contains a refutation of the objections of two very popular advocates on the opposite side of the question."

Without entering into the merits of the arguments of a controversy, which, as I am of opinion, has been decided much in favour of the affirmative side of the question, I am sufficiently attached to those principles which I have employed some time in illustrating, to believe, that by their assistance the matter may be put if not more appositely, yet more suitably to the purpose of these inquiries: in fact, that so captivating an appendage of poetry as its machinery, may be maintained to the art without assigning any unreasonable latitude to Poetical Licence.

The determination of the present question cannot be directly deducible from that rule, which has been given for ascertaining the propriety, and marking out the extent of marvellous fictions; for that rule assumes, as granted, the very points which it would be now my object to establish on the more solid basis of proof. We must therefore look a little higher for that principle which

I HURD'S Discourse on Poet. Imit.

leads to the solution of the difficulty before us; and this appears to be immediately suggested in the end ascribed to all poetical productions, with the consideration of which these inquiries commenced, and from which the rule alluded to is immediately deducible. However the rule is not without its use in determining the question before us, as will be made apparent in the course of discussing the point, which may be briefly stated as follows.

The end which every poet, and more particularly those of the epick class, purposes in his compositions, is that of procuring his readers the greatest degree, and highest kind of gratification which is suitable to the nature, and attainable in the execution of that work which he undertakes to detail. An appeal lies to the feelings of readers of every description, as evincing that marvellous imagery has some strong claims to be thought capable of contributing to this end. But more than this, if the emotions of taste which, in promoting this end, it is capable of exciting are not only of a higher degree and more exalted kind than any thing which may be attained in the epopee without its assistance; but if there is nothing in the nature of these emotions cal

culated to render it incompatible with compositions of this kind, we may from these two points fairly conclude that it is necessary to the art, in being necessary to the end purposed in its composition; for without its aid the epick poetry must fall several degrees short of that perfection to be attained by its adoption.

That, in the first place, marvellous imagery is productive of a very great degree and high kind of gratification seems not to be disputed by those who object to its introduction in the epopee, on account only of its offering too great a violence to nature and probability. By readers of a less philosophical turn, this assumption will be admitted on the unquestionable evidence of personal experience. Nor can it be reasonably denied by those who consider it, without any view to the purer epos, as it occurs in sacred poetry, or even in the epick romance. But that it is capable of exciting emotions of a more sublime kind than what are attainable by the merely natural imagery of the poem, must be evident from the celestial nature and illimitable powers of those beings which it has a means of introducing into its action. Before intelligences of this

kind, all human agents and operations must shrink away when brought into a comparison; they are such as can scarcely be contemplated, even in description, without sentiments of such awe, if not of such terrour, as render them sublime to the most irresistable degree.

That, in the second place, there is nothing in the nature either of marvellous imagery, or of epical composition, which can render the one unsuitable to the other, is surely as admissible. An observance of matter of fact has never been expected in the former; such a qualification, if it were compatible with poetical imitation, would not be counterbalanced by its inconvenience to poetical embellishment. Of reality the poet is required to take no firmer hold than what he grasps in verisimilitude. But if he attends to the rule given for the conduct of the marvellous narrations of poetry, he may furnish himself with machinery which possesses the strictest verisimilitude. For among those celestial agents which he may employ in forwarding the action, and heightening the dignity of his poem, if he follows that religious ritual which is admitted by the creed of his readers, and is natural to the

characters in his composition he cannot introduce any beings whose existence and operations will not have the greatest probability: to admit their verisimilitude, is consequently on the part of his readers a matter of faith, not merely a matter of opinion. And this being etsablished, the hypothesis may consequently be assumed as proved, that machinery, from being calculated to excite pleasure without being repugnant to poetical verisimilitude, is necessary to the production of that end which is purposed in epical composition.

The adoption of machinery in the epos appearing thus founded on reason, and being justified by the practice of those poets who have carried the art nearest to ideal perfection, two points in the use of it require a particular investigation, as marking out the extent of poetical licence.

1. How far the poet is restricted in the choice of particular agency to embellish and dignify his subject?

2. Under what restrictions may he be laid as to the time of employing its intervention in the epical action?

On these points we seem to require some fixed standard, as a contrariety of practice,

Р