[ 54 ] 



Though it muft be admitted that it is not always fafe to- 

 infur a man's moral characSler from his exprefled fcntiments, 

 yet perhaps from the writings of an author fome inferences as 

 to his moral as well as his intel!e(ftual qualities may with 

 caution be drawn. We may be fatisfied of the exiftence of thofe 

 faults which his utmofl: induftry could not conceal, though we 

 may not always give him credit for thofe virtues which he 

 may polTefs. No man from their writings can heficate to pro- 

 nounce generally that Addifon was a man of virtue and religion, 

 and Horace voluptuous and a debauchee. Such information 

 is notorious — vot'iva velut'i ni tahella vita patet. Sometimes how- 

 ever the dedudlion is more fubtle and the proofs lefs obvious, 

 in proportion to the knowledge which the author may have 

 of his own defe(5ls, and the addrefs he can employ in concealing 

 them; yet fometimes the difficulty of knowing himfelf, fome- 

 times his contempt of his reader's fagacity in making the 

 the difcovery, fometimes his aukwardnefs, and frequently his 

 vanity, betray a charadler which he himfelf does not know, 

 or which perhaps, with all its faults, he contemplates with 

 pleafure. An author, as well as all other men, though he be 

 not perfedlly fatisfied with all parts of his own character, finds 

 confolation in contemplating fome features of it for his difguft 

 at others : this favourite part of the author's charadler he labours 

 for occafions of introducing, praifes thofe who poflefs it, and 

 magnifies its excellence. His vanity would not fuffer him to 

 debate on a moral or intelledlual quality which he knew he 

 did not poflefs, nor could he be comfortable in holding out 

 perpetually to public deteftation what he was confcious was his 



own 



