a different mode of detailing them in description, particularly if, when thus altered, they will be more suited to the purposes of his composition.

With respect to matters of lesser importance, which are left undecided by history, the poet's practice, as it cannot be determined by reality, is to be estimated by probability. But many circumstances of inconsiderable note, which give poetry its most engaging touches, if recorded in history, would be inconsistent with that utility which is the end of historick narration: others there are, which being indispensable to the closeness and fidelity of historick detail, would offend against that general delight which is the end of poetical composition. Many of the incidents consequently, which find a place in poetry, may be considered true, although destitute of historical authority: nor can the evidence of the historian be adduced as negativing their reality, although he does not afford them his support or countenance. Being devoid of this testimony, their truth seems capable of being determined only by their probability, which it is always in the poet's power to create, according as the cir

cumstances of his composition render it expedient.

But in this estimate historick fidelity is conceived to be invariable, whereas the conduct even of historians, more particularly in detailing the characters of their work, admits of considerable latitude. It is sufficient to observe that it is the general practice among the most celebrated proficients in this science, to add more interest to their favourite characters, by heightening and embellishing their actions. This must be evident to any person who examines the different representations given by different historians of the same eminent characters: and not merely of those personages who lived before or near their own times, but of their very cotemporaries. When we see those biassed representations among the most accurate detailers of facts, the foundation of whose works is exactness and fidelity, how much more should we admit them into the composition of a poet, the very essence of whose art is interest and pleasure?

But we may extend this principle further, so as to embrace another circumstance, in which the conduct of Lucan may be men

tioned with almost exclusive approbation: namely the additional embellishment which he has given his poem in the several speeches ascribed by him to his different characters: a portion of his work which may be distinguished among the adscititious parts which the poet is licenced to incorporate on his subject. It must be here also observed that historians, however bound to follow the plain track of reality, are yet accustomed to heighten the dramatick parts of their works: and this licence is most justly extended to them. For, words are of so fleeting a nature, that unless they are marked by some peculiarity in the thought, or turn in the expression, they can seldom be relied on as accurately reported, or well authenticated. Of course the poet who undertakes to narrate them possesses a privilege of deviating again from the historian: when the authority from whence he derives his materials is doubtful, he has every liberty of turning its uncertainty to his advantage.

In this respect Lucan is particularly happy: the merit of his several orations is so conspicuous, and they have conferred so much additional splendour on his poem, that even those criticks, who carry the severity of

their strictures so far as to deny him a place among poets, allow him to rank high among orators. These ornaments are in fact most admirably suited to the serious and dignified nature of the historick poem; and as such he has devoted to them his most particular attention. So far so indeed, that, (if we except Achilles' answer to Ulysses in the "Iliad”) his orations must be confessed to have excelled those of all other epick poets, whether ancient or modern, in the copiousness and energy of their style, and in the vividness and animation of their diction.

CHAP. II.

OF THE ROMANTICK EPOS.

At the very opposite extreme of the historick epopee, is placed, as I have already observed, the epick romance; and this is so far the case, that the former appears the converse of the latter; what is incompatible in the one, is indispensable in the other. The historick epos, as its title imports, requires a foundation in historick facts; but the epick romance finds a sufficient support in legendary story.

The mode of inquiry with respect to the licences allowable in the incidents of this division of poetry, becomes of course the converse of that employed with respect to the historick poem; as in the latter case, it was our object to discover how far fiction is compatible with what is true, in the present instance we have to inquire how far history is consistent with what is fictitious in composition. And of the same nature is the conclusion which these inquiries will be found to establish: as fiction was shewn to be generally excluded from the composition of the