particularly Dr. Warton, in his Effay on the Life and Writings of Pope: "The "naufeous affectation of expreffing every "thing pompously and poetically, is no "where more visible than in a poem, "lately published, called Amyntor and "Theodora.”

Dr. Warton is faid to have as much candour as learning, and I am inclined to believe it; but he must have read the poem very fuperficially, to have pronounced fo uncandid a fentence upon it.

It is, of all Mallet's poems, the most affecting and pathetick; and which, if he had worked it up into a play, as he once intended, would have produced a very fine effect. What glorious parts would Garrick and Barry have made of Aurelius and Amyntor! and how much would the publick have been charmed with Mrs. Cibber's Theodora !

There are in this poem two interviews between Aurelius and Amyntor, and Amyntor and Theodora, which will draw tears from the most unfeeling.

The

are

The Hermit has, befides thefe pathetick fcenes, great poetical merit. The defcriptions of wild and favage nature are striking and picturesque; the ftorm and shipwreck worked up with all the images natural to the tremendous fcene: it abounds with many excellent moral precepts, which receive weight and energy from the fanction of religion defpair and fuicide are difcountenanced, and mentioned with horror and detestation; an awful fubmiffion to the divine will is strongly inculcated throughout the whole poem. So far from cenfuring Mr. Mallet's poem of the Hermit,

Dr. Warton fhould rather have exclaimed, with every friend of truth and virtue, O! fi fic omnia dixiffet!

Lord Bolingbroke died in December -1751, and left all his writings, published and unpublished, to Mr. Mallet; but with respect to those political works printed in his life time, he expreffed himself cautiously, as if he forefaw that fomebody would lay claim to them; and therefore

he

he left them to his legatee, as far as he lawfully could.

When Mallet had prepared Lord Bolingbroke's works for the prefs, he was furprised with a claim of Mr. Richard Francklin, the printer, who had, in 1726, pub-. lifhed Lord Bolingbroke's Political Tracts; and in 1735-6 retailed in the Craftsman his Remarks upon the Hiftory of England, and his Differtation on Parties; and afterwards, by the confent, or at least connivance, of the author, printed them in feparate volumes. And, indeed, the printer and publisher of the Craftsman had a claim, from his fufferings at least, to all that the heads of the then country party could do for him. He was profecuted by the Crown feveral times, and had been confined feveral years in the prifon of the King's Bench, for a letter written from the Hague, which, at this time, would have passed unnoticed. 'Tis true, feveral noblemen and gentlemen subscribed, each of them, a fum of 50l. to Francklin, as a compenfation for his

loffes

loffes; and it is as true, that no more than three of them paid their money. Lord Bath was one. Mr. Francklin was printer to Drury-lane theatre. He and Mr. Mallet were advifed, by Mr Garrick and other friends, to leave the matter in difpute to the arbitration of two perfons who were fuppofed by them to be competent judges of the queftion. Mallet named Mr. Garrick's friend, Mr. Draper, a partner of Jacob Tonfon; and Francklin chofe Mr. Thomas Wotton, an eminent bookfeller, who had retired from bufinefs. A writing was drawn, wherein the queftion was ftated, and a power given to the umpires to decide upon it, figned by the parties.

After mature deliberation, the arbitrators gave their decree in writing, as follows: That Mr. Mallet should pay Mr. Francklin the fum of two hundred pounds for leave to print the political works of Lord Bolingbroke, which had been published in his lordship's life-time, in a com

plete

plete collection of the said nobleman's writings, and in any form which he thought proper, and as often as he pleased; with this provifo, that Mr. Francklin should be at liberty to print the books in question in feparate volumes, as ufual.

Mr. Mallet did by no means approve the decifion; and Francklin, by trusting to his honour, in not having infifted upon bonds of arbitration, was deprived of the benefit of the award.

The fum of two hundred pounds, for leave to print two or three old volumes, will doubtless appear at prefent too large a gratification; but, at that time, the right of copy was esteemed a valuable perpetuity; and we cannot now condemn two very intelligent and honeft men for a deci fion in favour of that property which was fo differently rated above fix and twenty years ago. Mr. Mallet's conduct will not bear juftification. But though we cannot defend his behaviour, we may perhaps alledge fomething by way of excufe. Mr.

Mallet