stitutes the second point of his defence the critick appears equally unsuccessful. It is his object here to shew, that the introduction of Pagan imagery into modern action. has been in general use: he particularly specifies Milton as following this practice, and alludes to some passages in the " Paradise Lost," as confirming his assertion; and he from thence maintains that Camoens had an equal liberty of appropriating this species of agency. But the use to which Milton and Camoens applied the Pagan imagery is essentially different. Milton, not only has his proper machinery conducted by intelligences of a totally different order, but never introduces these deities, as agents, in his poem: P he merely refers to the account given of them by some antecedent poet, and cites them only in a comparison or an illustration. Thus he likens Eve to a Wood-Nymph light, Oread or Dryad, or of Delia's train. P 'Tis true that he sums up The Ionian gods, of Javan's issue held Gods; in the number of the fallen angels. But his conduct, as will be shewn, was perfectly consistent with universal belief. See p. 238. And to Pales, or Pomona, when she fled, Vertumnus, or to Ceres in her prime, P. L. And the garden of Eden, he compares with ..... That fair field Of Enua, where Proserpine gathering flowers, Was gather'd, which cost Ceres all that pain IV. v. 268. In these passages there is evidently no attempt to introduce these mythological beings as agents: they contain allusions merely to well-known fables. In fact it is Milton's constant custom to qualify the reference to such beings, by distinctly specifying their feigned origin: thus Satan Lay floating many a rood, in bulk as huge but Eve I. v. 196. Undeck'd save with herself, more lovely fair V. v. 379. However some tradition they dispers'd And fabled how the Serpent, whom they call'd Encroaching Eve, perhaps, had first the rule nor important less Seem'd their petition, than when th' ancient pair The race of mankind drown'd, before the shrine XI. v. 9. Camoens, on the other hand, brings in these divinities as actually existing: he introduces them in person performing their several offices and functions, and forwarding by their agency the whole action of the poem. Of course the conduct of the two poets possesses not the slightest similarity. Milton has beautified his work by an appropriate embellishment, while Camoens has deformed his poem by an unsuitable appendage. In proceeding to the third division of the apologist's defence, (the attempt to prove which, by the way, invalidates his former arguments) we have to regret that the conduct of his authour did not afford him some countenance in what he wishes to establish. For this point, if proved, would be the only part of his whole defence which would justify his conclusions, or palliate the irregula rities of his authour. If in fact he could have established that the existence of the supernatural beings, introduced in "The Lusiad," was admitted by the popular superstition of the times of Camoens, the poet's practice would be not merely exempt from censure, but would be pronounced artistlike and judicious in following the true principles of fanciful imagery. But it has not been established that his machinery had any foundation in the credulity of his age. Indeed the apologist does not insist on more than one or two instances, as when he declares that, "in the age of Camoens," "Bacchus was esteemed a real dæmon." He has not however given any proof of this assertion. But should we even admit these characters to have been the objects of popular belief, what becomes of the numerous train of pagan divinities that still remain unaccounted for; the gods, both celestial and infernal, and the myriads of marine deities, specified and particularized by the poet? Were we to allow that the agency of the "Lusiad" was founded on the belief of Camoens' age, we must also believe that the superstitions of his times were exactly conformable to those of the times of Homer, for the entire system of mythology in the works of both poets bears the strictest analogy. The machinery of Camoens not only embraces the chief part of both the superiour and the subordinate deities of "The Iliad," but accurately represents them with the same natures and characters, the same attributes and economies as described by the Grecian poet. On the whole therefore, when we sum up the several parts of Mr. Mickle's apology, we are necessitated to pronounce the conduct of his authour equally exposed to censure, as when he undertook its justification. His arguments, instead of extenuating the poet's errours, have rather the unintentional effect of adding to his condemnation: since that cause must be pronounced totally hopeless which has failed in the hands of so able an advocate. From the considerations already bestowed on the intervention of allegorical personages in the epopee, we are necessitated to pass a like censure on the machinery employed by M. de Voltaire in his " Henriade:" in the conduct of which an improbability is realized |