of fmall abilities, and the bulk, of middling people-of fome that will support, of others that will oppofe him, but the principal part muft always be as they ever have been, perfons more likely to follow than to lead, and whofe hands-I mean, whofe ears, are not always fhut to reafon."

The laft fentence being pronounced in rather a fly manner, made the audience conceive fomething of a joke was intended-while, looking at each other, they were puzzling to find it out; the orator descended softly from the roftrum, and, in as few steps as poffible, happily escaped into the street.

On

Authors should not exceed common judge

To the

ment.

way

many obftructions in the of fame, which I have elsewhere remarked, may be added another, of as much force as any, or perhaps all of them together.

If an author or artist be too clever, he is as far from notice as if he were deficient. The fcience of fuccefs, is the knowledge of what the world is up to. This Oxford vulgarifm fo well expreffes my idea, that I fhall use it for the prefent purpose.

A genius who is poffeffed of abilities to carry his art far beyond the point to which it has already attained, must be

very careful of fhewing these abilities. As the public is not up to the judging of them, they cannot distinguish what is above their comprehenfion, from what is beneath their notice. The common effect of this ignorance is, that the author or artift, in order to live, must let himfelf down to the level of the understanding of those whom Fate has constituted his judges. If he be not impatient for fame, he ought rather to elevate the public judgement to him, fo that it may be competent to his productions. This conduct he feldom can pursue, and all the good which might be obtained from fuperior abilities, is loft by the deficiency of the public tafte, or the want of refolution (perhaps, want of bread) in the

artist.

This may poffibly account for the wretched performances which difgrace our theatres and places of public amusement. The like reafon has been affigned

why

why Shakespeare fo frequently descends below himself-it may be fo-I mean not to infinuate that he had fufficient tafte to lead him to reject abfurdities-but if he had poffeffed it, the want of taste in the public would have fuppreffed his efforts towards correctness.

If you prefent to the public any production they are not up to; persons who feel they know nothing, yet have the credit of knowing a great deal, instantly abuse it to fhew their judgement; and discover their ingenuity, by pointing out particular parts for disapprobation not apparent to the common eye. Others, who have no great reputation in the world, look vacant and fay nothing: but those who are esteemed wits, turn it to ridicule-and noify wit is more than a match for filent truth.

It is this want of knowledge in the public that is the real caufe why most original

A a

1

original geniufes are ftarved. The world is not malicious, but it cannot be faid to be interested in the advancement of genius. The public is only indifferent in this affair, which indifference arifes from ignorance of the value of the thing.

These reflections derive the bad fate of genius from a fource not mentioned in the Thirty Letters. Unfortunate for original merit, that there should be fuch a variety of caufes to hinder its advancement!

On