sion of Grief or Pain, as some Ingenious Gentlemen contend: For the Mind (especially that which is us'd to an Expression of its self in Allegory and Similes) will easily in this Number of Ideas, meet with some that will answer the End, the Mind is born to with so much Impatience and Desire: For 'tis here also evident, That Grief multiplies nor lessens the Number of the Objects of the Mind.

From what has been said 'twill appear, That Similes cannot be an unnatural Expression of this Passion, or any Effects of it. I shall therefore proceed to those few particular Instances the Author of the Preface gives, by which he draws a short Parallel betwixt the Ancients and the Moderns. I am pleas'd, says he, with Tibullus, when he says, he cou'd live in a Desart with his Mistress, where never any Humane Foot-steps appear'd, because I doubt not but he really thinks what he says: But I confess, I can hardly forbear Laughing, when Petrarch tells us he cou'd live without any other Sustenance than his Mistresses Looks. I confess, I must ev'n here dissent from him too; for if you go to the Rigor or Severity of the Reason of both Expressions, they are equally impossible, and in Impossibilities as well as Infinites, there are no Degrees. For I can see no greater Probability of Living in a Desart where there were no Humane Footsteps, than on the Looks of a Mistress only; unless like Nebuchadnezzar, he wou'd feed on the Leaves of the Trees, and Grass of the Ground if there were any; which is not very kind to hope his Mistress wou'd comply with. But supposing it impossible, is there any Necessity of a Lovers saying nothing that exceeds the Bounds of Possibility? especially in Poetry, where Hyperbole's are justifiable almost to Extravagance. That certainly wou'd be most unnatural of all, for the Thoughts of a Man

really in Love, are naturally Extravagant ev'n to Impossibilities; tho possunt quia posse videntur. The very Definition of this Passion in Ethics, shews it violent and exorbitant. But we may in favour of Petrarch and Mr. Cowley, (who make use of the same Thought) say that they mean the Dyet of their Love, is a Look of their Mistress.

I must confess, I'm extremely surpriz'd to find your Ingenious Friend an Advocate for that which wou'd make all the Sir Courtly's Compositions of the Nation, the Standard of good Verses; when he himself is really so well qualify'd to write like Cowley and Waller, and has by his own Practice in those Verses that are Publish'd, better confuted his Preface, than all I can pretend to say.

II.

TO MY HONOURED AND INGENIOUS
FRIEND MR. HARRINGTON, FOR THE

MODERN POETS AGAINST THE

ANCIENTS.

1694

As the Justice and Generosity of your Principle, the sweet Agreeableness of your Humor, the Vivacity of your Wit, and the strength and force of your Judgment and Penetration, justly endear you to all your Acquaintance, so they qualify you for a Judge of the present Controversie betwixt the Moderns and the Ancients, for the Prize of Glory in Learning and Poetry. Monsieur Perault (whom I have not yet had the Opportunity to Read) has given it to the Moderns, Rapin to the Ancients: Mr. Rymer has with abundance of Indignation appear'd on Rapin's side. I cannot determine whether Mr. Perault has been too partial to his own Countrymen, (an Error on the right side) but I'm sure Mr. Rymer has been extremely injurious to his; which has made me perhaps, too angry with him in my former Discourses. But I assure my self that you are too good an Englishman, to let Friendship to any Man, bribe you to condemn those rough Effects of my Zeal for the English Nation. I will be more just than my Adversary, I will yield that Greece had Great Poets, notwithstanding all those monstrous Faults and Absurdities they abound with; tho he will not allow the English any Honour, because they have been guilty of Errors. Nay, I'll say more, that the Poetry of Greece was her most valuable Learning, for that still maintains its Share of Glory and Esteem, whilst her Philosophy is now

exploded by the Universal Reason of Mankind. Homer, Pindar, Sophocles and Euripides, will, as long as they are understood, preserve their Characters of Excellent Poets, tho the Stagyrite with all his Volumes, is now shrunk from his Ostentatious Title of the Philosopher, (to that of a good Critic, or Grammarian.

Tho I grant the Græcians this, yet I cannot subscribe to the rest of the Hyperbolical Praises some of our Modern Critics give them. For I confess, I can discover no such Universal Genius in Homer, as they contend for, as that all Arts and Siences may be learn't from him: Virgil seems to me, more generally Learned by far; and Mr. Cowley among our English Poets, may without Partiality, be put up for his Rival in the Glory of Learning. As for the Numbers of Homer, Rapin vastly extols their Variety, and yet confesses that to be the Property of the Greek Language, which makes it the easier Task for Homer to perform, and by consequence, lessens his Merit on that Account. But it cannot be deny'd that Virgil has as much Variety in this as the Roman Language wou'd allow; and as was necessary for the Beauty of his Poem; and they are in his Descriptions especially, so well chosen, that they extremely contribute to the Image of the thing describ'd; as Gemitus dedere Caverna: præruptus aquæ Mons. The sound of the first makes us as it were hear the hollow noise the Spear of Lyacoon made in the Trojan Horse; the other Places in our View such a watry Mountain. Among our English Poets, none can compare with Mr. Dryden for Numbers: His Descriptions are all very perfect in all things; but his Numbers contribute not a little to the force and life of the Representation, for they carry something in them distinct from the Expression and Thought; as in his Description of Night,

What an Image of a profound Stillness does this following Verse set before us,

The Mountains seem to Nod their drousie Heads!

I have not room nor leisure at this time to make a thorough parallel betwixt the Ancients and the Moderns, and shall only cursorily run over the Heads. I have touch'd the Universality of Genius, and the variety of Numbers (this last being the Prerogative of the Language more than of the Poets.) Judgment I think is apparently the due of the Moderns, who I'm confident wou'd ne'er have been guilty of those Absurdities the Ancients abound with. They seem to have been Masters of but little Reason, when they made their Gods such limited and criminal Beings. Homer often digresses from the Hero, that is the Subject of his Poem, to entertain us with other Objects too remote from Achilles. You may, Sir, easily perceive that I press not so hard as I might on the Ancients; that I omit abundance of Improprieties, and Absurdities, ridiculous even to Childishness, because I wou'd not be thought to rob the Fathers of Poetry of their just Value and Esteem; tho I confess I am of Mr. St. Euremont's Opinion, that no Name can Privilege Nonsense or ill Conduct.

The Enemies of the Moderns will not deal so Civilly with them. They deny them to be Poets because they have not strictly observed the Rules laid down by Aristotle, but by that they discover themselves either ignorant or negligent of the most chief and important end of Poetry, that is, Pleasure. Now, it cannot be deny'd but he is the best Poet who takes the surest means to obtain the end he aims at; in which, regard must be had to the Humour, Custom, and Inclination of the Auditory; but an English Audience will never