Part 2

The _Bantring_ and _Napping_, the _Skipper_, the _Dowdy Wife_, the _Cupboard_, the _Means_, and the _Blood_ and _Soul_, agree admirably with the Royal Characters of King _Ulysses_ and Queen _Penelope_, and the courtly Manner of _Ovid_. _Radcliff_'s Letter, from the Skipper's Wife of _Newcastle_ to her Husband at _St. Catherine_'s, can hardly have more of the Burlesque in it.

The Truth is, Mr. _Addison_, in the above Quotation, has a Fling upon the Author of the Critick upon his _Cato_. _A few general Rules extracted out of the_ French _Authors, with a certain Cant of Words, have sometimes set up an illiterate heavy Writer, for a most judicious and formidable Critick._ I know no Instance wherein that Gentleman loses his Temper so much as in this. There were but three Authors in our Time who were _Criticks_ by Profession, _Rymer_, _Dennis_, and _Gildon_. _Rymer_ is own'd by himself to be a masterly Critick: He himself knew Mr. _Dennis_ did not want Learning; and as to Fire, he has perhaps rather too much of it, than too little. I can't help thinking, that the Ode he writ on _Dryden_'s Translation of the 3d Book of the _Georgicks_, in _Tonson_'s Fourth Miscellany, deserv'd a kinder Word than illiterate or heavy.

STANZA II.

_Sometimes of humble rural Things My Muse, which keeps great_ Maro _still in sight, In middle Air with varied Numbers sings; And sometimes her sonorous Flight To Heaven sublimely wings. But first takes Time with Majesty to rise Then, without Pride, divinely great She mounts her native Skies; And Goddess-like retains her State When down again she flies._

The Passage, taken out of the _Spectator_, could not relate to _Gildon_, because of the _French_ Cant, which he did not affect, nor understand. It is plain therefore, it must refer to the Critick upon _Cato_; which shews us, that as conscious as the most modest Man may be of his own Insufficiency; yet, when it is in Dispute, he cannot always preserve his Insensibility. _Cato_ is a very good _Dramatick_ Poem, and so was the _Cid_; yet the best _Critick_ that ever was written in _French_, was that upon the _Cid_, as _La Bruyere_ observes.

In another of the _Spectators_, we meet with something which proves to us, that a Man may have as much Modesty as Mr. _Addison_; and yet be very jealous of losing any Part of the Glory which is due to him. Every one knows, that though he was a Master of Eloquence, he never attempted to speak in Parliament, but it was with some Confusion; and what he said, did not answer the Expectation which had been raised by the Character of his Writings. Himself takes notice of this, not as an Infirmity, but as the Effect of Caution and Art. _Spectator_, Nº 231, Cicero tells us, that he never liked an Orator, _who did not appear in some little Confusion at the Beginning of his Speech; and confesses, that he himself never entered upon an Oration without Trembling and Concern. It is indeed a Kind of Deference which is due to a great Assembly. The bravest Man often appears timorous upon these Occasions, as we may observe that there is generally no Creature more impudent than a Coward._ I hope I shall not be thought invidious, or to endeavour to lessen the Veneration, which all, who love polite Learning, owe to the Memory of the _Spectator_; yet I could not but take notice, how sensible the most Discreet are in Point of Rivalship in Fame. What else can one think of the _Spectator_'s Saying in the Dedication of the Eighth Volume: _I need not tell you, that the free and disengaged Behaviour of a fine Gentleman, makes as many aukward_ Beaux, _as the Easiness of your Favourite_ Waller _hath made insipid Poets._ Though the _fine Gentleman_ may be applied to Mr. _Waller_, and the _aukward Beaux_ to the insipid Poets; yet the Comparison cannot hold, without doing an Injury to Mr. _Waller_'s Merit. The _Beaux_ may be aukward, by imitating what you call a _fine Gentleman_, who is generally distinguish'd by some Affectation; but no Poet can be insipid by imitating Mr. _Waller_'s Easiness, if he has any Portion of his Wit and Gallantry. The _Spectator_'s Manner was not very different from Mr. _Waller_'s, as to Easiness; and I have as often heard it wished, that there was more Fire in his own Poetry, as that there was more in Mr. _Waller_'s. Two of the politest Authors in _Europe_, of the last Age, St. _Evremont_ and _La Fontaine_, had such an Esteem for Mr. _Waller_, that it is strange he meets with no better Quarter at Home. Those two famous _French_ Wits us'd to call him another _Anacreon_; and the Criticks have not yet complained, that ever _Anacreon_ taught any Poet to be insipid. Mr. _Addison_ is so far from thinking that _Waller_ had any such Infection about him, that he wishes he had lived to have sung in Praise of King _William_, the sublimest Subject that ever was offered to a Muse, by how much the Deliverer of Nations from Slavery is a more godlike Character, than to have subjected and enslaved them, as did _Alexander_ and _Cæsar_.

_The Courtly_ Waller _next commands my Lays, Muse, tune thy Verse with Art to_ Waller_'s Praise. While tender Airs, and lovely Dames inspire Soft melting Thoughts, and propagate Desire; So long shall_ Waller_'s Strains our Passion move, And_ Sacharissa_'s Beauties kindle Love. Thy Verse, harmonious Bard, and flatt'ring Song, Can make the Vanquish'd great, the Coward strong: Thy Verse can shew ev'n_ Cromwell_'s Innocence, And complement the Storms that bore him hence. Oh! had thy Muse not come an Age too soon, But seen great_ Nassau _on the_ British _Throne, How had his Triumphs glitter'd in thy Page, And warm'd thee to a more exalted Rage. What Scenes of Death,_ &c.

So little Danger is there of learning to be insipid by imitating _Waller_, that he is praised by the Editor of St. _Evremond_'s Works, for the Elevation of his Genius, Mr. _Edmond Waller; s'est generallement fait admirer par l'Elevation de son Esprit_.

I do not in this _Essay_ aim at any Thing more, than, as I have said before, to put several critical Hints, which I had collected, together, and not to form a regular Discourse, but take them as they come in my way.

If the _Spectator_, by the Passage above-mentioned, insinuates that a Man must be able to perform himself in an Art, to be a good Judge of the Performances of others; consequently, that I ought to be a masterly Historian, to make Remarks on Mr. _Echard_'s History, he divests me at once of the Right I pretend to in the following Treatise. Let us therefore enquire into the Reason of this Reflection.

_Horace_, whom no _English_ Author could understand better than the _Spectator_, as appears by his admirable Translation, teaches us otherwise,

_Munus & Officium, nil scribens ipse, docebo._ Yet without writing, I may teach to write. [_Rosc._

_Dacier_'s Notes upon _Hippocrates_, as I have been informed by my worthy Friend Dr. _Allen_, are much better than any others, though made by Men of the _Faculty_, which _Dacier_ did not profess. Monsieur _Corneille_, the greatest Genius in _France_ for Tragedy, wrote _Examens_ of his Pieces, which, like _Dryden_'s Prefaces, were adapted to the several Tragedies, and very often clashed with one another, as the Subject required: but because he would prevent as much as possible any Attack of Criticism, he declares in one of his Discourses, _That the Knowledge which is acquired by Study and Speculation, is of little or no Use without Experience_. Thus an Author must produce a Tragedy himself, before he presumes to criticise on another's. If it be the same Thing in History too, I began at the wrong End, and should have written three or four Folio Histories, before I had presum'd to make Remarks on Archdeacon _Echard_'s, this would bear very hard upon me, and I must beg Leave to enquire a little whether the Case be really so or not.

Monsieur _Dacier_ is so far from being of _Corneille_'s Opinion, that he thinks a Man who never did write a Tragedy, may criticise on another's Poem the better for that he never wrote himself. _Nay, I do not know_, says he in his Preface to _Aristotle_, _whether he who has written Dramatick poems, is so proper to explain the Rules of the Art, as he, who never wrote any: For it would be a Miracle if the former were not seduced by Self-love; whereas the latter is disinterested, and the more likely to be an impartial Judge._ Again, _if it was necessary to be a good poet to make Criticisms on Poetry, we should never have had any Critick at all; for I do not know one Critick upon Poetry, that was himself a Poet._ By this one would think, that he did not look upon _Rapin_ as a Critick in Poetry, for he wrote a Poem on _Gardening_. _Menage_ makes as little of him as _Dacier_; yet _Dryden_ says, were all the Writings of other Criticks lost, _Rapin_'s Works alone would be sufficient to teach us the whole Art of Criticism. We all know _Aristotle_ and _Horace_ wrote upon Epick Poetry and Tragedy, yet neither of them ever wrote a Tragedy or Epick Poem; and perhaps neither of them would have succeeded if he had. _Rymer_ made one poor Attempt that Way in his _Edgar_: But, as if it had been written only to prove that a Man may judge well of an Art, without being a Performer, like an ill-built Ship, it sunk in the very launching, and seem'd to be written only to be damned.

The _Guardian_ seconds the _Spectator_, and forbids any one to criticise, that cannot write to Perfection. _If I find by his own Manner of Writing, that he is heavy and tasteless, I throw aside his Criticisms with a secret Indignation, to see a Man without Genius or Politeness, dictating to the World on Subjects which I find are above his Reach._ Thus Mr. _Rymer_, the best Critick we had till then, and all his Rules, are void and of no Effect; He has cancelled them with a Dash of his Pen. If a Man must not only have Politeness, but a Genius, what will become of _Aristotle_ and _Longinus_, _Bossu_ and _Dacier_? They were all polite Writers, but have not discover'd that they had Genius. I ever had as little Opinion of heavy tasteless Criticks as the _Spectator_ or _Guardian_, yet I never could endure an arbitrary Judgement; for, what else is _tasteless_ and _heavy_ without Proof? But then, that Proof could not be produced without the _Criticisms_, which, let them be ever so poor, are often more easily despis'd than answer'd.

I was always convinced by Example, that a Critick may have a just Taste, without being a Poet; and that the Indignation the _Guardian_ speaks of, is never provoked, unless a weak Place is hit upon: As, in the low Phrase, _A galled Horse winces when you touch the Sore_. In three or four Lines, we have _tasteless_, _heavy_, _dogmatical_, _stupid_ Macer _and_ Mundungus all of the poor Criticks. Had they been really such stupid Creatures, they could not have given such Offence. Hard Words shew Anger more than Indignation, and we are apt to conjecture, that the Poets would not be so angry with the Criticks, if they were not afraid of them. The Concern of the former is wonderfully generous; they are not in Pain for what the Criticks say of their Errours and Failings, but for the Heaviness and Stupidity of their Criticisms. Thus in the lowest Life, we shall often hear one angry Woman cry out of another, _I do not matter what she said of me, but to see the Impudence of the Slut_. _Macer_ and _Mundungus_ are taken from Mr. _Congreve_'s Epistle to Sir _Richard Temple_;

_So_ Macer _and_ Mundungus _school the Times, And write in rugged Verse the softer Rules of Rhimes_.

If the _Guardian_ had the Critick upon _Cato_ in his Thoughts, when he quoted those Verses, which I suppose he had, why does he mention rhiming Criticisms? That Author wrote his Rules and Remarks always in Prose, so did _Rymer_; what then do they all mean by _rugged Verse_? The Lord _Roscommon_'s Poetry is Harmony it self. The last Essay upon Criticism in Verse was not then written. There remains only the late Duke of _Buckingham_'s Poetical Essay, of Note enough to be remembered by Mr. _Congreve_: That could not be named, without offending _good Breeding_, a Term very often made use of by two elegant Authors; who, I much question, had never the Education of a Dancing-Master. However, Poetry and Criticism are perfect Levellers, and no Man can plead Privilege in the Court of _Parnassus_; what then is the Meaning of the next Lines after _Mundungus_?

_Well do they play the careful Critick's Part, Instructing doubly by their matchless Art: Rules for good Verse they first with Pains indite, Then shew us what are bad by what they write._

The _Guardian_ and _Spectator_ would not do the Poets the Honour to name them; but we know who are the Criticks which are _thrown aside_ by them; for no Body but Mr. _D----_ and Mr. _G----_ made Remarks upon their Writings, and both of them did. I do not say with that Politeness and Elegance, which the _Spectator_ and _Guardian_ have laid down, as the sole Characteristicks of good Talk and Judgement; though one may almost as well say, that a Man cannot have good Sense and Wit, without good Cloaths and a genteel Air. I must needs own, that I think most of their Criticisms very just, though had they been still juster than they are, I would not nave been the Author of them, without taking Notice of Beauties, as well as finding of Faults, there being much more Room for the former than the latter.

It is very plain, the _Spectator_ highly stomached the Remarks which were made on his Writings, and is not very candid in his Reasoning, to render his Opponents contemptible, which was the surest Way of disarming them. _These Criticks fall upon a Play, not because it is ill written, but because it takes_: This is not the whole Truth. It is not because it _takes_, but because it takes for those very Things which should have damned it _Durfey_'s _Boarding-School_, and his _Marriage-Hater match'd_, took with a Vengeance, though the two greatest Pieces of Wit in them, were _Miss's Bread and Butter_, and _Mynheer's Muff_. _Settle_'s Tragedies took for the Noise, the Show, and the Rhime. No Play, that was not supported by poetical or political Party, which most _taking_ Plays have been, ever took more than _Settle_'s _Heir of Morocco_, in which there is not one good Thought or Expression. Again, _several of these Criticks have laid it down as a Maxim, that whatever Dramatick Poem has a long Run, must of Necessity be good for nothing_, which is a Misrepresentation. The _Orphan_, _Venice Preserv'd_, _Tamerlane_, _&c._ had _long Runs_, and _run_ still; yet no Critick has dared to say they did not deserve it: But whoever will owe his Reputation to _taking_ only, must be contented to roll with _Settle_, _Durfey_, and many other Poets, that _took_ in their Turn. Could any thing be more monstrous, than to determine the Merit of _Nixon's Prophecy_, and the _Spectator_, by the Run of the Papers. The former, a Maggot given to the Rabble, bore more Editions in Ten Weeks, than the latter has done in Ten Years.

I would not be understood in this, or any thing else, to endeavour to lessen the Opinion the People have generally and justly of the _Spectator_'s Perfections: I verily believe, there is no Production of the Mind, ancient or modern, where are to be found more Wit, Politeness, fine Raillery, good Sense, Learning, and Eloquence; but what I have said, is to shew, that great Wits as well as little have their Passions, their Piques and Prejudices, when the least Blemish is discovered in their Glory. In the same _Spectator_, we have another Hint, that no Body ought to criticise on that Author's Writings, unless he could write as elegantly as himself, which effectually cuts off all _Criticism_. These _professed Criticks cannot put ten Words together with Elegance, or common Propriety_. What an arbitrary Way of arguing is this? These Criticks are Smatterers; _They vilify only the Productions that gain Applause; the Blemishes they descry are imaginary; their Arguments are far fetched; Their Works are like those of the Sophists, they are thought deep, because unintelligible; they instruct the People in Absurdities_. Would the _Spectator_ allow this positive Air in any other Writer? How does it appear that one Word of all this is true? _Ipse dixit._ That must satisfy, though he is in this Case too much a Party, to be a Judge. _These_ Criticks _are led themselves into Absurdities, by not considering, That there is sometimes a greater Judgement shewn in deviating from the Rules of Art, than adhering to them_. The Word _sometimes_ here would make every right Argument wrong, and every Truth Falsehood, because _sometimes_ there may be an Exception to a general Rule. Why, does he not tell us, wherein himself, or any one else shewed his Judgement in deviating from the Rules of Art? The _Critical Smatterers_ do not charge him in those Places where Judgement was shewn in such deviating, but where the Want of Judgement appeared in it. I shall have occasion to touch this Subject a little elsewhere; though I hope what I have said here, is enough to prove that just _Criticisms_ are not the Productions of Ignorance and Envy, as the _Spectator_ intimates; but that they are, on the contrary, useful and necessary to be a Check on the greatest Genius's, who want the Rein much more than the Spur; and what, in a few Years, would become of all good Writing, if those great Genius's could impose their very Blemishes on the World for the most shining Beauties?

The _Spectator_ gives us another Mark, by which we may discover a Critick, who has neither Taste nor Learning, and that is, _He seldom ventures to praise any Passage in an Author, which has not been before received and applauded by the Publick_. If this Remark had been infallible and universal, it must have deprived the _Spectator_ himself of the two greatest Beauties in all his Quotations out of _Milton_ which are in every one's Mouth. The One in the sublime Kind in the Speech to the _Sun_.

_Oh then, that with surpassing Glory crown'd, Look'st from thy sole Dominion like the God Of this new World._--

The Other in the tender Kind. _Adam_ to _Eve_.

_Her Hand soft touching whisper'd thus, Awake My Fairest, my espous'd, my best belov'd, Heavens last, best Gift, my ever new Delight; Awake._

which had before been a thousand Times repeated as the Perfection of _English_ Poetry, in their several Kinds. And the Author, who shall have occasion to quote them as such after the _Spectator_, will not discover his Want of Taste or Learning by it. Very just is his Observation, _A true Critick ought to dwell rather upon Excellencies than Imperfections, &c._ But as this has Relation chiefly to those Compositions which require Genius, Judgement and Eloquence; and consequently, cannot relate to Mr. _Echard_'s History of _England_, we shall now say no more of it.

That I may not be guilty of the Fault I blame in others, the neglecting of Beauties, and falling unmercifully upon the Blemishes of Authors. 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. What Part of his Performance should I have applauded! Is it the _Design_! The Author does not himself pretend, that it is regular, if by _Design_ in _History_, we are to understand the _Plan_ as in _Poetry_: He will not deny, but that his Method is too much diversified, and too confused; sometimes it is _General History_, sometimes _Annals_, sometimes a _Diary_, sometimes _Biography_; all which he seems to think he has sufficiently provided against, by dividing the whole Work into _Sections_, and putting Pales between his Paragraphs. This Confusion will be easily pardoned by his Readers, there being hardly one in a Thousand that knows the Difference between _Biography_ and _History_, or between an _Annalist_ and an _Historian_; or who does not take _Buck_'s _Richard_ III, or _Cambden_'s Queen _Elizabeth_, to be as much of the historical Kind, as _Samuel Daniel_'s History of _England_, which is the only _English_ History that has the least Appearance of Uniformity and Regularity of Design.

_Ne Sutor ultra Crepidam_, is in nothing a more necessary Maxim, than in the Productions of the Mind. It is not because a Man can write a Sonnet, an Elegy, nay, an Ode, or a Dramatick Poem, that therefore he can succeed in Epick; though we in _England_ are apt to confound all Sorts of Poetry and Poets, and to think that there is but one and the same Genius necessary for all of them. Thus it is, that you often hear the Question in Company, which is the best Poet, _Virgil_ or _Horace_, _Milton_ or _Waller_, _Dryden_ or _Wycherley_, _Congreve_ or _Row_. It is the same Thing in History: If a Man is able to abridge a Dictionary, to collect and compile Memoirs; in a Word, if he can put a Tale together, he is immediately an Historian, though Story-telling and History are as different as a _Madrigal_ and a Pindarick _Ode_.