SECT. 2.

_The proper Length for Descriptions adjusted, from several
Considerations_.

What I have laid down seem's in its self plain and evident; but because
_Rapin_, and some other Criticks, famous for the Niceness of their
Judgments, have made it a considerable Question, and at last own'd
themselves unable to decide it, I shall further consider the Matter.

'Tis best, I think, only just to exhibit the Picture of an Object to the
Reader's Mind; for if 'tis rightly set and well given, he will himself
supply the minute Particulars better to please himself than any Poet can
do; as no different Fancies are equally delighted with one and the same
thing, the Poet in an extended Description must needs hit upon many
Circumstances not pleasant to every Fancy; even tho' he touches all the
best Particulars. But if the Poet only set's the Image in the finest
Light, by enumerating two or three Circumstances, the Reader's Mind
in that very instant it sees the Image or Picture, fill's up all the
Omissions with such Particulars, as are most suitable to it's own single
Fancy. Which farther conceives something beyond, and something out of
the way, if all is not told. Whereas descending to Particulars cool's
the Mind, which in those Cases ever finds less than it expected.

To instance in Painting, for that's the same. When I first cast my Eye
on a beauteous Landscape, and take in a View of the whole and all it's
parts at once, I am in Rapture, not knowing distinctly what it is that
pleases me; but when I come to examine all the several Parts, they seem
less delightful. Pleasure is greatest if we know not whence it proceeds.
And such is the Nature of Man, that if he has all he desires he is no