in general admits no higher qualities than purity and perspicuity. These were, therefore, his highest aim. The best ornaments out of place are not only unbe coming, but offensive. Nor can anything be farther from his thoughts than to pretend to an exemption from such positive faults in expression, as, on the article of elocution, he hath so freely criticised in the best English authors. He is entirely sensible that an impropriety or other negligence in style will escape the notice of the writer, which hardly escapes that of anybody else. Next to the purpose of illustrating the principles and canons which he here submits to the judgment of the public, the two following motives weighed most with the author in inducing him to use so much freedom in regard to the writings of those for whom he has the highest veneration. One is, to show that we ought in writing, as in other things, carefully to beware of implicit attachment and servile imitation, even when they seem to be claimed by the most celebrated names. The other is, to evince that we are in danger of doing great injustice to a work by deciding hastily on its merit from a collection of such oversights. If the critic be rigorous in marking whatever is amiss in this way, what author may abide the trial? But though such slips are not to be regarded as the sole or even principal test of demerit in literary productions, they ought not to be altogether overlooked. Whatever is faulty in any degree it were better to avoid. And there are consequences regarding the language in general, as well as the success of particular works, which should preserve verbal criticism from being considered as beneath the attention of any author. An author, so far from having reason to be offended, is doubtless obliged to the a who, free from captious petulance, candidly points out his errors, of what kind soever they be.