Having thus briefly considered the original and office of a critick, as the word is understood in its most noble and universal acceptation, I proceed to refute the objections of those, who argue from the silence and pretermission of authors; by which they pretend to prove, that the very art of criticism, as now exercised, and by me explained, is wholly modern; and consequently, that the criticks of Great Britain and France, have no title to an original so ancient and illustrious, as I have deduced. Now, if I can clearly make out, on the contrary, that the ancient writers have particularly described both the person and the office of a true critick, agreeable[1] to the definition laid down by me; their grand objection, from the silence of authors, will fall to the ground.
I confess to have, for a long time, born a part in this general errour[2]; from which I should never have acquitted myself, but through the assistance of our noble moderns; whose most edifying volumes, I turn indefatigably over night and day, for the improvement of my mind, and the good of my country: these have, with unwearied pains, made many useful searches into the weak sides of the ancients, and given us a comprehensive list of them. Besides, they have proved beyond contradiction, that the very finest things delivered of old, have been long since invented, and brought to light by much later pens; and that the noblest discoveries those ancients ever
made,
