certainly the idea which we commonly affix to romance; but it will be obvious that, if in the earlier periods, we find tales equally wild, containing fimilar adventures, we must not exclude them frown this clafs. This will bring us more nearly to the definition of our author, viz. a fabulous story of fach actions as are commonly afcribed to heroes, or men of extraordinary courage and abilities. Though there be nothing to object to the defcription, it is obviously too extenfive; for it includes the epic poems, which, though they are arranged under a seemingly unexceptionable definition, are certainly not included in the original idea. The error is in the attempt to define what will not bear to be limited. From the Eneid, the most judicious and refpectable form of the epos, to the most incredible romance, there are so many fhades, differing in a manner fcarcely perceptible, that we can fix at no one point. It is the fame in the varying forms and functions, between a man and an oyster, yet they ought not to be arranged together; from the vegetable, upward to the animal, and downward to the mineral kingdom. In fact, when knowlege is extended, definitions are no more, It may be asked, as we

have not objected to the definition which our author has adopted, why we will not include the epic poem in a class fo respectable as this will be in fuch circumftances? For this reafon, that when we make our limits fo extenfive, we destroy their use; we blend the most diffimilar objects, not only diffimilar in form and appearance, but in their conftituent parts and effects. Romances, even in a more limited view, arè certainly not peculiar to the middle ages; we have formerly hinted, that the Life of Thefeus by Plutarch is ftrikingly of this kind; in poetry, the Argonautics of Apollonius is a performance not very different; furely thefe ought not to be confounded with the Iliad and the Æneid. Of dogs, the valued file Diftinguishes the fwift; the flow, and fubtle, The housekeeper, the hunter; every one According to the gift which bounteous nature Hath in him closed; whereby he does receive Particular addition, from the bill

That writes them all alike',

If we were obliged to point out any difcrimination between some of these hiftories mere nearly refembling epics, and the epics themselves, it would be the conduct of the ftory. The fubject is a single one, and the conduct of it relates to that only. The story is taken up at the middle, at the part which is connected with the defign; and, when it is accomplished, fuddenly breaks off. A modern performance, in its progress

refembling the epic, and in fome of its events, the romance iş De Solis' Conquest of Mexico:

Perhaps we have already ftaid too long on the threshold; but our author's opinion came in a delufive questionable fhape. It was worth examining; and, if not true, worth refuting. In purfuing the fubject, this fancied analogy feems to have miled the enquirer. We allow that there is often a striking resemblance between works of high and low eftimation; but the refemblance is in fome triffing points: thofe who have readthe Odyffey, and the Adventures of Sinbad the Sailor, cannot certainly perceive it in any great degree. Both authors undoubtedly poffefs bold imaginations, the adventures of each are marvellous, and the characters various; but the fame refemblance will occur between the Arabian Nights Entertain. ments, and the plays of Shakspeare: fhould thefe very different kinds of compofition be on this account confounded?

The author begins with the early romances, which are prin. cipally thofe of the modern Greeks, and continues her history through the middle ages, to the close of the year 1770. In many refpects, this hiftory is little more than a catalogue: the decifions are fometimes juft and candid; but we cannot obferve in them any deep difcernment, or very accurate difcrimination. The catalogue is molt perfect in the earlier pe riods. The author is often deficient in determining even the moral tendency of different works; the frequently feems to decide from common report.

We fhall infert a fhort defence of Cervantes, which we' fear is just.

The paffion for thefe books, (viz. romances,) was in fome degree checked; but it was not eradicated.-There is good reafon to believe, that even Cervantes himself, was not cured of it.

Hort. Nay, if you animadvert upon Cervantes, I know, not what to fay-but I fhall expect proofs of this affertion.

6

Euph. I fhall produce them prefently.-Befides his Galatea (of which he speaks with pleasure, and refcues it from the condemned books in Don Quixote's library, and after he had written his novels upon a new plan,) he composed a serious romance, called Perfiles and Sigifmonda, which remains extant, as a proof against him. It is faid that he preferred this to all his other works; he compares it with the Ethiopics of Heliodorus, being written in the fame ftyle and manner. What hall we fay of the man, who had produced Don Quixote, and could afterwards write a book of the fame kind as thofe he fa tyrized May we not conclude that he ftill loved them in his heart?

Hort

Hort. Permit me to offer a reafon on his behalf,-a reafon that makes me figh over the fate of genius.-Cervantes! the gallant foldier!-the delightful companion!-the charming writer!-the pride and boast of his country! - Cervantes wanted bread.-he wrote this celebrated work in a prison, and knowing the taste and humour of his countrymen, composed fuch a book, as was moft likely to please them, and procure relief to his miferies.'

We shall fubjoin to this extract a judicious defence of the author of Eloifa.

Rouffeau faw that the women on the continent, while maidens, paid due respect to their honour and character, but as foon as they were married they entertained all the world, and encouraged gallants; of the two evils he thought a fingle perfon's indulging a criminal paffion, of lefs pernicious confequence to fociety, than a married woman who commits adultery:-upon this principle he wrote this book. He puts the character of a woman who encourages lovers after marriage, in oppofition to one who having committed the greatest fault hefore marriage, repents, and recovers her principles.-He in forces the fanctity of the marriage vow, he fets the breach of it in a light to fhock every confiderate mind, he fhews that where it is broken, nothing but hatred and disgust fucceeds; the confidence a man fhould place in his wife, the tenderness he should feel for his offspring, is deftroyed, and nothing remains but infamy and mifery.

If Rouffeau intended by this work to give a check to this fhameful intercourfe of the fexes, fo frequently practifed on the continent, under the fpecious name of gallantry, he is to be commended; and if it produced effects he did not forefee, he ought to be excufed.'

On the subject of Richardfon, we can allow for a little female partiality; but his works are exalted too extravagantly, and thofe of Fielding proportionably depreffed. Yet, in this account of the Progrefs of Romance,' there is scarcely an attempt to delineate the literary character of these two great luminaries of the fyftem, from whofe example the most striking variations have been produced. The author's talents' feem to have been fo much exhausted in attempting to prove the abfurd romances of the middle ages, to be epic poems, that fhe cannot attend to a new creation in the literary world, the comic epos, of which Tom Jones was fo brilliant an example. The fupreme judge of romances fpeaks in this manner of one of its most finished ornaments.

As I confider wit only as a fecondary merit, I must beg leave to observe, that his writings are much inferior to Richardfon's in morals and exemplary characters, as they are fuperior in wit

and

and learning-Young men of warm paffions and not ftrict principles, are always defirous to shelter themselves under the fanction of mixed characters, wherein virtue is allowed to be predominant. In this light the character of Tom Jones is capable of doing much mischief; and for this reafon a translation of this book was prohibited in France.-On the contrary, no barm can poffibly arife from the imitation of a perfect character, though the attempt fhould fall fhort of the original.

6

Soph. This is an indifputable truth, there are many objec tionable scenes in Fielding's works, which I think Hortenfius will not defend.

Hort My objections were in character, and your's are fo likewife; as you have defended Richardfon, fo I will defend Fielding.I allow there is fome foundation for your remarks, nevertheless in all Fielding's works, virtue has always the fuperiority the ought to have, and challenges the honours that are justly due to her, the general tenor of them is in her favour, and it were happy for us, if our language had no greater cause of complaint in her behalf,

Euph. There we will agree with you.-Have you any fur ther obfervations to make upon Fielding's writings?

Hort. Since you refer this part of your talk to me, I will

offer a few more remarks.-Fielding's Amelia is in much lower eftimation than his Jofeph Andrews, or Tom Jones; which have both received the ftamp of public applaufe."

To Dr. Smollett, the fair critic is fomewhat more complaifant; but her account of his novels is fo very trifling, that we are almost ready to fufpect that he has not yet read them.

Dr. Smollet's novels abound with wit and humour, which fome critics think is carried beyond the limits of probability; all his characters are over charged, and he has exhibited fome fcenes that are not proper for all readers; but upon the whole, his works are of a moral tendency, their titles are, Roderick Random-Peregrine Pickle-Sir Lancelot Greaves-Ferdinand Count Fathom-Adventures of an Atom. Many years after these he gave the public another, in no refpect inferior, and in fome fuperior to them all, called Humphrey Clinker.'

We have given extracts of various merit, that the reader may judge for himself. If the decifion is not in favour of the work, we are at least confident that it has not been influenced by a partiality in the felection. Its form is that of dialogue; but, as it is conducted, it has all the inconveniencies, without the authority, which would have arifen from the fentiments having been attributed to men of character and learning. We have, however, examined this fubject at fufficient length in a former Review. In the prefent inftance, the ceremonies at meeting and taking leave, the numerous compliments very freely beflowed, interrupt the fubject, and cannot fail to difguft the

reader,

reader.

Perhaps we are within bounds when we remark, that one half of either little volume would have held every thing which the most complaifant reader might have thought important.

The Egyptian romance at the end is entitled the History of Charoba Queen of Egypt, and is truly a literary curiosity.

It is extracted from a book called-The Hiftory of Ancient Egypt, according to the Traditions of the Arabians.-Written in Arabic, by the Reverend Doctor Murtadi, the Son of Gapiphus, the fon of Chatem, the Son of Molfem the MacdeLian. Tranflated into French by M. Vattier, Arabic Profeffor to Louis 14th King of France."

If the author could find more of thefe early romances, we should more readily acknowledge our obligation to her than for her imperfect delineation of the progrefs of the subject.

Efay on the Life and Character of Petrarch. To which are added, Seven of his Sonnets, tranflated from the Italian. 8vo. Is. 6d. Cadell.

THI

HIS very elegant Effay contains a concife relation of the events of the poet's life; of a life not interefting by a display of fplendid actions, or important negociations, but from one circumftance, viz. a violent and lafting paffion. Though Petrarch was an ecclefiaftic and a statesman, yet we only look on the lover of Laura, and the poet. Concerning this famous lady we have the following information.

Although in the innumerable verfes which he composed in the ardour of his paffion, he has expatiated on every feature of his lovely mistress, it is perhaps impoffible thence to defcribe accurately either her perfon or her face; for the rapturous defcriptions of a poet feldom convey accurate or diftin&t ideas. The idea which painting conveys of a beautiful form, is much ftronger and more complete. By thofe pictures of Laura, which are faid to be genuine, he is reprefented as of a fair complexion, her hair of a light colour, her face round, with a fmall forehead, her cheeks rather full. She is painted with her eyes very much caft down, fo as to appear almoft flut. The expreffion of the whole countenance is that of a very young girl, of amiable fimplicity of manners, of much fweetness of dif pofition, and extreme bafhfulness. The most exceffive modesty and referve in her demeanour, feems indeed to have been the ftrongest characteristic of the miftrefs of Petrarch. It was this quality, which, in the eyes of her lover, heightened every charm of her perfon, and every accomplishment of her mind; and it is not

tribute probable, that to this fingular and striking at

ribute were owing, both the ardor and duration of his af fection,'

The