. If, notwithstanding this, he fends it forth into the world, they are not to blame, and he must take the confequences. But there is an unconfcientious exercife of Criticifm which is moft deeply culpable. An authour fhows his manufcript to perfons in whofe fkill and taste the purchasers of copy-right have confidence; and thofe perfons to oblige the authour furnith him with flattering opinions of his work, knowing that he is to offer it to fale. Upon his fhowing these opinions a handfome price is given, and the bookfellers are confiderable lofers. Such critical judges fhould confider that their commending a literary production which does not deferve it, is like an assay mafter certi fying that to be gold which is only bafe metal. It is no doubt one of the most difficult tasks in the world to convey to an authour a candid difapprobation of his works, or even to correct them in any degree |