LETTER VII.

But nothing shews the difference of the two systems under consideration more plainly, than the effect they really had on the Two greatest of our Poets; at least the two which an _English_ reader is most fond to compare with HOMER; I mean, SPENSER and MILTON.

It is not to be doubted but that each of these bards had kindled his poetic fire from classic fables. So that, of course, their prejudices would lie that way. Yet they both appear, when most inflamed, to have been more particularly rapt with the _Gothic_ fables of Chivalry.

SPENSER, though he had been long nourished with the spirit and substance of HOMER and VIRGIL, chose the times of Chivalry for his theme, and Fairy Land for the scene of his fictions. He could have planned, no doubt, an heroic design on the exact classic model: or, he might have trimmed between the _Gothic_ and classic, as his contemporary TASSO did. But the charms of _fairy_ prevailed. And if any think, he was seduced by ARIOSTO into this choice, they should consider that it could be only for the sake of his subject; for the genius and character of these poets was widely different.

Under this idea then of a _Gothic_, not classical poem, the _Fairy Queen_ is to be read and criticized. And on these principles it would not be difficult to unfold its merit in another way than has been hitherto attempted.

MILTON, it is true, preferred the classic model to the _Gothic_. But it was after long hesitation; and his favourite subject was ARTHUR _and his Knights of the round table_. On this he had fixed for the greater part of his life. What led him to change his mind was, partly, as I suppose, his growing fondness for religious subjects; partly, his ambition to take a different rout from SPENSER; but chiefly perhaps, the discredit into which the stories of Chivalry had now fallen by the immortal satire of CERVANTES. Yet we see through all his poetry, where his enthusiasm flames out most, a certain predilection for the legends of Chivalry before the fables of _Greece_.

This circumstance, you know, has given offence to the austerer and more mechanical critics. They are ready to censure his judgment, as juvenile and unformed, when they see him so delighted, on all occasions, with the _Gothic_ romances. But do these censors imagine that MILTON did not perceive the defects of these works, as well as they? No: it was not the _composition_ of books of Chivalry, but the _manners_ described in them, that took his fancy; as appears from his _Allegro_—

Towred cities please us then And the busy hum of men, Where throngs of knights and barons bold In weeds of peace high triumphs hold, With store of ladies, whose bright eyes Rain influence, and judge the prize Of wit, or arms, while both contend To win her grace, whom all commend.

And when in the _Penseroso_ he draws, by a fine contrivance, the same kind of image to sooth melancholy which he had before given to excite mirth, he indeed extols an _author_, or two, of these romances, as he had before, in general, extolled the _subject_ of them: but they are authors worthy of his praise; not the writers of _Amadis_, and _Sir Launcelot of the Lake_; but Fairy SPENSER, and CHAUCER himself, who has left an unfinished story on the _Gothic_ or feudal model.

Or, call up him that left half-told The story of CAMBUSCAN bold, Of CAMBALL and of ALGARSIFF, And who had CANACE to wife, That own’d the virtuous ring and glass, And of the wondrous horse of brass, On which the Tartar king did ride; And if aught else great bards beside In sage and solemn tunes have sung Of turneys and of trophies hung, Of forests and inchantments drear, Where more is meant than meets the ear.

The conduct then of these two poets may incline us to think with more respect, than is commonly done, of the _Gothic manners_; I mean, as adapted to the uses of the greater poetry.

I shall add nothing to what I before observed of SHAKESPEAR, because the sublimity (the divinity, let it be, if nothing else will serve) of his genius kept no certain rout, but rambled at hazard into all the regions of human life and manners. So that we can hardly say what he preferred, or what he rejected, on full deliberation. Yet one thing is clear, that even he is greater when he uses _Gothic_ manners and machinery, than when he employs classical: which brings us again to the same point, that the former have, by their nature and genius, the advantage of the latter in producing the _sublime_.