quisite in writings of this kind, as I shall show more at large hereafter.

Virgil has, indeed, admitted Fame as an actress in the Æneid; but the part she acts is very short, and none of the most ad

We find in mock he

mired circumstances in that divine work. roick poems, particularly in the Dispensary and in the Lutrin, several allegorical persons of this nature; which are very beautiful in those compositions, and may perhaps be used as an argument, that the authors of them were of opinion, such characters might have a place in an epick work. For my own part, I should be glad the reader would think so, for the sake of the Poem I am now examining; and must further add, that, if such empty unsubstantial beings may be ever made use of on this occasion, never were any more nicely imagined, and employed in more proper actions, than those of which I am now speaking.

Another principal actor in this Poem is the great Enemy of mankind. The part of Ulysses in Homer's Odyssey is very much admired by Aristotle, as perplexing that fable with very agreeable plots and intricacies; not only by the many adventures in his voyage, and the subtilty of his behaviour, but by the various concealments and discoveries of his person, in several parts of that poem. But the crafty being, I have now mentioned, makes a much longer voyage than Ulysses; puts in practice many more wiles and stratagems, and hides himself under a greater variety of shapes and appearances; all of which are severally detected, to the great delight and surprise of the reader.

We may likewise observe with how much art the poet has varied several characters of the persons that speak in his infernal assembly. On the contrary, how has he represented the whole Godhead exerting itself towards Man in its full benevolence under the three-fold distinction of a Creator, a Redeemer, and a Comforter!

Nor must we omit the person of Raphael, who, amidst his tenderness and friendship for Man, shows such a dignity and condescension in all his speech and behaviour, as are suitable to a superiour nature. The Angels are, indeed, as much diversified in Milton, and distinguished by their proper parts, as the gods. are in Homer or Virgil. The reader will find nothing ascribed to Uriel, Gabriel, Michael, or Raphael, which is not in a particular manner suitable to their respective characters.

There is another circumstance in the principal actors of the Iliad and Eneid, which gives a peculiar beauty to those two poems, and was therefore contrived with very great judgement. I mean the author's having chosen, for their heroes, persons who were so nearly related to the people for whom they wrote. Achilles was a Greek, and Æneas the remote founder of Rome. By this means their countrymen (whom they principally proposed to themselves for their readers) were particularly attentive to all the parts of their story, and sympathized with their heroes in all their adventures. A Roman could not but rejoice in the escapes, successes, and victories of Æneas, and be grieved at any defeats, misfortunes, or disappointments that befel him; as a Greek must have had the same regard for Achilles. And it is plain, that each of those poems have lost this great advantage, among those readers to whom their heroes are as strangers, or indifferent persons.

Milton's poem is admirable in this respect, since it is impossible for any of its readers, whatever nation, country, or people he may belong to, not to be related to the persons who are the principal actors in it; but, what is still infinitely more to its advantage, the principal actors in this Poem are not only our progenitors, but our representatives. We have an actual interest in every thing they do; and no less than our utmost happiness is concerned, and lies at stake, in all their behaviour.

66

I shall subjoin as a corollary to the foregoing remark, an admirable observation out of Aristotle, which has been very much misrepresented in the quotations of some modern criticks. a man of perfect and consummate virtue falls into a misfortune, it raises our pity, but not our terrour, because we do not fear that it may be our own case, who do not resemble the suffering per

• since it is impossible for any of its readers, &c.] Yet a very ingenious writer has observed, that the great defect in this Poem is "a want of interest in the fable ; every character, except two, being supernatural; and we can never be greatly interested in the distress, or prosperity, of a person, into whose situation it is impossible for us to put ourselves." The same critick, after noticing the mistake which Addison here appears to have made as to the effect of national fable, (which seems to be rather the soothing the vanity of the reader, than the encrease of his interest in the action,) adds, "One should hardly have supposed that Addison could have been ignorant of the obvious truth, that every affection is exactly weakened in proportion to its becoming general." Pye's Commentary on the Poetick of Aristotle, Chap. vi. Note iii. pp. 162, 163. TODU.

son." But, as that great philosopher adds, "if we see a man of virtue mixed with infirmities fall into any misfortune, it does not only raise our pity but our terrour; because we are afraid that the like misfortunes may happen to ourselves, who resemble the character of the suffering person."

I shall take another opportunity to observe, that a person of an absolute and consummate virtue should never be introduced in tragedy, and shall only remark in this place, that the foregoing observation of Aristotle, though it may be true in other occasions, does not hold in this; because in the present case, though the persons who fall into misfortune are of the most perfect and consummate virtue, it is not to be considered as what may possibly be, but what actually is, our own case; since we are embarked with them on the same bottom, and must be partakers of their happiness or misery.

In this, and some other very few instances, Aristotle's rules for epick poetry (which he had drawn from his reflections upon Homer) cannot be supposed to square exactly with the heroick poems which have been made since his time; since it is evident to every impartial judge, his rules would still have been more perfect, could he have perused the Æneid, which was made some hundred years after his death.

I shall go through other parts of Milton's Poem; and hope that what I shall advance, as well as what I have already written, will not only serve as a comment upon Milton, but upon Aristotle.

We have already taken a general survey of the FABLE and CHARACTERS in the Paradise Lost. The parts which remain to be considered, according to Aristotle's method, are the SENTIMENTS and the LANGUAGE. Before I enter upon the first of these, I must advertise my reader, that it is my design, as soon as I have finished my general reflections on these four several heads, to give particular instances out of the Poem, now before us, of beauties and imperfections which may be observed under each of them; as also of such other particulars, as may not properly fall under any of them. This I thought fit to premise, that the reader may not judge too hastily of this piece of criticism, or look upon it as imperfect, before he has seen the whole extent of it. The sentiments in an epick poem are the thoughts, and beha

viour, which the author ascribes to the persons whom he introduces; and are just when they are conformable to the characters of the several persons. The sentiments have likewise a relation to things as well as persons; and are then perfect, when they are such as are adapted to the subject. If in either of these cases the poet endeavours to argue or explain, to magnify or diminish, to raise love or hatred, pity or terrour, or any other passion, we ought to consider whether the sentiments he makes use of are proper for those ends. Homer is censured by the criticks for his defect as to this particular in several parts of the Iliad and Odyssey; though at the same time those, who have treated this great poet with candour, have attributed this defect to the times in which he lived. It was the fault of the age, and not of Homer, if there wants that delicacy in some of his sentiments, which now appears in the works of men of a much inferiour genius. Besides, if there are blemishes in any particular thoughts, there is an infinite beauty in the greatest part of them. In short, if there any many poets who would not have fallen into the meanness of some of his sentiments, there are none who could have risen up to the greatness of others. Virgil has excelled all others in the propriety of his sentiments. Milton shines likewise very much in this particular: nor must we omit one consideration which adds to his honour and reputation. Homer and Virgil introduced persons whose characters are commonly known among men, and such as are to be met with either in history, or in ordinary conversation. Milton's characters, most of them, lie out of nature; and were to be formed purely by his own invention. It shows a greater genius in Shakspeare to have drawn his Caliban, than his Hotspur, or Julius Cæsar: the one was to be supplied out of his own imagination, whereas the other might have been formed upon tradition, history, and observation. It was much easier therefore for Homer to find proper sentiments for an assembly of Grecian generals, than for Milton to diversify his infernal council with proper characters, and inspire them with a variety of sentiments. The loves of Dido and Æneas are only copies of what has passed between other persons. Adam and Eve, before the Fall, are a different species from that of mankind, who are descended from them; and none but a poet of the most unbounded invention, and the most exquisite judgement, could have filled their conver

sation and behaviour with so many apt circumstances during their state of innocence.

Nor is it sufficient for an epick poem to be filled with such thoughts as are natural, unless it abound also with such as are sublime. Virgil, in this particular, falls short of Homer. He has not indeed so many thoughts that are low and vulgar, but, at the same time, has not so many thoughts that are sublime and noble. The truth of it is, Virgil seldom rises into very astonishing sentiments, where he is not fired by the Iliad. He every where charms and pleases us by the force of his own genius; but seldom elevates and transports us where he does not fetch his hints from Homer.

Milton's chief talent, and indeed his distinguishing excellence, lies in the sublimity of his thoughts. There are others of the moderns who rival him in every other part of poetry; but, in the greatness of his sentiments, he triumphs over all the poets both modern and ancient, Homer only excepted. It is impossible for the imagination of man to distend itself with greater ideas, than those which he has laid together in his first, second, and sixth books. The seventh, which describes the creation of the world, is likewise wonderfully sublime, though not so apt to stir up emotion in the mind of the reader, nor consequently so perfect in the epick way of writing, because it is filled with less action. Let the judicious reader compare what Longinus has observed on several passages in Homer, and he will find parallels for most of them in the Paradise Lost.

From what has been said we may infer, that as there are two kinds of sentiments, the natural and the sublime, which are always to be pursued in an heroick poem, there are also two kinds of thoughts which are carefully to be avoided. The first are such as are affected and unnatural; the second, such as are mean and vulgar. As for the first kind of thoughts, we meet with little or nothing that is like them in Virgil. He has none of those trifling points and puerilities that are so often to be met with in Ovid; none of the epigrammatick turns of Lucan; none of those swelling sentiments, which are so frequent in Statius and Claudian; none of those mixed embellishments of Tasso. Every thing is just and natural. His sentiments show that he had a perfect