Their influence to the critic-foul, And jointly form the happy whole!* Thy precepts, Bard, th' e'en faulty line (Exemplify'd perhaps by thine) To Tafte and Candour may betray The mark of genius, though aftray: "Commas and points they fet exactly right, "From flashing Bentley down to piddling Tibbalds." 830 I fay, that when POPE puts this faculty of pointing with fuch minute precision as a thing requiring no taste or discernment, he fays too much; for there are occafions where no small share of both may be requifite to the effecting it. When indeed, two lines higher, he defcribes to us the man of study and the scholar in the fhape of a critic, I heartily join in the general caft and character of fuch judges, viz. "Pains, reading, study, are their just pretence, "And all they want is-spirit, taste, and sense.” And * You are continually told by your admiring critic,-Sir, this is a charming line, or a fine or a glorious line;—yet, what can a line be but from its fentiment, connection, propriety, things to be ascertained in the first place; no, they talk of a line as of any mechanic thing, and look after its meaning afterwards. be nonsense, or, as bad, misplaced fenfe. A line may read finely, yet Genius t' acordant Genius oft With rapture lifts the foul aloft, From fome small hint to common eyes T'uncommon ones up to the fkies, And equal fees th' affected grace, Quite falfe, perhaps, or out of place; 1 And who, that has a fpark of genius in his compofition, and been at all in the way of these gentlemen, has not felt the disgust that attends it. Disgust, how infinitely increased by its almost certain accompaniment of self-approbation, since some modest doubt on the contrary would really disarm you of it all; but by a fatal ordination, that non-pretenfion ever goes with what does not want it, Merit; and never with what for ever does want it, Pride, Self-fufficiency, with the whole train of its amiable companions: This disgust is exactly proportioned to the delicious fatisfaction of a mutuality of taste and fentiment, catching ideas one from the other, and differing only to agree afterwards more delicioufly. Yes furely, this natural congeniality of tafte is one of the firft delights of focial man. But, perhaps, one of these gentlemen is officiously offered to you as a deep scholar, and what refpect that title carries with it need not be told. Perhaps without a grain of imagination or fancy, the man really is a great scholar, (does not every one know, either personally or from books, many fuch; one of them, I think, lately, a friend of JOHNSON, wrote his life, and fee what it is) and if he is, depend on it he will be honoured enough for it, by (I am afhamed to fay it) almost all forts of people. What is a fcholar? fhall I define him—a man whofe head is filled with other men's ideas inftead of his own? But no, a fcholar mixes in (fay you) other men's ideas with his own, and thereby increases and improves his own. And does he do this? If you will bring me, either in person or books, a man deep in Greek and what-not befides, (I fhould be glad to hear the difference of information between the Greek and a true translation) and who joins to the knowledge, and perhaps difcuffion, of thofe those old writers, the power of writing, thinking, feeling, of Horace, Prior, and Rochefoncault, I will certainly moft peculiarly honour the character and man; and I will fay, that man's circle is wide indeed! But look round at these scholars, living or dead; nor in truth can I see why a scholar is to have more fenfe (is knowledge sense?) than another man, though I can fee many for his having lefs, in his abfence from and indifpofition to the living world, where the plant furely grows. And what man of genius in himself can fubmit to the laying afide his own reflective powers, or rather to the breaking in upon them, to plod after the learning (and how much nonsense with it) of other people: in fhort, look round and fee-Tell me then no more of your deep scholars; at any time, if one of them were offered me as an affiftant critic, I should ever say, Oh no, for God's fake keep your scholar to yourself, the odds are too much against him, I'll have none of him! I have indeed faid much of this elfewhere, but it would be too much to defire any one to go out of his way after it; but in regard to, and in favour of, thefe comma-men, let me add, that the grace and beauty, or force and energy, of a paffage may be gained or loft by pun&tuation; and confequently, taffe may be requifite to its direction; and this, methinks, fhould not be forgot in its favour. As to that or the other mechanical parts of poetry, of rhyme, measure, &c. it is very certain that the common run of critics fhew enough of their partiality and preference to them (as comprehending them better) over ftrokes of genius, whofe comprehenfive fenfe is invisible to them; and then, (as how can people fee without light) Their dictate giv'n; the fame conceit, Be here Minorities your pride, 'Tis thus lov'd POPE's inspir'd line Has wak'd the latent thoughts of mine; Aught worthy their infpirer fhew. 850 light) that they are called dark, is certain; and the tax of its endurance must be paid by whoever chances to foar above the fight of such judges. Let me, however, conclude my excursion, shall I venture to add, my little essay on Criticism? I do it by reminding my reader of a paffage in a late note, wherein is faid, that "the acting with reason, and from reason, are diftin&t things, which are often con"founded;" and by begging him to bear both that affertion, and the parts of this note that may happen at all to fhew it, in his mind, against what will appear hereafter in this work concerning the inftinet as well as reafon, that feems a principle of action at times in man as well as in the creatures, and when perhaps he is himself little aware of it.* * I have only taken into my encomium three of POPE's celebrated productions, not however, let it be marked, without feeling equally those of Windfor Foreft, and many others, with which muft not be forgot the celebrated verfion of HOMER, * It may be not improper, at the outfet of this Third Canto, to acknowledge the impropriety of having numbered, through the two preceding ones, the verses consecutively, without regarding the interference of the Second Canto; this, on the contrary, commencing, as is seen, with the first numeral; which will now proceed in progreffion to the end of each Canto diftinctly. This impropriety was not the printer's, but the writer's oversight. But |