Irus, defcend even to droll characters; and the scenes that appear throughout, are generally of the comic kind; banquets, revels, fports, loves, and the pursuit of a woman. From the nature of the Poem, we shall form an idea of the style. The diction is to follow the images, and to take its colour from the complexion of the thoughts. Accordingly the Odyffey is not always cloathed in the majesty of verfe proper to tragedy, but fometimes defcends into the plainer narrative, and fometimes even to that familiar dialogue effential to comedy. However, where it cannot fupport a fublimity, it always preferves a dignity, or at least a propriety. There is a real beauty in an eafy, pure, perfpicuous description even of a low action. There are numerous instances of this both in Homer and Virgil; and perhaps those natural paffages are not the leaft pleafing of their works. It is often the fame in history, where the representations of common, or even domestic things, in clear, plain, and natural words, are frequently found to make the liveliest impression on the reader. The question is, how far a Poet, in pursuing the description or image of an action, can attach himself to little circumftances, without vulgarity or trifling? what particulars are proper, and enliven the image; or what are impertinent, and clog it? In this matter painting GG 4 painting is to be confulted, and the whole regard had to those circumftances which contribute to form a full, and yet not a confused, idea of a thing. Epithets are of vast service to this effect, and the right use of these is often the only expedient to render the narration poetical. The great point of judgment is to distinguish when to speak fimply, and when figuratively but whenever the Poet is obliged by the nature of his fubject to defcend to the lower manner of writing, an elevated ftyle would be affected, and therefore ridiculous; and the more he was forced upon figures and metaphors to avoid that lowness, the more the image would be broken, and consequently obfcure. One may add, that the use of the grand style on little fubjects, is not only ludicrous, but a fort of tranfgreffion against the rules of proportion and mechanics: 'tis using a vast force to lift a feather. I believe, now I am upon this head, it will be found a just observation, that the low actions of life cannot be put into a figurative ftyle without being ridiculous, but things natural can. Metaphors raise the latter into dignity, as we fee in the Georgics; but throw the former into ridicule, as in the Lutrin. I think this may very well be accounted for; laughter implies cenfure; inanimate and irrational beings are not objects of cenfure; therefore these may be elevated as much as you please, and no ridicule follows; but when when rational beings are represented above their real character, it becomes ridiculous in art, because it is vicious in morality. The Bees in Virgil, were they rational beings, would be ridiculous by having their actions and manners reprefented on a level with creatures fo fuperior as men; fince it would imply folly or pride, which are the proper objects of ridicule. The use of pompous expreffion for low actions or thoughts is the true fublime of Don Quixote. How far unfit it is for Epic Poetry, appears in its being the perfection of the Mock Epic. It is fo far from being the fublime of Tragedy, that it is the cause of all bombaft; when Poets, instead of being (as they imagine) conftantly lofty, only preferve throughout a painful equality of fuftian: that continued fwell of language (which runs indifcriminately even through their lowest characters, and rattles like fome mightinefs of meaning in the most indifferent fubjects) is of a piece with that perpetual elevation of tone which the players have learned from it; and which is not Speaking, but vociferating. There is still more reason for a variation of style in Epic Poetry than in Tragic, to distinguish between that language of the Gods proper to the mufe who fings, and is inspired; and that of men who are introduced. fpeaking only according to nature. Farther, there ought to be a difference of style observed in the fpeeches of human perfons, and thofe of deities; and again, in those which may be called fet harangues or or orations, and thofe which are only converfation or dialogue. Homer has more of the latter than any other Poet: what Virgil docs by two or three words of narration Homer still performs by speeches: not only replies, but even rejoinders are frequent in him, a practice almost unknown to Virgil. This renders his Poems more animated, but lefs grave and majeftic; and confequently neceffitates the frequent ufe of a lower ftyle. The writers of Tragedy lie under the fame neceffity, if they would copy nature, whereas that painted and poetical diction, which they perpetually ufe, would be improper even in orations defigned to move with all the arts of rhetoric: this is plain from the practice of Demofthenes and Cicero ; and Virgil in thofe of Drances and Turnus gives an eminent example, how far removed the style of them ought to be from fuch an excefs of figures and ornaments which indeed fits only that language of the Gods we have been speaking of, or that of a mufe under inspiration.. To read through a whole work in this ftrain, is like travelling all along on the ridge of a hill; which is not half so agreeable as sometimes gradually to rise, and fometimes gently to defcend, as the way leads, and as the end of the journey directs. Indeed the true reason that fo few Poets have imitated Homer in these lower parts, has been the extreme difficulty of preferving that mixture of ease and dignity effential to them. For it is as hard for an an Epic Poem to stoop to the narrative with fuccefs, as for a prince to defcend to be familiar, without diminution to his greatness. The fublime style is more eafily counterfeited than the natural*; something that passes for it, or founds like it, is common in all falfe writers: but nature, purity, perfpicuity, and fimplicity, never walk in the clouds; they are obvious to all capacities; and where they are not evident, they do not exist. The most plain narration not only admits of these, and of harmony, (which are all the qualities of style,) but it requires every one of them to render it pleasing. On the contrary, whatever pretends to a fhare of the fublime, may pass notwithstanding any defects in the reft, nay fometimes without any of them, and gain the admiration of all ordinary readers. Homer in his lowest narrations or speeches is ever eafy, flowing, copious, clear, and harmonious. He fhews not lefs invention, in assembling the humbler, than *Nothing can be more juft, and happily expreffed, than are these remarks on the "falfe fublime," and the "natural" style: these sentiments are most nobly illuftrated by Shakespear. It is indeed much eafier to defcribe paffion, as is done by Rowe, Addifon, &c. than it is to exhibit the genuine feelings and exact workings of nature. See a moft ftriking inftance of this kind in Othello: Iago. Trust me, I fear it has. I hope you will confider what is spoke Comes from my love-but I do fee you're mov'd. Othello.-No-not much mov'd, &c. |