these to the making up of one scholar, as of the others to the composition of a man; that the valour of both is equal, and their weapons near[1] of a size. Much may be said in answer to those invidious reflections; and I can positively affirm the first to be a falshood: for on the contrary, nothing is more certain, than that it requires greater layings out, to be free of the critick's company, than of any other you can name. For, as to be a true beggar, it will cost the richest candidate every groat he is worth; so, before one can commence a true critick, it will cost a man all the good qualities of his mind; which, perhaps for a less purchase, would be thought but an indifferent bargain.
Having thus amply proved the antiquity of criticism, and described the primitive state of it; I shall now examine the present condition of this empire, and show how well it agrees with its ancient self. A certain author[2], whose works have many ages since been intirely lost, does, in his fifth book, and eighth chapter, say of criticks, that their writings are the mirrors of learning. This I understand in a literal sense, and suppose our author must mean, that whoever designs to be a perfect writer, must inspect into the books of criticks, and correct his invention there, as in a mirror. Now, whoever considers, that the mirrors of the ancients were made of brass, and sine mercurio, may presently apply the two principal qualifications of a true modern critick, and consequently must needs conclude, that these have always been, and must be for ever the same. For,
