with attention beyond the limits of France, and our own Rymer had published in 1694 a translation of Rapin's Reflections on the Poetics of Aristotle. John Dennis about the same time, in The Impartiai Critic, analysed with considerable skill the grounds of Waller's poetic reputation, and compared the exigencies of the Greek and English theatres. Nor were metrical precedents wanting to Pope. In imitation of Boileau, Lord Roscommon had written an Essay on Translated Verse (1680), to which we shall see that Pope in the present poem was under considerable obligations, and Sheffield (Earl of Mulgrave and Duke of Buckingham) had written an Essay on Satire and an Essay on Poetry, both in the heroic couplet; a line from the latter is quoted in the Essay on Criticism. Lastly, when we consider Pope's extreme sensitiveness-how truly he said of himself, touch me, and no minister so sore'1-it may seem probable that the circumstance of Dennis having spoken unfavourably of his Pastorals in clubs and coffee-houses, was some inducement to him to write a poem which should include a severe castigation of English critics in general, and John Dennis in particular.

Dr. Johnson speaks of the Essay on Criticism as 'a work which displays such extent of comprehension, such nicety of distinction, such acquaintance with mankind, and such knowledge both of ancient and modern learning, as are not often attained by the maturest and longest experience.' Addison noticed.

Imitations of Horace.

the poem in the Spectator (No. 253) a few months after its publication, and declared it to be a masterpiece in its kind.' The general opinion of critics and men of sense, in accordance with these earlier testimonies, has always rated the Essay very highly. But the latest editor of Pope, Mr. Elwin (to whom every acknowledgment is due for having first given to the world a large number of Pope's letters, and edited the whole collection with care and perspicuity), has formed a very different opinion of its merits. In his eyes it is a mere cento of shallow aphorisms and borrowed precepts, derived by Pope from earlier writers on criticism, both ancient and modern, and strung together without much force, grace, or dexterity. In the enjoyment of this opinion we should prefer to leave him undisturbed, did he not import into his remarks an element of bitter hostility to the memory of Pope, which takes form in a great variety of injurious statements and damaging inferences, tending, not merely to the depreciation of the poet's genius, but to the aspersion of his character. Being persuaded that these statements and inferences are to a large extent unfounded or exaggerated, we propose, in justice to a great name and a transcendent genius, to examine them in some detail.

Mr. Elwin begins at the beginning, and attempts to fasten a charge of mendacity on Pope in connexion with the date ('written in 1709') on the half-title, because he had represented to friends that he had written the Essay in 1707, whereas, according to this his published avowal, he had really written it in 1709, and very likely did not write it till 1711, the year in

6

which it was published. It represents,' he says, 'the capacity of Pope at 23.'

Pope told Richardson the painter that the Essay on Criticism was indeed written 1707, though said

1709 by mistake.' He said to Spence (Anecdotes, p. 20), 'I showed Walsh my Essay on Criticism in 1706. He died the year after.' Walsh died in 1708; hence Mr. Elwin himself admits that in this passage we ought to read 1707 for 1706. In another place (p. 16) Spence represents him as saying 'My Essay on Criticism was written in 1709, and published in 1711.' Here is a discrepancy; how is it to be explained? Mr. Elwin's explanation is simple; it is that Pope lied when he said that the poem was written in 1707, and even was not truthful when he said that it was written in 1709; since he doubtless continued to improve and polish it till it was published, that is, till 1711. But let us see whether there is not another solution of the difficulty. In the first place, it is possible that Spence himself made a blunder, and has not accurately reported what Pope said to him on the second occasion. But, supposing him to have reported accurately, it is not very difficult to believe that different stages of the elaboration of the poem are indicated by the different dates. The poem, as we have it, may have been written in 1709; it certainly could not have been finished before the middle of 1708, because Walsh died in May of that year, and the concluding lines speak of him as dead. The time of his death must have been known to all Pope's friends, or most of them; is it likely then that he would-out of mere vanity, as Mr. Elwin thinks

2

have falsely told various persons that the poem was written in 1707, when the lie might so easily have been refuted out of the poem itself? Pope-resembling in this many other writers-not only kept his works a long time by him after they were written, but altered, re-touched, and transformed them in various ways, so long as they remained in MS. Addison wrote the greater part of Cato in Italy about 1706, but finished it in 1713. Scott wrote the first portion of Waverley about 1805, but finished the work and published it in 1814. Might not either of these writers have truly named either the earlier or the later date, according as the original draft, or the finished work, were uppermost in his thoughts, as the date of composition? Why then should not the same charity of interpretation be extended to Pope? Might he not have projected the poem in 1707, and written a good part of it then, and shown that part to Walsh, but added passages subsequently (among others the lines on Walsh himself), put the whole into shape, and finally printed it in 1709? But, says Mr. Elwin, Pope forgot the confession in the poem, ver. 735-740, that in consequence of having "lost his guide" by the death of Walsh, he was afraid to attempt ambitious themes, and selected the Essay on Criticism as a topic suited to "low numbers." He here admits that he did not form the design till after the death of his friend in March 1708.' This is far

1

1 Pope asserts that the Essay was printed in 1709, in a note to Letter VI. of the Walsh correspondence, in what he calls 'the first genuine quarto edition' of his Letters, published in 1737.

too hasty a conclusion. Pope, when he spoke of 'low numbers' and 'short excursions,' could hardly have been thinking of the Essay on Criticism, which is not a short excursion, and is in the heroic couplet, the loftiest and most dignified of English metres. He apparently had in view such poems as his Epistle to Cromwell, or his Imitations of English Poets, and many other pieces of which we do not know the exact date, which are both short, and in low-that is, less dignified metres. Upon some of these he seems to have been engaged in 1709, when he finished the Essay on Criticism; and the lines quoted by Mr. Elwin may mean, that since the death of Walsh he no longer attempted such high themes as the Essay on Criticism, the first draft of which he had shown to and discussed with his friend, but had sunk to a lower style of work.

The poem,' says Mr. Elwin, 'represents the capacity of Pope at 23;' he means, that it does not represent his capacity at 19, which was his age in 1707. There seems no good reason for supposing that the Essay represents Pope's capacity at 23 in any other sense than that in which Waverley, which was partly written many years earlier, represents Scott's capacity in 1814. Since the first draft was written, in 1707, doubtless the poem had been greatly improved; but Mr. Elwin shows no sufficient cause for rejecting Pope's assertion, that the substance of the Essay, as finally published in 1711, had been really written four years before.

The next point on which Mr. Elwin thinks fit to assail Pope's memory, is his behaviour to Dennis.