There is a sort of vanity some men have, of talking of and reading
obscure and half-forgotten authors, because it passes as a matter of
course, that he who quotes authors which are so little read, must be
completely and thoroughly acquainted with those authors which are in
every man's mouth. For instance, it is very common to quote Shakespeare;
but it makes a sort of stare to quote Massinger. I have very little
credit for being well acquainted with Virgil; but if I quote Silius
Italicus, I may stand some chance of being reckoned a great scholar. In
short, whoever wishes to strike out of the great road, and to make a
short cut to fame, let him neglect Homer, and Virgil, and Horace, and
Ariosto and Milton, and, instead of these, read and talk of
Frascatorius, Sannazarius, Lorenzini, Pastorini, and the thirty-six
primary sonneteers of Bettinelli;--let him neglect everything which the
suffrage of ages has made venerable and grand, and dig out of their
graves a set of decayed scribblers, whom the silent verdict of the
public has fairly condemned to everlasting oblivion. If he complain of
the injustice with which they have been treated, and call for a new
trial with loud and importunate clamour, though I am afraid he will not
make much progress in the estimation of men of sense, he will be sure to
make some noise in the crowd, and to be dubbed a man of very curious and
extraordinary erudition.--S. SMITH. _Moral Philosophy, Lecture IX. On
the Conduct of the Understanding._