Part 1

Produced by Tor Martin Kristiansen, Karl Hagen, Joseph Cooper and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net

THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY

JOHN OLDMIXON

AN ESSAY ON CRITICISM

(1728)

_INTRODUCTION_ BY R. J. MADDEN, C.S.B.

PUBLICATION NUMBER 107-8 WILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK MEMORIAL LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES 1964

INTRODUCTION

John Oldmixon's _Essay on Criticism_, like his _Reflections on Dr. Swift's Letter to the Earl of Oxford, about the English Tongue_,[1] provides evidence to support Dr. Johnson's description of its author as a "scribbler for a party," and indicates that Oldmixon must have been devoted to gathering examples of what appeared to him to be the good and bad in literature.

The story of the appearance of the _Essay on Criticism_ in 1728 should begin in 1724, when Oldmixon published in one volume his _Critical History of England, Ecclesiastical and Civil_. Dr. Zachary Grey's criticism of this book was answered by Oldmixon in 1725 in _A Review of Dr. Zachary Grey's Defence of our Ancient and Modern Historians_. In 1726 a two-volume edition of the _Critical History of England_ appeared with the 1725 edition of the _Review of Dr. Zachary Grey's Defence_ appended to the first volume. In the preface to the second volume of the _Critical History_ Oldmixon referred to the _Essay on Criticism_, stating that it was ready for the press, but that since it would have made the second volume too large, it would be published at a later date. The _Essay_, he stated, was to prepare the public for his translation of Abbe Bouhours' _La Manière De Bien Penser_. It was not, however, until 1728 that the _Essay_ reached the public. Besides appearing separately, it was appended, in place of the now removed answer to Dr. Grey, to the "third" edition of the _Critical History_.[2] There is no reference to the addition of the _Essay_ in the preface to the first volume, but its appearance and addition is referred to in the preface to the second volume.

Oldmixon seems to have had more than one purpose for writing the _Essay_; one of them is made quite clear in the second paragraph:

I shall not, in this _Essay_, enter into the philosophical Part of Criticism which _Corneille_ complains of, and that _Aristotle_ and his Commentators have treated of Poetry, rather as _Philosophers_ than Poets. I shall not attempt to give Reasons why Thoughts are _sublime_, _noble_, _delicate_, _agreeable_, and the like, but content my self with producing Examples of every Kind of right Thinking, and leave it to Authors of more Capacity and Leisure, to treat the Matter _à Fond_, and teach us to imitate our selves what we admire in others.

The remarks concerning the English need for guidance in "right thinking" are obviously intended to prepare a public for Oldmixon's translation of Bouhours' _La Manière De Bien Penser_. Following the method of Bouhours, who was in turn following Longinus, Oldmixon gives examples from English literature of the various divisions of "right thinking" and, also like Bouhours, he includes specimens of failures in this art. The bad examples he presents provide ample evidence that the Essay was also serving a Whig polemical purpose, for they are drawn from such writers as Clarendon, Pope and, in particular, Laurence Echard. The tone and nature of Oldmixon's remarks on Echard, whose History he had already criticized at length in the second volume of the _Critical History_, can be seen in this explanation of his general treatment of that author:

I must sincerely acknowledge, that it was not for Want of Will, that I did not mention what is beautiful in our Historian, but for Want of Opportunity.

Oldmixon's remarks on Pope's _Homer_ are sometimes laudatory, but more often patronizing; the criticism of Pope's _Essay on Criticism_ is quite pointed:

I dare not say any Thing of the last _Essay on Criticism_ in Verse, but that if any more curious Reader has discovered in it something new, which is not in Dryden's _Prefaces_, _Dedications_, and his _Essay on Dramatick Poetry_, not to mention the _French_ Criticks, I should be very glad to have the Benefit of the Discovery.

The rift between Pope and Oldmixon can perhaps be dated from the publication by the latter in 1714 of the "Receipt to make a cuckold" with great apologies for its indecency. Oldmixon continued to tempt satiric fate in the ensuing years, and one wonders if, when seeking a substitute for the _Dunciad_ in the "last" _Miscellany_ of 1728, Pope may not have remembered Oldmixon's announcement in 1726 of his intention to publish an _Essay on Criticism_ which was to be written after the manner of Bouhours. It is not impossible that this was one of many influences acting upon Pope to organize the "high flights of poetry" he had been collecting over the years for a Scriblerian project. Oldmixon appears, with Gildon and Dennis, among the porpoises in Chapter VI of _Peri Bathous_, and the presentation of some of the material in the _Bathous_, although more directly indebted to Longinus, does bring Oldmixon's _Essay_ to mind.

It would seem that Oldmixon felt that more than the porpoises referred to him, for in his translation and adaptation of Bouhours' _La Manière De Bien Penser_, which he published under the title of _The Arts of Logic and Rhetorick_ later in 1728, the references to Pope are much harsher, and Swift also comes under more pointed attack. _Gulliver's Travels_, _A Tale of A Tub_ (already censured by Oldmixon in his _Reflections on Dr. Swift's Letter_), the _Essay on Criticism_, _Windsor Forest_ and the _Homer_ are the objects of bitter criticism. In the concluding pages of _The Arts of Logic and Rhetorick_ Oldmixon wrote:

This delicate Author [Pope] has written a _rhiming Essay on Criticism_, and made himself merry with his Brethren in a notable Treatise call'd the _Art of Sinking_, to which he and his Partner S----t, have contributed, more than all the rest of their contemporary writers, if _Trifling_ and _Grimace_ are not in the high Parts of Writing.... What a Precipice is it from Locke's Human Understanding to Swift's Lilliput and Profundity!... there might have been Hopes of rising again; but we sink now like Ships laden with Lead, and must despair of ever recovering the Height from which we have fallen.[3]

As we move from Oldmixon's _Essay on Criticism_ to Pope's _Peri Bathous_ and on to _The Arts of Logic and Rhetorick_, we perhaps hear the stretching of the spring on a trap, that snapped in the 1735 edition of the _Dunciad_, in which Oldmixon replaced Dennis as the "Senior" diver "Who but to sink the deeper, rose the higher."[4]

The _Essay on Criticism_ is, however, more than an example of the inter-relation of literature and politics in the eighteenth century; and it is more than a step on the way to its author's immortalizing in lead. It presents, albeit not very imaginatively, a statement of many of the literary theories and attitudes of the Augustan period. However brief and incomplete, the remarks about the language of poetry and upon the effects of certain literary passages are of interest as imperfect exercises in a type of practical criticism. The material used by Oldmixon and the literary references he makes indicate, as do many of his other writings, that, although he was a "scribbler for a party," he was a man of some literary sense, taste and intelligence.

Robert Madden, C.S.B. St. Michael's College University of Toronto

NOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION

1. The _Reflections on Dr. Swift's Letter_ was reprinted with an introduction by Louis Landa by the Augustan Reprint Society, no. 15 (1948).

2. The issue which appeared separately is the same as that which was appended to the first volume of the _Critical History_, save for the price, 1s. 6d, printed on the title page.

3. John Oldmixon, _The Arts of Logic and Rhetorick_ (London, 1728), pp. 416-17.

4. Cf. _Dunciad_ A, II, ll. 271-78, and _Dunciad_ B, II, ll. 283-90, in James Sutherland, ed., _The Dunciad_ in _The Poems of Alexander Pope_, Vol. V, 2nd ed. (London, 1953). Oldmixon was less prominent in the 1728 edition (Dunciad A, II, ll. 199-202); when he was elevated to a higher level of dullness he was succeeded in his original place by Leonard Welstead (Dunciad B, II, ll. 207-10).

AN ESSAY ON _CRITICISM_

As it regards

Design, Thought, and Expression,

In PROSE and VERSE.

_By the AUTHOR of the Critical History of_ ENGLAND.

_LONDON:_ Printed for J. PEMBERTON, at the _Golden-Buck_ in _Fleet-Street_. MDCCXXVIII.

1_s._ 6_d._

AN ESSAY ON CRITICISM;

As it regards

_Design, Thought, and Expression, in Prose and Verse._

I am very far from any Conceit of my own Ability, to treat of so nice a Subject as this, in a Manner worthy of it; but having frequently observed what Errors have been committed by both Writers and Readers for want of a right Judgement, I could not help collecting some loose Hints I had by me, and putting them into a little Form, to shew rather what I would do than what I can do; and to excite some happier Genius, to give us better Lights than we have hitherto been led by, which is said with great Sincerity, and without the least Mixture of Vanity or Affectation.

I shall not, in this _Essay_, enter into the philosophical Part of Criticism which _Corneille_ complains of, and that _Aristotle_ and his Commentators have treated of Poetry, rather as _Philosophers_ than _Poets_. I shall not attempt to give Reasons why Thoughts are _sublime_, _noble_, _delicate_, _agreeable_, and the like, but content my self with producing Examples of every Kind of right Thinking, and leave it to Authors of more Capacity and Leisure, to treat the Matter a _Fond_, and teach us to imitate our selves what we admire in others.

_Aristotle_, _Horace_, _Bossu_, _Boileau_, _Dacier_, and several other Criticks, have directed us right in the Rules of Epick and Dramatick Poetry, and _Rapin_ has done the same as to _History_, and other Parts of polite Learning. Several Attempts have been made in _England_ to instruct us, as well as the _French_ have been instructed; but far from striking out any new Lights, our _Essays_ are infinitely short of the Criticisms of our Neighbours. They teach us nothing which is not to be found there, and give us what they take thence curtailed and imperfect. 'Tis true, they have drest up their Rules in Verse, and have succeeded in it very well. There is something so just and beautiful in my Lord _Roscommon_'s Essay and Translation of _Horace_'s _Ars Poetica_, as excels any Thing in _French_ within the like Compass. I have read the late Duke of _Buckingham_'s Essay very often, but I don't think it such a perfect Piece as _Dryden_ represents it, in his long and tedious Dedication to that noble Lord before the _Æneis_. There are many Things very well thought in it, and they do not seem to be much the better for the Poetry; which is so prosaick, that if the Rhimes were pared away, it would be reduced to downright Prose. Indeed _Horace_'s Epistle to the _Piso's_ is not much more poetick; and I do not think, that the modern Criticks, like the Oracles of Old, give the greater Sanction to their Rules, for that they are put into Rhime.

I dare not say any Thing of the last _Essay_ on _Criticism_ in Verse, but that if any more curious Reader has discovered in it something new, which is not in _Dryden_'s _Prefaces_, _Dedications_, and his _Essay_ on _Dramatick Poetry_, not to mention the _French_ Criticks, I should be very glad to have the Benefit of the Discovery.

I was strangely surprised to meet with such a Passage, as what follows, in the Writings of so good an Author as Sir _Robert Howard_. _Preface_ to Duke of _Lerma_: "In the Difference of Tragedy and Comedy, there can be no Determination but by the _Taste_; and whoever would endeavour to like or dislike by the Rules of others, he will be as unsuccessful as if he should try to be perswaded into a Power of believing, not what he must, but what others direct him to believe."

Thus are _Aristotle_, _Horace_, and all that have commented on them; thus are _Boileau_, the Lord _Roscommon_, the Duke of _Bucks_, and all the modern Criticks, confounded with a Word or two, and the Rules of Writing rendered useless and ridiculous.

The Rules laid down by those great Criticks are not to be valu'd, because they are given by _Aristotle_, _Horace_, &c. but because they are in Nature and in Truth. _Homer_, _Sophocles_, and _Euripides_, wrote before _Aristotle_, and the Observations he made upon their Poems, were to shew us how they succeeded by a happy Imitation of Nature, and without such Imitation there can be no Poetry; but according to Sir _Robert Howard_'s Assertion, that only which a Man likes is good; and if you are pleas'd with seeing or hearing any Thing unnatural or even monstruous,

_A Woman's Head joyn'd to a Fishes Tail;_

it is preferable to what is just and true, to the _Venus_ of _Medicis_, or the most perfect _Madonna_ in _Italy_. Thus a wrong Taste is as good as a right one, and the Smell of a Pole-cat to be preferr'd to that of a _Civet_, if a Man's Nose is so irregular. After this Rate, there never was a Poet who could write up to the _Frenchman_'s Ladder-dance, or _Rich_'s Harlequin; and whereas Sir _Robert_ says, we may as well believe, because others do, as judge, because _Aristotle_, _Horace_, &c. do, there is no Agreement in the Proposition, or it is not rightly stated; for we do not judge so because _Aristotle_ and _Horace_ did so judge; but because it is in Nature and in Truth, and they first shew'd us the Way to find it out.

Criticism is so far from being well understood by us _Englishmen_, that it is generally mistaken to be an Effect of Envy, Jealousy, and Spleen; an invidious Desire to find Faults only to discredit the Author, and build a Reputation on the Ruin of his.

One has great Reason to think so, when the Critick looks only on one Side; when he hunts after little Slips and Negligences, and will not, or cannot see, what is beautiful and praise-worthy. If an historical or poetical Performance can no sooner acquire Applause, than he falls upon it without Mercy, neglects every Thing commendable in it, and skims off the Filth that rises on the Top of it; one may be sure his Jealousy is piqu'd, and he is alarm'd for fear every Encrease of Honour to another should be a Diminution of his own Glory; such Sort of Criticism is easily learnt. A Wen or Mole in the Face is sooner perceiv'd than the Harmony of Features, and the fine Proportion of Beauty; or, as _Dryden_ says,

_Errours like Straws upon the Surface flow, He who would search for Pearls must dive below._

This Thought is borrow'd from the Lord _Bacon_; who, speaking of Notions and Inferences what may be applied to Families, says, _Time is like a River in which Metals and solid Substances sink, while Chaff and Straw swim on the Surface_. Such borrowing as _Dryden_'s is highly commendable; he has paid back what he borrowed with Interest, and it can by no Means deserve the Scandal of _Plagiarism_. I cannot doubt, but Mr. _Addison_ in the sublime Thought, where he represents the Duke of _Marlborough_ in the Heat of the War:

_Rides in the Whirlwind, and directs the Storm;_

did nor forget these two Lines of _Boileau_ to the King:

_Serene himself the stormy War he guides, And o'er the Battle like a God presides._

I shall all along, through this Discourse, take the Liberty to pass from one Subject to another as the Hint offers, without any Method, according to the Freedom of _Essays_. Mr. _Dryden_ excuses this Freedom, by the Example of _Horace_'s Epistle to the _Piso's_, which is immethodical and I must excuse my self by Mr. _Dryden_'s--

The Taste and Appetite of these straw Criticks, may justly be compar'd to Ravens and Crows, who neglecting clean Food, are always searching after Carrion.

_Horace_'s Rule is very well worth observing, when we are about to give Judgement on a Poem or History, where the _Will_ is not concern'd:

Ubi plura nitent in Carmine non ego paucis Offendor maculis, quas aut incuria fudit, Aut humana parum cavit natura.

_When in a Poem most are shining Thoughts, I'm not offended if I find some Fau'ts; Such as are Slips of Negligence, or where The Poet may through humane Frailty erre._

As it is much easier to discern Blemishes than Beauties, so is it to censure than to commend, as the Duke of _Buckingham_ tells us:

_Yet whatsoe'er is by vain Criticks thought, Praising is harder much than finding Fau't: In homely Pieces ev'n the_ Dutch _excel_, Italians _only can draw Beauty well_.

Such Criticks need not be in Pain, if a Poem or History makes its Way in the World a little; if it is not good, it will lose Ground of it self faster than it got it. If imperfect Pieces have gain'd Credit, and kept it for some Time, it was not for what was bad in them, but what, if not really good, was at least agreeable. _Dryden_'s Translation of _Virgil_ was generally liked for the Diction and Versification, though it was dislik'd on Account of Equality and Truth; and to have made a _Critick_ upon it, as _Milbourn_ did, without doing justice to his Numbers and Language, shew'd the Spirit of the Man was more engaged in it than his Judgement. All Criticisms on _Dryden_'s Language and Numbers are in Defiance of _Horace_'s Rule above-mention'd, because there is no Body but knows that it was impossible for _Dryden_ to make an ill Verse, or to want an apt and musical Word, if he took the least Care about it. I could very easily mark out a thousand Slips and Negligences of that Kind in his _Virgil_; yet for all that, there are more good Verses in that Translation than in any other, if Mr. _Pope_'s _Homer_ is not to be excepted.

It has been often said by very good Judges, that _Cato_ was no proper Subject for a Dramatick Poem: That the Character of a Cynick Philosopher, is very inconsistent with the Hurry and Tumult of Action and Passion, which are the Soul of Tragedy. That the ingenious Author miscarried in the Plan of his Work, but supported it by the Dignity, the Purity, the Beauty, and the Justness of the Sentiments and the Diction.

This was so much the Opinion of Mr. _Maynwaring_, who was generally allow'd to be the best Critick of our Time, that he was against bringing the Play upon the Stage, and it lay by unfinish'd many Years. Mr. _Maynwaring_ highly approv'd of the Sentiments and the Diction, but did not fall in with the Design. That it was play'd at last was owing to Mr. _Hughes_, who wrote the _Siege of Damascus_, a Tragedy. He had read the Four Acts, which were finished, and rightly thought it would be of Service to the Publick, to have it represented at the latter End of Queen _Ann_'s Reign, when the old _English_ Spirit of Liberty was as likely to be lost as it had ever been since the Conquest. He endeavour'd to bring Mr. _Addison_ into his Opinion, which he did so far as to procure his Consent, that it should be acted if Mr. _Hughes_ would write the last Act, and he offer'd him the Scenary for his Assistance, excusing his not finishing it himself on Account of some other Avocations. He prest Mr. _Hughes_ to do it so earnestly, that he was prevail'd upon and set about it. But a Week after, seeing Mr. _Addison_ again with an Intention to communicate to him what he had thought of it, he was agreeably surpris'd at his producing some Papers, where near half of the Act was written by the Author himself, who took Fire at the Hint that it would be serviceable, and upon a second Reflection went thorough with the Fifth Act: Not that he was diffident of Mr. _Hughes_'s Ability, but knowing that no Man could have so perfect a Notion of his Design as himself, who had been so long and so carefully thinking of it. I was told this by Mr. _Hughes_, and I tell it to shew that it was not for the _Love_ Scenes, that Mr. _Addison_ consented to have his Tragedy acted, but to support the old _Roman_ and _English_ Publick Spirit, which was then so near being suppressed by Faction and Bigotry. The most cunning of their Leaders were sensible of it, and therefore very dexterously stole away the Merit of the Poem, by applauding the Poet, and patronizing the Action and Actors. It is therefore obvious, that a severe Critick may find a Colour for his Severity, with Respect to the _Design_ of the Play, but that will not hinder its captivating every one that sees or reads it. The Graces and Excellencies, both of Thought and Expression, do much more deserve our Admiration and Applause, than the Deficiency in the Fable deserves Censure. However, as to _Dryden_'s _Virgil_ and _Cato_, ask those that admire the one or the other what it is that pleases them? And I doubt it will be found to be the very Places, which should have most displeased, where _Dryden_ offended most against the Character of Epick Poetry by imitating _Ovid_'s Softness, and an eternal _Jeu des Mots_, _Playing upon Words_, and where _Cato_ suspends the Action and Passion of the Scene to teach the Audience, Philosophy and Morality.

It is common for the most discreet and delicate Authors to take Care of themselves, when they are treating of any of the Sciences. You will always find the Divine, the Lawyer, the Mathematician, the Astrologer, the Chymist, the Mechanick, _&c._ reserving to themselves the Merit of their particular Sciences when they are discoursing of the Arts in general. A merry Instance of this in the _Astrologer_ is mention'd by the very learned _Gregory_ out of _Albumazer_, who asserted, that all Religions were govern'd by the Planets; the _Mahometan_ by _Venus_, the _Jewish_ by _Saturn_, and the _Christian_ by the _Sun_: Nay, he adds, that one _Guido Bonatus_ a _Gymnosophist_ affirms in his Parallells, that _Christ himself was an Astrologer, and made use of Elections_. The _Spectator_, with all his Modesty, has discover'd something of this Self-love in that of the Sciences, and could not help giving into this Infirmity. Every one knows what a fine Talent he had for Writing, and particularly how beautiful his Imagination was, and how polite his Language. Himself was not a Stranger to it; and we therefore read in the _Spectator_, Nº 291; _I might further observe, that there is not a_ Greek _or_ Latin _Critick, who has not shewn, even in the Stile of his Criticisms, that he was Master of all the Elegance and Delicacy of his native Language_. Here does this excellent Author forbid any one's Claim to the Character of a Critick, who is not like himself Master of the Delicacy and Elegance of his native Tongue; though I am apt to believe, that as a Man may be a very good Judge of Painting without being himself a Painter, so he may make very good Criticisms in Poetry and Eloquence, without being a Poet or an Orator. What would have become of our famous Critick _Rymer_, whom Mr. _Dryden_ has so much commended, and so much abused, if his Criticisms must not pass, on Account of his not being Master of the Elegance and Delicacy of our Language, as it does not appear he was by his Translation of OVID's Epistle from _Penelope_ to _Ulysses_.

_Here skulk'd_ Ulysses. _Your Sword how_ Dolon _no nor_ Rhesus _'scap'd, Banter'd the One, this taken as he napp'd. Whatever Skippers hither come ashore, For thee I ask and ask them o'er and o'er. Perhaps to her your dowdy Wife define Who cares no more, so that her Cupboard shine: Who revel in your House without Controul, And eat and waste your Means our Blood and Soul._