An Essay on Criticism Part 2

_Well do they play the careful Critick's Part, Instructing doubly by their matchless Art: Rules for good Verse they first with Pains indite, Then shew us what are bad by what they write._

The _Guardian_ and _Spectator_ would not do the Poets the Honour to name them; but we know who are the Criticks which are _thrown aside_ by them; for no Body but Mr. _D----_ and Mr. _G----_ made Remarks upon their Writings, and both of them did. I do not say with that Politeness and Elegance, which the _Spectator_ and _Guardian_ have laid down, as the sole Characteristicks of good Talk and Judgement; though one may almost as well say, that a Man cannot have good Sense and Wit, without good Cloaths and a genteel Air. I must needs own, that I think most of their Criticisms very just, though had they been still juster than they are, I would not nave been the Author of them, without taking Notice of Beauties, as well as finding of Faults, there being much more Room for the former than the latter.

It is very plain, the _Spectator_ highly stomached the Remarks which were made on his Writings, and is not very candid in his Reasoning, to render his Opponents contemptible, which was the surest Way of disarming them. _These Criticks fall upon a Play, not because it is ill written, but because it takes_: This is not the whole Truth. It is not because it _takes_, but because it takes for those very Things which should have d.a.m.ned it _Durfey_'s _Boarding-School_, and his _Marriage-Hater match'd_, took with a Vengeance, though the two greatest Pieces of Wit in them, were _Miss's Bread and b.u.t.ter_, and _Mynheer's m.u.f.f_.

_Settle_'s Tragedies took for the Noise, the Show, and the Rhime. No Play, that was not supported by poetical or political Party, which most _taking_ Plays have been, ever took more than _Settle_'s _Heir of Morocco_, in which there is not one good Thought or Expression. Again, _several of these Criticks have laid it down as a Maxim, that whatever Dramatick Poem has a long Run, must of Necessity be good for nothing_, which is a Misrepresentation. The _Orphan_, _Venice Preserv'd_, _Tamerlane_, _&c._ had _long Runs_, and _run_ still; yet no Critick has dared to say they did not deserve it: But whoever will owe his Reputation to _taking_ only, must be contented to roll with _Settle_, _Durfey_, and many other Poets, that _took_ in their Turn. Could any thing be more monstrous, than to determine the Merit of _Nixon's Prophecy_, and the _Spectator_, by the Run of the Papers. The former, a Maggot given to the Rabble, bore more Editions in Ten Weeks, than the latter has done in Ten Years.

I would not be understood in this, or any thing else, to endeavour to lessen the Opinion the People have generally and justly of the _Spectator_'s Perfections: I verily believe, there is no Production of the Mind, ancient or modern, where are to be found more Wit, Politeness, fine Raillery, good Sense, Learning, and Eloquence; but what I have said, is to shew, that great Wits as well as little have their Pa.s.sions, their Piques and Prejudices, when the least Blemish is discovered in their Glory. In the same _Spectator_, we have another Hint, that no Body ought to criticise on that Author's Writings, unless he could write as elegantly as himself, which effectually cuts off all _Criticism_. These _professed Criticks cannot put ten Words together with Elegance, or common Propriety_. What an arbitrary Way of arguing is this? These Criticks are Smatterers; _They vilify only the Productions that gain Applause; the Blemishes they descry are imaginary; their Arguments are far fetched; Their Works are like those of the Sophists, they are thought deep, because unintelligible; they instruct the People in Absurdities_. Would the _Spectator_ allow this positive Air in any other Writer? How does it appear that one Word of all this is true? _Ipse dixit._ That must satisfy, though he is in this Case too much a Party, to be a Judge. _These_ Criticks _are led themselves into Absurdities, by not considering, That there is sometimes a greater Judgement shewn in deviating from the Rules of Art, than adhering to them_. The Word _sometimes_ here would make every right Argument wrong, and every Truth Falsehood, because _sometimes_ there may be an Exception to a general Rule. Why, does he not tell us, wherein himself, or any one else shewed his Judgement in deviating from the Rules of Art? The _Critical Smatterers_ do not charge him in those Places where Judgement was shewn in such deviating, but where the Want of Judgement appeared in it. I shall have occasion to touch this Subject a little elsewhere; though I hope what I have said here, is enough to prove that just _Criticisms_ are not the Productions of Ignorance and Envy, as the _Spectator_ intimates; but that they are, on the contrary, useful and necessary to be a Check on the greatest Genius's, who want the Rein much more than the Spur; and what, in a few Years, would become of all good Writing, if those great Genius's could impose their very Blemishes on the World for the most s.h.i.+ning Beauties?

The _Spectator_ gives us another Mark, by which we may discover a Critick, who has neither Taste nor Learning, and that is, _He seldom ventures to praise any Pa.s.sage in an Author, which has not been before received and applauded by the Publick_. If this Remark had been infallible and universal, it must have deprived the _Spectator_ himself of the two greatest Beauties in all his Quotations out of _Milton_ which are in every one's Mouth. The One in the sublime Kind in the Speech to the _Sun_.

_Oh then, that with surpa.s.sing Glory crown'd, Look'st from thy sole Dominion like the G.o.d Of this new World._--

The Other in the tender Kind. _Adam_ to _Eve_.

_Her Hand soft touching whisper'd thus, Awake My Fairest, my espous'd, my best belov'd, Heavens last, best Gift, my ever new Delight; Awake._

which had before been a thousand Times repeated as the Perfection of _English_ Poetry, in their several Kinds. And the Author, who shall have occasion to quote them as such after the _Spectator_, will not discover his Want of Taste or Learning by it. Very just is his Observation, _A true Critick ought to dwell rather upon Excellencies than Imperfections, &c._ But as this has Relation chiefly to those Compositions which require Genius, Judgement and Eloquence; and consequently, cannot relate to Mr. _Echard_'s History of _England_, we shall now say no more of it.

That I may not be guilty of the Fault I blame in others, the neglecting of Beauties, and falling unmercifully upon the Blemishes of Authors. I must sincerely acknowledge, that it was not for Want of Will, that I did not mention what is beautiful in our Historian, but for Want of Opportunity. What Part of his Performance should I have applauded! Is it the _Design_! The Author does not himself pretend, that it is regular, if by _Design_ in _History_, we are to understand the _Plan_ as in _Poetry_: He will not deny, but that his Method is too much diversified, and too confused; sometimes it is _General History_, sometimes _Annals_, sometimes a _Diary_, sometimes _Biography_; all which he seems to think he has sufficiently provided against, by dividing the whole Work into _Sections_, and putting Pales between his Paragraphs. This Confusion will be easily pardoned by his Readers, there being hardly one in a Thousand that knows the Difference between _Biography_ and _History_, or between an _Annalist_ and an _Historian_; or who does not take _Buck_'s _Richard_ III, or _Cambden_'s Queen _Elizabeth_, to be as much of the historical Kind, as _Samuel Daniel_'s History of _England_, which is the only _English_ History that has the least Appearance of Uniformity and Regularity of Design.

_Ne Sutor ultra Crepidam_, is in nothing a more necessary Maxim, than in the Productions of the Mind. It is not because a Man can write a Sonnet, an Elegy, nay, an Ode, or a Dramatick Poem, that therefore he can succeed in Epick; though we in _England_ are apt to confound all Sorts of Poetry and Poets, and to think that there is but one and the same Genius necessary for all of them. Thus it is, that you often hear the Question in Company, which is the best Poet, _Virgil_ or _Horace_, _Milton_ or _Waller_, _Dryden_ or _Wycherley_, _Congreve_ or _Row_. It is the same Thing in History: If a Man is able to abridge a Dictionary, to collect and compile Memoirs; in a Word, if he can put a Tale together, he is immediately an Historian, though Story-telling and History are as different as a _Madrigal_ and a Pindarick _Ode_.

History is designed to instruct Mankind by Example, to shew what Men were by what they did, and from particular Instances to form general Lessons in all the various Stations of Life; and our Historian has so far a just Conception of its Dignity and Use, that he speaks of his own Performance as if he had formed a regular n.o.ble Design, with a regular and n.o.ble View, and executed it with equal Beauty and Perfection. Very great Talents are requisite to succeed in it, especially that of Judgement, to relate only what is worth relating, and to make proper Reflections upon Events for the Instruction of the Reader. _Nothing is more necessary for an Historian_, says _Pere Rapin_, _than Judgement: Nothing requires so much Sense, so much Reason, so much Wit, so much Wisdom, and other good Qualities, as History, to succeed in writing it; and above all,_ Un Heureux Naturel, _a happy Genius, which endowed with all these Qualifications, will not do without,_ Un Grand Commerce du Monde, _a great Knowledge of the World_. _Pere Bouhours_, whom Mr.

_Addison_ thought the most judicious and penetrating of all the _French_ Criticks, has an admirable Remark on the Reflections of Historians, in his _Maniere de bien penser_. The _Historian ought to s.h.i.+ne most in his Reflections: Nothing is so irregular as to reflect falsely on Events that are true_. He mentions a pleasant Instance of a _French_ Priest, who said in a Sermon, _The Heart of Man being of a triangular Figure, and the World of a round one; It is plain, that all worldly Greatness cannot fill the Heart of Man_. We have been told a thousand Times, that the _Presbyterians_ had a Quarrel with King _Charles_ the First, and that those who had a Quarrel with him, took him and cut off his Head.

The Fact is true as to the Quarrel, but nothing can be more false, than that the _Presbyterians_ beheaded him. The Fact is true, that the Act of Toleration put a Stop to the Persecuting of Dissenters; but the Reflection from it, _That the Church was in Danger_, is false. If I would rifle the _Grand Rebellion_, and Mr. _Echard_'s History, I might have the Honour of being Author of a Folio too, by taking from them Examples of this Kind; and I cannot but think, if the Archdeacon had duely weighed the Difficulties inseparable from his Undertaking, the indispensable Duty of Sincerity and Truth, and the great Talents necessary for an Historian, he would have transferred the Work to another, not a Dealer in Records only, from whom one can expect nothing but the naked Facts without Form or Order, without Ornament, or even cloathing; very proper for Evidence in Tryals at Law, but too rude and unpolished for the Beauty and Elegance of History: Yet I am satisfied, there is not one Man in a Thousand in _England_, but thinks there are no Writers so fit to make Historians as your Record Keepers and Library Keepers, who are just as necessary in such Work as Masons and Carpenters are in Architecture, and no more in Comparison with the Architect, than the _Axe_ or the _Chissel_ are in Comparison with them. _An excellent Historian_, says Mons. _Pellisson_, Pref. to _Sar._ _ought to have a general Knowledge of the World and of Affairs, and a subtle and penetrating Wit, to distinguish the true Causes of humane Actions, from the Pretexts and Colours which are given them_. Thus our Historian should have distinguish'd Archbishop _Laud_'s natural Pride and Severity, from that Piety and Zeal which are the _Pretexts and Colours_ that are given them. He should also have distinguish'd the Pique and Partiality in the Grand Rebellion from Truth and Sincerity, which are the Pretexts and Colours. Again,

_Tacitus_, said he, wrote _Sine studio Partium & Ira_; if the same may be said of the two Historians in Question, I have done them much Wrong.

The late Earl of _Shaftsbury_, in his Letter of _Enthusiasm_, has this Expression: _We have few modern Writers, who, like_ Xenophon _or_ Cicero, _can write their own Commentaries, and the raw Memoir Writings, and uninformed Pieces of modern Statesmen full of their own interested and private Views, will, in another Age, be of little Service to support their Memory or Name, since already the World begins to sicken with them_.

It is somewhat strange, that Mr. _Echard_ should not be so well acquainted with the Weakness of the vulgar Humour in _England_, as a Foreigner; who was so sensible of the Peoples Fondness to hear Stories, that he excuses those of a better Taste amongst them, who cannot relish such as relate to Ghosts, Devils, Prophecies, and the like, with which the Archdeacon's History abounds. The Author of the _Paris Journal des Scavans_, speaking of _English_ History Writers, and their bringing in Prophecies and strange Stories, says, _Granting it to be true, it is not so much to be attributed to their Want of Skill, as to their Compliance with the Humour of the People, that attend too much to Prophecies, and are too much affected with Tales_; which Humour our Historian has rather indulged than discountenanced, and it must surely be for Want of Judgement, after the indulging them in it, had been so much exploded.

The _French_ Historian _Maimbourg_ partic.i.p.ates of the same Character, and his Zeal for the Church, could not procure him a better one abroad, than what was given him in _Italy_, that he was among Historians, what _Momus_ is among the G.o.ds, _only to tell Tales_; with which the Vulgar are as well contented, as with Relations that are truly historical. But we should be as cautious of reading such Histories, as _Menage_ tells us he was of reading _Morreri_'s, for Fear we should remember them.

_Collier_ knew better than _Menage_, and therefore translated _Morreri_'s three Folio's into _English_, as a rich Store for the Memories of his Countrymen.

Having so little Reason to commend the Historian for his _Design_, I should make him amends in the Sentiments, if there was the least Room for it. It is true, in History, if the Facts are fairly related, the Sentiments must be brought along with them, and the Author is not accountable for them as in Poetry: But if the Sentiments do not correspond with the Facts; if Meekness and Holiness are seated to give Judgement in the _High Commission_ and _Star Chamber_ Courts; if Piety is mounted on Horseback with the Lord High Treasurer's Staff in her Hand; if the most n.o.ble Characters are ascribed to Persons engaged in the most unjustifiable Actions, we may depend upon it, these Persons, either did not think, or did not act as they are represented, and consequently that the History is false and vicious: The Historians Reflections upon Events are entirely his own, and we shall see in the following Pages, how wise and how weighty they are: But as they bear all on one Side, like an ill ballasted s.h.i.+p, it is much, if in the Course of a few Years, it does not overset the History.

There is no greater Vice in Historians, than poor and common Reflections. The Poverty of the Archdeacon's appears in the _After Wit_, which makes a good Part of them; and the _Vulgarisms_, which will be further explain'd as Occasions often.

Indeed we do not enough acquaint ourselves in _England_, with what Father _Bouhours_ calls the _Manner of Right Thinking_, in his Treatise before mentioned; which _Fontenelle_ recommends as one of the most agreeable and useful Books in the _French_ Tongue: We have nothing like it in _English_, or in any other Language antient or modern, Wit and Humour, Wit and good Sense, Wit and Wisdom, Wit and Reason, Wit and Craft; nay, Wit and Philosophy, are with us almost the same things. How often have I heard it said, there is a great Deal of Wit in _Homer_, a great Deal of Humour in _Virgil_. We take all Thoughts in the Gross; the Sublime, the Grand, the n.o.ble, the Pretty, the Agreeable, the Fine, the Delicate, are all alike witty with us; and the Vulgar are ignorant of all other Distinction, but that of a _Jest_ and a _Bull_. Sir _Samuel Garth_, who was extreamly fond of Father _Bouhours_'s Treatise, did often wish that it was translated, and the Examples the _French_ Critick takes from _Greek_, _Latin_, _Italian_, _Spanish_ and _French_ Authors, not to be turned into _English_, but _English_ Examples to be put instead of them. I am satisfied nothing would be of more Advantage towards the Refinement of our Manner, both of Thinking and Writing. I know the Undertaking would be very difficult, and the greatest Part of the Difficulty be to preserve the Spirit and Turn of Thought in the _English_ Examples, to make it answer Father _Bouhours_'s Remarks. Who is there, that does not take a sublime Thought, a n.o.ble Thought, a grand Thought, to be synonymous Terms, though they differ from one another, almost as much as from the Agreeable and the Delicate. I am my self afraid to attempt any Thing like Examples of Kinds, and probably my Conceptions of them may be wrong; what they are I shall offer them to the Reader, with the Caution and Submission which becomes me in a Matter so intricate and nice.

The first Example of the _Sublime_ is so well known, that if there was any other so good in any other Author, I should not have made use of it.

It is in the 7th Chapter of _Longinus_. We will not borrow it from _Boileau_, because we are forbidden by the _Spectator_ to make Use of a Quotation which has been made Use of before. Dr. _Gregory_, in the Preface to his Works, printed about sixty Years ago, at what Time _Boileau_ had not thought of translating _Longinus_, writes thus: Dionysius Longinus, _one that knew what belonged to Expression_; having first of all cast a Scorn upon his _Homer_. The Translator does not dwell much upon this, _says_ ??? ???da??? ?es???t??

_that the Law-givers of the Jews_, ??? ? t???? ????, _no ordinary Man, was in the Right when he brought in his G.o.d_, saying, Ge??s?? f??, ?a? ??e?et?

_Let there be Light, And there was Light._

But least it may be said, the _Spectator_ has entered a Caveat against my using any Quotation, which he or any one else had used, I shall add another Instance of the Sublime taken out of the same divine Book the Bible, that has not been blown upon:

_He spake, And it was: He commanded, And it stood firm._

The whole _Psalm_ x.x.xiiid is full of the _Sublime_:

_By the Word of the Lord were the Mountains made, And all the Host of them by the Breath of his Mouth._

What in all profane Learning comes up to the _Sublime_ in the x.x.xviiith Chapter of _Job_, where the Almighty is introduced speaking to him out of the Whirlwind:

_Gird up thy Loins like a Man, for I will demand of thee.

Where wast thou when I laid the Foundations of the Earth?

Declare, If thou hast Understanding.

Who laid the Measures thereof?

Who hath stretched the Line upon it?

Whereupon are the Foundations thereof fastened?_ or, _Who laid the Corner Stone?

When the Morning Stars sang, and the Sons of G.o.d shouted for Joy!_

Happily imitated by _Milton_.

--------_Up he rode, Follow'd with Acclamations, and the Sound Symphonious of ten thousand Harps, that tuned Angelick Harmonies, the Earth, the Air Resounding. Thou rememberest; for thou heardest The Heavens, and all the Constellations ring: The Planets in their Stations listening stood, While the bright Pomp ascended jubilant.

Open ye everlasting Gates: They sung, Open ye Heavens, your living Doors; Let in The great Creator from his Work returned Magnificent, his Six Days Work, a World._

Of the sublime Kind is the Ode in the _Spectator_, N 465; being a Paraphrase on that of the _Psalmist_. _The Heavens declare_:

_The s.p.a.cious Firmament on high, With all the blue Ethereal Sky; And spangled Heavens, a s.h.i.+ning Frame, Their great Original proclaim._

Some very scrupulous Persons may be apt to object against the third Line as an Anteclimax, the _spangled Heavens_ having much more l.u.s.tre than _s.h.i.+ning Frame_. The following _Stanza_ is extreamly sublime:

_What tho' in solemn Silence all Move round the dark terrestrial Ball; What tho', nor real Voice, nor Sound Amid their radiant Orbs be found, In Reason's Ear they all rejoice, And utter forth a glorious Voice; For ever singing as they s.h.i.+ne, The Hand that made me is divine._

I cannot omit here some Lines of Mr. _Waller_'s upon the Holy Scriptures, where there is more of the Sublime than in all other Books whatsoever.

_The_ Graecian _Muse has all their G.o.ds surviv'd, Nor_ Jove _at us, nor_ Phbus _is arriv'd; Frail Deities, which first the Poets made, And then invok'd to give their Fancies Aid.

Yet, if they still divert us with their Rage, What may be hop'd for in a better Age, When not from_ Helicon_'s imagin'd Spring, But sacred Writ we borrow what we sing?

This with the Fabrick of the World begun Elder than Light, and shall out-last the Sun._

There are not ten finer Verses together in Mr. _Waller_'s Poems, yet he wrote them when he was above fourscore Years old.

Are not these two Verses of a Ma.n.u.script Poem in the sublime Kind? the young Author, a Lad at _Eaton_ School, wrote it on the Birth of his Royal Highness the Duke of _c.u.mberland_:

_G.o.ds how he springs like Whirlwinds charg'd with Fire, He lays War waste, and Makes the World retire._

And these Verses out of _Tamerlane_:

_The dreadful Business of the War is over, And Slaughter, that from yester Morn till Even, With Gyant Steps past striding o'er the Field Besmear'd, and horrid with the Blood of Nations, Now weary sits among the mangled Heaps, And slumbers o'er her Prey._

I cou'd easily fill many Volumes of Quotations out of the Antients and Moderns, in all the Kinds of Thinking; but as I am doubtful of the Success of my Attempt, so the Fewer I insert, the Less I shall offend.

The _French_ perhaps have been a little too scrupulous and exact in dividing the _n.o.ble_ and the _Grand_ in the Manner of Thinking. However, as to the n.o.ble, let us see whether this Pa.s.sage borrow'd of Scripture by _Milton_, will not serve for an Instance:

_All Night he will pursue, but his Approach, Darkness defends between till Morning Watch, Then thro' the fiery Pillar and the Cloud, G.o.d looking forth will trouble all his Host, And craze their Chariot Wheels; when, by Command,_ Moses _once more, his potent Rod erects Over the Sea: The Sea his Rod obeys On their embattled Ranks, the Waves return, And overwhelm their War._