rather on taste and correctnefs, than the original fire of genius, will come under the definition. Homer and Pindar among the antients, and Shakespear among the moderns, excel all mankind in this admirable and truly poetic art. Homer places the scene of action and his heroes immediately before our eyes, and we are carried away by the impetuofity of his invention: and Shakespear, with the most wonderful art, penetrates our very fouls, and impreffes every paffion most irresistibly in the hearts of his readers. Such are the effects of true poetry: whether thofe of painting and mufic are greater, has long been a difpute among the critics. Some very ingenious men have been warm advocates for painting, and others for mufic: if confidered merely as imitations, poetry is undoubt edly edly the most excellent, contains the greatest variety of powers, and paints objects, characters, paffion, and fentiments, which neither of her fifler arts can approach to. It is true indeed, that besides what is done by poetry, there is some idea of character, which even painting can communicate. Thus there is no doubt, but that fuch a countenance may be found by painters for Æneas, as would convey upon view a mild, humane, and yet a brave difpofition. But then this idea would be vague and general. It would be concluded, only in the grofs, that the hero was good. As to that fyftem of qualities peculiar to Æneas only, and which alone properly conftitutes his true and real character, this would still remain a fecret, and be no way discoverable. For how deduce it from the mere lineaments of a countenance! Or, if if it were deducible, how few fpectators would there be found fo fagacious? It is here, therefore, that recourse must be had, not to painting, but to poetry. So accurate a conception of character can -be gathered only from a fucceffion of various, and yet confiftent actions; a fucceffion, enabling us to conjecture, what the perfon of the drama will do in the future, from what already he has done in the paft. Now, to fuch an imitation poetry only is equal; because it is not bounded, like painting, to fhort, and, as it were, inftant events, but may imitate fubjects of any duration whatever +: The ingenious Mr. Webb juftly obferves, that the variety and force of our fentiments, particularly in the pa +Harris's Three Treatifes, p. 91. VOL. II. thetic, thetic, muft depend on the variety and nature of their motives. In this the painter is extremely confined; for among the infinite turns and workings of the mind, which may be expreffed by words, and become the fprings of fentiments, there are fo few to which he can give a fhape or being, and his indications of peculiar and characteristic feelings are fo vague and undecifive, that his expreffions, like their motives, must be obvi ous and general *. If Painting be inferior to Poetry, Mufic, confidered as an imitative art, muft be greatly inferior to Painting; for as Mufic has no means of explaining the motives of its various impreffions, its imitations of the Manners and Paffions muft * Remarks on the Beauties of Poetry, p. 102. be be extremely vague and undecifive: for instance, the tender and melting tones which may be expreffive of the paffion of Love, will be equally in unifon with the collateral feelings of Benevolence, Friendfhip, Pity, and the like.-Again, how are we to distinguish the rapid move. ments of Anger, from those of Terror, Distraction, and all the violent agitations. of the foul? But let Poetry co-operate with Mufic, and fpecify the motive of each particular impreffion, we are no longer at a lofs; we acknowledge the agreement of the found with the idea, and general impreffions become specific indications of the Manners and the Paffions * In respect to the effects of thefe three arts in moving the paffions, it is diffi * Ibid. K 2 cult |