fame defign might eafily be carried on, in refpect of allufive imagery; it being obvious to common obfervation, that numberlefs of the most beautiful comparisons in the Greek poet are to be met with in the Hebrew prophets. Nay, the remark may be extended to the undifciplined writers and fpeakers of the fartheft wet and east, whom nature inftructs to beautify and adorn their conceptions with the fame imagery. So little doth it argue an inferiority of genius in Virgil, if it be true, as the excellent tranflator of Homer fays, that he has fcarcely any comparisons, "which are not drawn from his mafter"

ནཏྭཱ

The truth is, the nature of the two fub. jects, which the Greek poet had taken upon himfelf to adorn, was fuch, that it led him through every circumftance and fituation of human life; which his quick attentive obfervation readily found the means of fhewing to advantage under the cover of the most fit and proper imagery. Suc ceeding writers, who had not contemplated his pictures, yet, drawing from one common original, have unknowingly hit upon

H 3

!

the

MOIT

eblon the very fame. And those, who had, with all their endeavours after novelty, and the utmost efforts of genius to ftrike out ori ginal lights, have never been able to fucceed in their attempts. Our Milton, who was most ambitious of this fame of inven tion, and whofe vaft and univerfal genius could not have missed of new analogies, had nature's felf been able to furnish them, is a glaring inftance to our purpose. He was fo averfe from refting in the old imagery of Homer, and the other epic poets, that he appears to have taken infinite pains in the investigation of new allu fions, which he picked up out of the rub bifh of every filly legend or romance, that had come to his knowledge, or extracted from the dry and rugged materials of the fciences, and even the mechanic arts. Yet, in comparison of the genuine treasures of nature, which he found himself obliged to make ufe of, in common with other writers, his own proper ftock of images, imported from the regions of art, is very poor and fcanty; and, as might be expected, makes the least agreeable part of his divine work,

What

What is here faid of the epic holds, as I d: hinted, of all the more ferious kinds of

+

poetry. In works of a lighter caft, there is greater liberty and a larger field of allufon permitted to the poet. All the appearances in art and nature, betwixt which there is any refemblance, may be employed here to furprize and divert the fancy. The further and more remote from vulgar apprehenfion thefe analogies lie, fo much the fitter for his purpose, which is not fo much to illuftrate his ideas, as to place them in new and uncommon lights, and entertain the mind by that odd fantastic conjunction, or oppofition of ideas, which we know by the name of wit. Nay, the lowet, as well as the leaft obvious imagery 38,3 will Il be, oftentimes, the most proper; his

,

A

view being not to ennoble and raife his fubject by the means of allufion, but to fink and debafe it by every art, that hath a tendency to excite the mirth and provoke the ridicule of the reader. Here then we may expect a much more original air, than in the higher defigns of invention. When all nature is before the poet, and the genius of

H4

his

?

his work allows him to feize her, as the fhepherd did Proteus, in every dirty form, into which the can poffibly twist herself, it were, indeed, a wonder, if he should chance to coincide, in his imagery, with any other, from whom he had not exprefsly copied. They who are converfant in works of wit and humour, more especially of these later times, will know this to be the cafe, in fact. There is not perhaps a fingle comparifon in the inimitable TELEMAQUE, which had not, before, been employed by fome or other of the poets. Can any thing, like this, be faid of RABELAIS, BUTLER, MARVEL, SWIFT, &c.?

111. It only remains to confider the ExPRESSION. And in this are to be found the fureft and leaft equivocal marks of imitation. We may regard it in two lights; either 1. as it refpects the general turn or manner of writing, which we call a style; or 2. the peculiarities of phrafe and diction.

1. A ftyle in writing, if not formed in exprefs imitation of fome certain model, is the pure refult of the difpofition of the mind, and takes its character from the predominant

dominant quality of the writer. Thus a Short and compact, and a diffufed and flowing expreffion are the proper confequences of certain correfponding characters of the human genius. One has a vigorous comprehenfive conception, and therefore collects his fenfe intó few words. Another, whofe imagination is more languid, contemplates his objects leifurely, and fo difplays their beauties in a greater compass of words, and with more circumftance and parade of language. A polite and elegant humour delights in the grace of ease and perfpicuity. A fevere and melancholic fpirit infpires a forcible but involved expreffion. There are many other nicer differences and peculiarities of manner, which, though not reducible, perhaps, to general heads, the critic of true tafte easily underftands.

2. As men of different tempers and difpofitions affume a different caft of ex preflion, fo may the fame obfervation be applied, still more generally, to different countries and times. It may be difficult to explain the efficient causes of this diversity,

which