poet's images within such narrow limits. It is, however, without running into the other extreme, or condemning every resemblance as a designed formal imitation. I take the exact difference between Mr. Hurd and myself to be this: I look upon imitation to be the most natural, and general, cause of any striking resemblance between two writers; and therefore assign it, without particular reasons to the contrary. Mr. Hurd, on the other hand, thinks it may generally be accounted for by a resemblance of mental operations; and therefore never suspects an imitation, without particular circumstances which lead to the detection of it. -76. He employs another discourse with a review of Vol. ii. p. 1 these circumstances; but as every one is accompanied with examples taken from the ancients and moderns, and criticised with great taste, I can only reduce the great number he alleges to three, drawn from the different lights in which we may consider every resemblance, and fix the probability of its happening, by chance, or by design. 1. How close is the resemblance? Is the thought exactly the same? Is it introduced upon the same occasion? Is it expressed in the same manner, the same words, or words nearly the same? Is it a short passage, or one of a considerable length? 2. What degree of acquaintance can the second poet be supposed to have had with the first? Did he live in a learned, or an ignorant age? Was he himself a man of letters, or without education? Did he affect the fame of originality, or did he modestly L4 modestly profess a desire and habit of imitating the ancients? Was the first author an acknowledged favourite of his? 3. What appearance is there that the idea should have naturally struck the second? Was it common, or particular; did it agree with the style and design of his work; with his own character; with the real appearance of nature; with the manners and opinions of his age, country, and profession; or at least with those he describes? Is it introduced in a general unaffected manner, or brought in without any occasion, and clothed in uncommon, obsolete language? Mr. Hurd thinks these circumsances, all or some, necessary to form a suspicion. I allow they are very useful to confirm one. I have at last finished Mr. Hurd's performance, I reckoned upon six or seven pages; I am now writing the thirtieth. Another time I hope to confine my extracts within proper limits. Blandford, 18th March, 1762. NOMINA, INTRODUCTION. FROM the several passages in the Extracts from Mr. GIBBON's Journal of his Studies, it appears that previously to his Tour through Italy, he had endeavoured to make himself a complete master of its geographical and classical antiquities; and, with that view, had attentively perused the Italia Antiqua et Sicilia Antiqua of Cluvierus. The following pages seem to contain regular minutes, made by him in this course of his reading. He begins with observations on the ancient appellations and inhabitants of Italy; its divisions, air, and soil; and on the Apennines. Then, crossing the Po, into the Cisalpine Gaul, he proceeds to Liguria, its western division, and thence descends through Etruria, Rome, Latium, Campania, and Lucania, to Brutium, the southernmost point of the part of Italy which borders on the Tuscan Sea. Then crossing into Calabria, the southernmost point on the opposite shore, he ascends through |