He was a man, take him for all in all

I fhall not look upon his like again.oishla

which may be fufpected of being stolen from Sophocles, who has the following paffage in the TRACHINIAE.

Πάνων ἄριςον ἄνδρα τῶν ἐπὶ χθονὶ

Κτείνασ', ΟΠΟΙΟΝ ΑΛΛΟΝ ΟΥΚ ΟΨΕΙ ΠΟΤΕ. 824

The fentiment being one of the com moneft, that offers itself to the mind, the fole ground of fufpicion muft lie in the expreffion," I shall not look upon his like "again" to which the Greek fo exactly anfwers. But these were the ordinary expreffions of fuch fentiment, in the two lane guages; and neither the characters of the great poets, nor the fituation of the speak ers, would fuffer the affectation of departs ing from common ufage.

What is here faid of the fituation of the Speakers reminds me of another class of expreffions, which will often be fimilar in all poets. Nature, under the fame conjuné třes, gives birth to the fame conceptions

and

and if they be of fuch a kind, as to exclude all thought of artifice, and the tricks of eloquence (as on occafions of deep anxiety and diftrefs) they run, of themfelves, into the fame form of expreffion.. The wretched Priam, in his lamentation of Hector, lets drop the following words:

* μ' ἄχω ὀξὺ καλοίσεται ανδς εἴσω.

"This line, fays his tranflator, is particu"larly tender, and almoft, word for word, “the fame with that of the Patriarch Jacob; "who, upon a like occafion, breaks out in "the fame complaint, and tells his children,

that, if they deprive him of his fon Ben"jamin, they will bring down his grey hairs I "with forrow to the grave."

We may, further, except, under this head, certain privileged forms of speech, which the peculiar idioms of different lan-:: guages make neceffary in them, and which poetry confecrates in all. But this is eafily, obferved, and its effect is not very confi derable.

*

2. In

2. In pleading this identity of expreffion, regard must be had to the language, from which the theft is fuppofed to be made. If from the fame language (fetting afide the exceptions, juft mentioned) the fame arrangement of the fame words is admitted as a cer tain argument of plagiarism: nay, less than this will do in fome inftances, as where the imitated expreffion is pretty fingular, or fo remarkable, on any account, as to be well known, &c. But if from another language, the matter is not fo eafy. It can rarely happen, indeed, but by defign, that there fhould be the fame order or compofition of words, in two languages. But that which paffes even for literal tranflation, is but a fimilar compofition of correfponding words. And what does this imply, but that the writers conceived of their object in the fame manner, and had occafion to fet it in the fame light? An occafion, which is perpetually recurring to all authors. As may be gathered from that frequent and strong refemblance in the expreffion of moral fentiments, obfervable in the writers of every age, and country. Can there be a comVOL. III. I

moner

moner reflexion, or which more comftantly occurs to the mind under the fame appear ance, than that of our great poet, whe, fpeaking of the state after death, calls it? ॰ ( ཙྩ

20

93

That undiscovered country, from whofe bourn
No traveller returns.

Shall we call this a tranflation of the latin poet;

Nunc it per iter tenebricofum

IG: Illuc, unde negant redire quenquam.

Or, doth it amount to any more than this, that the terms employed by the two writers in expreffing the fame obvious thought are correfpondent? But correfpondency and iden tity are different things. The latter is only, where the words are numerically the fame, which can only happen in one and the fame language: the other is effected by different fets of words, which are numerous in every language, and are therefore no convincing proof (abftractedly from other circumstances) of imitation.

From

vlFrom thefer general reflexions zon planguage, without refining too far; or prying too curionfly into the mysteries of it, the fame conclufion meets us, as before. The expreffion of two writers may be fimilar, and fometimes even identical, and yet be original in both. Which fhews the neceffity there was, to lead the reader through this long investigation of the general fources of fimilitude in works of INVENTION, in order to put him into a condition of judging. truly and equitably of thofe of IMITATION. For if fimilarity, even in this province of words, which the reafon of the thing fhews to be most free from the conftraint of general rules, be no argument of theft in all cafes; much lefs can it be pretended of the other fubjects of this inquiry, which from the neceffary uniformity of nature in all her appearances, and of common fenfe in its operations upon them, must give frequent and unavoidable occafion to fuch fimilarity. But then this is all I would infinuate.

For, after the proper allowances, which candid criticifm requires to be made on this head, it will still be true (and nothing in this Effay attempts to contradict it) “that