ment dearly bought, and though he fometimes admires is feldom pleased.

From this account of their compofitions it will be readily inferred, that they were not fuccefsful in representing or moving the affections. As they were wholly employed on fomething unexpected and furprifing, they had no regard to that uniformity of fentiment which enables us to conceive and to excite the pains and the pleasure of other minds: they never enquired what, on any occafion, they fhould have faid or done; but wrote rather as beholders than partakers of human nature; as Beings looking upon good and evil, impaffive and at leifure; as Epicurean deities making remarks on the actions of men, and the viciffitudes of life, without intereft and without emotion. Their courtship was void of fondness, and their lamentation of forrow. Their with was only to fay what they hoped had been never faid before.

'Nor was the fublime more within their reach than the pathetic ; for they never attempted that comprehenfion and expanfe of thought which at once fills the whole mind, and of which the firft effect is fudden aftonishment, and the fecond rational admiration. Sublimity is produced by aggregation, and littleness by difperfion. Great thoughts are always general, and confift in pofitions not limited by exceptions, and in defcriptions not defcending to minutenefs. It is with great propriety that Subtlety, which in its original import means exility of particles, is taken in its metaphorical meaning for nicety of diftinction. Thofe writers who lay on the watch for novelty could have little hope of greatnefs; for great things cannot have escaped former obfervation. Their attempts were always analytic; they broke every image into fragments; and could no more reprefent, by their flender conceits and laboured particularities, the profpects of nature, or the fcenes of life, than he, who diffects a fun-beam with a prism, can exhibit the wide effulgence of a fum

mer noon.

• What they wanted however of the fublime, they endeavoured to fupply by hyperbole; their amplification had no limits; they left not only reafon but fancy behind them; and produced combinations of confufed magnificence, that not only could not be credited, but could not be imagined.

Yet great labour, directed by great abilities, is never wholly loft: if they frequently threw away their wit upon falfe conceits, they likewife fometimes ftruck out unexpected truth: if their conceits were far-fetched, they were often worth the carriage. To write on their plan, it was at least neceffary to read and think. No man could be born a metaphyfical poet, nor affume the dignity of a writer, by defcriptions copied from defcriptions, by imitations borrowed from imitations, by traditional imagery, and hereditary fimiles, by readiness of rhyme, and volubility of fyllables.

In perufing the works of this race of authors, the mind is exercifed either by recollection or inquiry; either fomething already learned is to be retrieved, or fomething new is to be examined. If their greatness feldom elevates, their acuteness often furprises; if the imagination is not always gratified, at least the powers of reflec

tion and comparison are employed; and in the mafs of materials which ingenious abfurdity has thrown together, genuine wit and ufeful knowledge may be fometimes found, buried perhaps in groffnefs of expreffion, but useful to those who know their value; and fuch as, when they are expanded to perfpicuity, and polished to elegance, may give luftre to works which have more propriety, though lefs copioufnefs of fentiment.

This kind of writing, which was, I believe, borrowed from Marino and his followers, had been recommended by the example of Donne, a man of very extenfive and various knowledge, and by Jonfon, whofe manner refembled that of Donne more in the ruggednefs of his lines than in the caft of his fentiments.

When their reputation was high, they had undoubtedly more imitators than time has left behind. Their immediate fucceffors, of whom any remembrance can be faid to remain, were Suckling, Waller, Denham, Cowley, Cleveland, and Milton. Denham and Waller fought another way to fame, by improving the harmony of our numbers. Milton tried the metaphyfic ftile only in his lines upon Hobson the Carrier. Cowley adopted it, and excelled his predeceffors, having as much fentiment, and more mufic. Suckling neither improved verfification, nor abounded in conceits. The fashionable tile remained chiefly with Cowley; Suckling could not reach it, and Milton difdained it.'

He then proceeds to illuftrate his remarks by examples, in the felection of which he is fingularly happy. Of thefe examples the limits of the prefent Article will not admit of more than the following from Dr. Donne. It is a moft curious fpecimen of metaphyfical gallantry:

As the fweet fweat of roles in a still,

As that which from chaf'd mufk-cat's pores doth trill,
As the almighty balm of th' early Eaft,

Such are the sweet drops of my mistress' breaft.

And on her neck her fkin fuch luftre fets,

They feem no fweat drops, but pearl coronets:
Rank fweaty froth thy miftrefs' brow defiles.'

In all these examples it is apparent,' as the Critic judiciously remarks, that whatever is improper or vicious, is produced by a voluntary deviation from nature in purfuit of fomething new and ftrange; and that the writers fail to give delight, by their defire of exciting admiration.

To chufe the beft, among many good, is one of the most hazardous attempts of criticifm.' Dr. Johnson ventures, however, to recommend Cowley's firft piece, which he tells us ought to be infcribed To my Mufe, for the want of which the fecond couplet is without reference. The Ode to Wit, he pronounces to be almost without a rival; and in the verses upon Crafhaw, which apparently, fays he, excel all that have gone before them, there are beauties which common authors may justly think not only above their attainment, but above their ambition.

5

ambition. It were to be wished that a poet, of whom Cowley could speak in fuch terms of admiration as are to be met with in the verses alluded to, had been admitted into the prefent collection, or at least that fome fpecimens of his works had been preserved in it.

In fpeaking of the Pindarique Ode of the laft century, Dr. Sprat, the former biographer of Cowley, tells us, that the irregularity of numbers is the very thing which makes that kind of poefy fit for all manner of fubjects. But, continues his present hif torian, he fhould have remembered that what is fit for every thing can fit nothing well.

The great pleasure of verfe arifes from the known measure of the lines, and uniform ftructure of the ftanzas, by which the voice is regulated, and the memory relieved.

If the Pindaric ftile be, what Cowley thinks it, the higheft and nobleft kind of writing in verfe, it can be adapted only to high and noble fubjects; and it will not be eafy to reconcile the poet with the critic, or to conceive how that can be the highest kind of writing in verfe, which, according to Sprat, is chiefly to be preferred for its near affinity to profe.

This lax and lawless verfification fo much concealed the deficiencies of the barren, and flattered the laziness of the idle, that it immediately overfpread our books of poetry; all the boys and girls caught the pleafing fashion, and they that could do nothing elfe could write like Pindar. The rights of antiquity were invaded, and disorder tried to break into the Latin: a poem on the Sheldonian Theatre, in which all kinds of verfe are fhaken together, is unhappily inferted in the Mufe Anglicane. Pindarifm prevailed above half a century; but at laft died gradually away, and other imitations fupply its place.'

While he was upon this fubject, we could have wished to have had Dr. Johnson's fentiments on the prefent pedantic affectation of dividing the English Ode into Strophe, Antiftrophe, and Epode. Had the fame reafons for fuch divifion fubfifted now, as prevailed in the times of Pindar, our ode-writers would certainly have had fome excufe for adopting it. We may be told, indeed, that this practice has the fanction of the highest poetical authority, we mean that of the late Mr. Gray; but in answer to this we may obferve, that as no authority can fanctify abfurdity, neither should it prevail with us to adopt what both common sense and reason are compelled to disapprove.

The neglect and obfcurity of Cowley's principal poem the Davideis, is accounted for both from the choice of his subject, and from the performance of the work.

Sacred History has been always read with fubmiffive reverence, and an imagination over-awed and controlled. We have been accuftomed to acquiefce in the nakedness and fimplicity of the authentic narrative, and to repofe on its veracity with fuch humble confi-. dence,

B 3

dence, as furpreffes curiofity. We go with the hiftorian as he goes, and stop with him when he stops. All amplification is frivolous and vain; all addition to that which is already fufficient for the purposes of religion, seems not only useless, but in fome degree profane.

'Such events as were produced by the visible interpofition of Divine Power are above the power of human genius to dignify. The miracle of Creation, however it may teem with images, is best defcribed with little diffufion of language: He Spake the word, and they were made.'

It is not to be fuppofed that in a poem labouring with these difadvantages, his critic will find much to admire. His character of the Davideis is contained in few words: In the perufal of the Davideis, as of all Cowley's works, we find wit and learning unprofitably fquandered. Attention has no relief; the affections are never moved; we are sometimes surprised, but never delighted, and find much to admire, but little to approve. Still however it is the work of Cowley, of a mind capacious by nature, and replenished by ftudy.'

*

It is fomething fingular that neither Dr. Johnfon nor a former Editor of the felett works of this writer take any notice of the following beautiful ode which David is fuppofed to fing under the windows of Michal's chamber, when he firft declares his paffion to her:

"Awake, awake, my lyre!

"And tell thy filent master's humble tale,
"In founds that may prevail;

"Sounds that gentle thoughts inspire:

"Though fo exalted he,

"And I fo lowly be,

Tell her, fuch different notes make all thy harmony.

"Hark! how the ftrings awake;

"And, though the moving hand approach not near,
"Themtelves with awful fear,

"A kind of numerous trembling make.
"Now all thy forces try,

Now all thy charms apply,

"Revenge upon her ear the conquests of her eye.

"Weak lyre! thy virtue fure

"Is ufelefs here, fince thou art only found

"To cure, but not to wound,

"And he to wound, but not to cure.

"Too weak too wilt thou prove

"My paffion to remove,

Phyfic to other ills, thou'rt Nourishment to Love.

See Monthly Review, vol. xlviii. p. 10, where our fentiments

of Cowley's poetical merit may be seen at large.

"Sleep,

"Sleep, fleep again, my lyre!
"For thou canft never tell my humble tale
"In founds that will prevail;
"Nor gentle thoughts in her infpire:
"All thy vain mirth lay by,

"Bid thy ftrings filent lie,

Sleep, fleep again, my lyre! and let thy mafter die."

The elegance and harmony of this little piece ought, before this, to have intitled it to selection. Indeed there are an hundred and thirty lines immediately preceding it, in which the characters of the two fifters, Merab and Michal, are drawn with great happiness, that merit notice, if it were for nothing but this, that they are totally free from every characteristic fault with which this Writer is charged. But this is not all their merit: they abound with beauties which common writers may justly think not only above their attainment, but above their ambition.

The character of Cowley, in which we perceive no marks of partiality, is thus concluded:

It may be affirmed, without any encomiaftic fervour, that he brought to his poetic labours a mind replete with learning, and that his pages are embellished with all the ornaments which books could fupply; that he was the first who imparted to English numbers the enthufiafm of the greater ode, and the gaiety of the lefs; that he was equally qualified for fpritely fallies, and for lofty flights; that he was among thofe who freed tranflation from fervility, and inftead of following his author at a distance, walked by his fide; and that if he left verfification yet improvable, he left likewife from time to time fuch fpecimens of excellence as enabled fucceeding poets to improve it.'

The preface to the works of Waller comes next in fucceffion. The moral and political character of this applauded writer are developed with great skill and acutenefs. Ever attentive to the more important interefts of mankind, and fenfible that biography ought to be a leffon of virtue, Dr. Johnfon never omits to interfperfe, amongst the different parts of his narration, either maxims of prudence or reflexions on the conduct of human life: fomething that may either direct the judgment or meliorate the heart. In the lives of Waller and his cotemporary poets he has proceeded farther; he has made them the vehicles of his political orthodoxy. As we profefs the principles of univerfal toleration, we fhall leave his political opinions to themfelves. Were we, indeed, difpofed to controvert them, it might be confidered as an unneceffary trouble. There will never want combatants to attack a man of Dr. Johnson's reputation, when the attack is to be made on a vulnerable part.

As the limits of our Review will not permit us to accompany our Biographer through the whole extent of his criticifm.