without provocation; for our Author is not in the black lift of fcribblers, who by attempting to leffen the poet's fame, incited the fatirift's indignation. The offence and the fate of Bentley and De Foe were nearly alike. Bently would not allow the tranflation to be Homer: De Foe had endeavoured to bring Milton into vogue feven years ere the Paradife Loft and Chevy Chafe had been criticised in the Spectators by Addison. Our Author had faid in More Refor mation, Let this defcribe the nation's character, The cafe is plain, the temper of the time, An enraged poet alone could have thruft into the Dunciad, Bentley, a profound scholar, Cibber, a brilliant wit, and De Foe, a happy genius. This was the confequence of exalting fatire as the test of truth; while truth ought to have been enthroned the test of fatire. Yet, it ought not to be forgotten, that De Foe has fome farcasm, in his Syftem of Magic, on the fylphs and gnomes, which Pope may have deemed a daring invafion of his Roficrutian territories. De Foe has not yet outlived his century, though he have outlived most of his contemporaries. Yet the time is come, when he must be acknowledged as one of the ableft, as he is one of the moft captivating, writers, of which this island can boast. Before he can be admitted to this pre-eminence, he must be confidered distinctly, as a poet, as a novelist, as a pole. mick, as a commercial writer, and as a grave hiftorian. As a poet, we must look to the end of his effufions rather than to his execution, ere we can allow him confiderable Ff 2 confiderable praise. To mollify national animofities, or to vindicate national rights, is certainly noble objects, which merit the vigour and imagination of Milton, or the flow and precifion of Pope; but our Author's energy runs into harshness, and his sweetnefs is to be tasted in his profe more than in his pcefy. If we regard the adventures of Crufoe, like the adventures of Telemachus, as a poem, his moral, his incidents, and his language, must lift him high on the poet's scale. His profeffed poems, whether we contemplate the propriety of fentiment, or the fuavity of numbers, may indeed, without much lofs of pleasure or inftruction, be refigned to those, who, in imitation of Pope, poach in the fields of obfolete poetry for brilliant thoughts, felicities of phrafe, or for happy rhymes. As a novelift, every one will place him in the fore. most rank, who confiders his originality, his performance, and his purpose. The Ship of Fools had indeed been launched in early times; but, who like De Foe, had ever carried his reader to fea, in order to mend the heart, and regulate the practice of life, by fhewing his readers the effects of adverfity, or how they might equally be called to fuftain his hero's trials, as they failed round the world. But, without attractions, neither the originality, nor the end, can have any falutary confequence. This he had forefeen; and for this he has provided, by giving his adventures in a style so pleasing, because it is fimple, and fo interefting, because it is particular, that every one fancies he could write a fimilar language. It was, then, idle in Boyer formerly, or in Smollet lately, to fpeak of De Foe as a party writer, in little estimation. The writings of no Author fince have run through more numerous numerous editions. And he whofe works have pleafed generally and pleafed long, must be deemed a writer of no small eftimation; the people's verdict being the proper test of what they are the proper judges. As a polemick, I fear we must regard our Author with less kindness, though it must be recollected, that he lived during a contentious period, when two parties distracted the nation, and writers indulged in great afperities. But, in oppofition to reproach, let it ever be remembered, that he defended freedom, without anarchy; that he fupported toleration, without libertinism; that he pleaded for moderation even amidst violence. With acuteness of intellect, with keenness of wit, with archness of diction, and pertinacity of defign; it must be allowed that nature had qualified, in a high degree, De Foe for a difputant. His polemical treatises, whatever might have been their attractions once, may now be delivered without reserve to those who delight in polemical reading. De Foe, it must be allowed, was a party-writer: But, were not Swift and Prior, Steel and Addison, Halifax and Bolingbroke, party-writers? De Foe, being a party-writer upon fettled principles, did not change with the change of parties: Addison and Steel, Prior and Swift, connected as they were with perfons, changed their note as perfons were elevated or depreffed. As a commercial writer, De Foe is fairly intitled to ftand in the foremost rank among his contemporaries, whatever may be their performances or their fame. Little would be his praise, to say of him, that he wrote on commercial legislation like Addifon, Ff3 Addison, who when he touches on Trade, finks into imbecility, without knowledge of fact, or power of argument*. The distinguishing characteristics of De Foe, as a commercial difquifitor, are originality and depth. He has many fentiments with regard to traffic, which are fcattered through his Reviews, and which I never read in any other book. His Giving Alms no Charity is a capital performance, with the exception of one or two thoughts about the abridgment of labour by machinery, which are either half formed or half expreffed. Were we to compare De Foe with D'Avenant, it would be found, that D'Avenant has more detail from official documents; that De Foe has more fact from wider inquiry. D'Avenant is more apt to confider laws in their particular application; De Foe more frequently inveligates commercial legiflation in its general effects. From the publications of D'Avenant it is fufficiently clear, that he was not very regardful of means or very attentive to confequences; De Foe is more correct in his motives, and more falutary in his ends. But, as a commercial prophet, De Foe muft yield the palm to Child; who forefeeing from experience that men's conduct must finally be directed by their principles, foretold the colonial revolt: De Foe, allowing his prejudices, to obfcure his fagacity, reprobated that fuggeftion, because he deemed interest a more ftrenuous prompter than enthusiasın. Were we however to form an opinion, not from fpecial paffages, but from whole * See the prefent State of the War, and the neceffity of an Augmentation. And See his Commercial Papers in the Freeholder. performances, 3 performances, we must incline to De Foe, when compared with the ableft contemporary: we must allow him the preference, on recollection, that when he writes on commerce he feldom fails to infinuate fome axiom of morals, or to inculcate fome precept of religion. As an hiftorian, it will be found, that our Author had few equals in the English language, when he wrote. His Memoirs of a Cavalier fhew how well he could execute the lighter narratives. His Hiftory of the Union evinces that he was equal to the higher department of hiftoric compofition. This is an account of a fingle event, difficult indeed in its execution, but beneficial certainly in its confequences. With extraordinary skill and information, our Author relates, not only the event, but the tranfactions which preceded, and the effects which followed. He is at once learned and intelligent. Confidering the factiousness of the age, his candour is admirable. His moderation is exemplary. And if he spoke of James I. as a tyrant, he only exercised the prerogative, which our hiftorians formerly enjoyed, of cafting obloquy on an unfortunate race, in order to fupply deficience of knowledge, of elegance, and of ftile. In this instance De Foe allowed his prejudice to overpower his philofophy. If the language of his narrative want the dignity of the great hiftorians of the current times, it has greater facility; if it be not always grammatical, it is generally precife; and if it be thought defective in ftrength, it must be allowed to excel in fweetness. Such then are the pretenfions of De Foe to be acknowledged as one of the ableft and most useful Ff4 writers |