obferved, in his treatife of Poetics, in a minute

and philofophical investigation of their parts and principles, and the caufes of their effect on the imagination. This treatife and that of his Rhetoric are generally and justly allowed to be two of the ableft works of that deep philofopher; which, by their novelty and the critical acumen they difcover, conferred upon him the honour of being filed the Father of Critics, as Homer had been called the Father of Poets, and Demofthenes of Orators.

They, who have beft understood and most ardently admired the works of the Peripatetic, seem unanimously agreed, that these two admirable criticisms did not originate properly with himself, that they did not spring from any effort of his own judgment and invention previously exercised, and independent on the productions of the Orator and Poet; but, on the contrary, that the one is the analysis or diffection of the drama of Sophocles or Euripides, and of that immortal and unparalleled work the Iliad of Homer; and that the other is the analyfis or diffection of

the Orations of Demofthenes and the most celebrated Grecian Orators: both of which confift of a philofophical investigation of the caufes which confpire to the various and wonderful effects produced on the mind and feelings, by thefe fplendid monuments of genius and invention.

To fuppofe that to have been originally and neceffarily produced by art and philofophy, about which, when produced, art and philofophy have been fuccessfully employed, is an error in the hiftory of learning which has been too commonly entertained. These admirable productions first sprang from the fpontaneous operation of the genius, and from the native strength of the jndgment, of the poet and the orator; and from them art and philofophy extracted rules to direct the genius of future poets and orators, and to affift the judgment of future critics. • Aristotle, we

know,' fays the author of Philofophical Enquiries, 'did not form Homer, Sophocles, and Euripides; 'twas Homer, Sophocles, and Euripides that formed Ariftotle.' And

a Harris's Phil. Enq. p. 231.

this ftrenuous admirer and interpreter of the Peripatetic who thus exhibited the mechanifm and construction of poetry and oratory, has with great ingenuity laid open the mechanism and conftruction of these criticisms themselves. As the great Events of NA'TURE led mankind to admiration; fo curiofity to learn the caufe whence fuch Events 'fhould rife, was that which, by due degrees, 'formed NATURAL PHILOSOPHY. What happened in the Natural world, happened alfo in the Literary. Exquifite Productions both in PROSE and VERSE induced men here likewife to seek the Caufe; and fuch Enquiries often repeated gave birth to PHI· LOLOGY. Those who can imagine that the Rules of writing were first established, ' and that men wrote in conformity to them as they make conferves and comfits by receipt books, know nothing of Criticism, ' either as to its origin or progrefs. The 'truth is, they were authors who made the 'first good Critics, and not Critics who 'made good Authors, however writers may have profited by critical precepts. -AN

CIENT GREECE, in its happier days, was the feat of Liberty, of Sciences, and of Arts. In this fair region fertile of wit, the Epic ' writers came first; then the Lyric, then the Tragic; and laftly the Hiftorians, the Comic • Writers, and the Orators, each in their turns delighting whole multitudes, and commanding the attention and admiration of all. Now when wife and thinking men, the fubtle inveftigators of principles and caufes, obferved the wonderful Effect of thefe works upon the human mind, they were prompted to enquire whence this should proceed; for that it should happen merely by chance, they could not well believe. Here, therefore, we have the RISE and ORIGIN of CRITICISM, which, in its begining was "A deep and philofophical Search into the

primary Laws and Elements of good wri"ting, as far as they could be collected from "the most approved performances."

Much of this kind may be found in the different parts of PLATO: But ARISTOTLE his difciple, who may be called the systematizer of his Mafter's doctrines, has in his

• two

two Treatifes of Poetry and Rhetorick with 'fuch wonderful penetration developed every

part of the subject, that he may be juftly 'called THE FATHER OF CRITICISM, both 'from the age when he lived, and from his truly transcendent genius. The Criticism. ' which this capital writer taught, has fo in'timate a correfpondence with Philofophy, 'that we can call it by no other name than that of Philofophical Criticifm." b

This acute reasoning of our late Philologist, by which he very philosophically accounts for the origin of the Poetics and Rhetoric of the Stagyrite, I would extend to his books of INTERPRETATION and the ANALYTICS, and say that they contain a deep ' and philofophical fearch into the primary laws and elements of DEMONSTRATIVE REASONING, as far as they could be col'lected from the most approved performan'ces' in his time. And that this is in fact the cafe, no one who is fufficiently acquainted with these works will, I think, deny. In

Harris's Phil. Enq. p. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

X 4

fupport