literary difquifition. The first number contains obfervations on the writings and genius of Lucretius, with fpecimens of a new tranf lation. Dr. D. is an enthufiaftic admirer of this roman bard, and with much felicity has felected for his motto these lines of Ovid, Carmina fublimis tunc funt peritura Lucretî,

Exitio terras cum dabit una dies.

After an animated encomium on the poetry of Lucretius, Dr. D: afks why his writings have not been more popular? why to the generality of claffical fcholars, he is nearly unknown? To the generality of claffical fcholars he certainly is by no means nearly unknown; although Lucretius be not commonly taught in our public fchools, there are few perfons, we are inclined to believe, who cultivate in any degree their claffical ftudies, to whom the poem De rerum ›atura is not in fome meafure familiar. Why, whilft Virgil, Horace, and Tibullus are perufed with avidity, Dr. D. continues, do the animated effufions of this fublimeft of roman bards, lie neglected on the fhelf? it may be answered,' fays he, that a fate fo undeserved has been occafioned by a mifreprefentation of his morals, and by a puerile and injudicious dread of his philofophical tenets.' We fhould be inclined to attribute the neglect of Lucretius to a different cause. It certainly would be the height of abfurdity, to shrink from the fevere morality, the abftrufe and erroneous philofophy of the epicurean bard, and embrace the obfcenity and licentioufnefs of the popular religions of Greece and Rome: it is that feverity of his moral doctrines, that very abftrufenefs of his philofophic tenets, which are fo dark and unlovely, that even the fine poetry of Lucretius cannot impart to them the power of general fafcination. Our author informs us, that Mr. Good, of London, a gentleman who has for fome years devoted his leifure hours to the very arduous tafk, is preparing for the public a verfion of this philofophic poet: fome extracts, together with the original, are given as a fair fpecimen of the whole: we read them with pleafure, and unite with Dr. D. in opinion, that with elegance and energy of diction they unite the charms of verfification and fidelity, as well with regard to the manner as to the matter of the poet."

Number iv is the next, which may be arranged under the head of critical difquifitions; yet this feems ftrange, for it opens with a tale, Wolkmar and his dog to this tale fucceed, without any fort of connection to it, a few obfervations on fonnet-writing, with a flight sketch of it's hiftory. Four fonnets are added of great delicacy and fweetnefs; we are difpofed, however, to give a preference to the first two; and we fhall tranfcribe them for the gratification of our readers: P. 68.

TO A FRIEND.

Ali, ceafe to grieve! what tho' thy lowly home
Boaft not the ftoried hall, or roof high-wrought,
What tho' no parian column richly fraught,
Rear her bold head beneath the fwelling dome,

This and five other numbers of the prefent volume were published in the SPECULATOR fome years ago: thefe, however, have undergone very confiderable additions and alterations.

• This

This be thy lot-hard by yon aged oak,
Nigh the green valley and the murm'ring rill,
Where the cliff beetles and where tow'rs the hill,
'Where the wood darkens-shall thy cottage smoke;
There, fir'd to rapture, fhalt thou fold the fair,
Shalt drink the breathings of her fecret figh,
As flung on ether floats her golden hair,
And wildly wanton rolls her azure eye:
Ay, and thy hours of blifs fhall friendship share,
Nor fhall the muse thy modeft mansion fly.'

< TO THE MEMORY OF A FRIEND.

• What scenes of forrow wake the foul to pain,
What floods of anguifh cloud the fick'ning eye!
O fons of Pity! pour the melting ftrain,

O fons of Pity! heave the plaintive figh!
For cold is he, the youth of graceful frame,
Whofe deed of mercy fpoke the feeling mind,

To whofe warm breaft were friendship's hallow'd flame,
The bard's wild fancy and his fire affign'd:

Say, gentle fpirit! whither art thou fled,

To what pale region of the filent dead?

Yet why enquire? where fome fweet feafon blows,

Sure Grief fhall fmile, and Friendship breathe her vows,
Despair grow mild, Diftraction cease to rave,

And Love once more fhall clafp the form he gave.'

Number v is on infcriptive writing. We find fome obfervations here, which difplay a correct and fimple tafte, and were pleased to remark a general coincidence of opinion on the beauties of this fpecies of writing, between Dr. D. and the anonymous author of the Philanthrope, who wrote an ingenious paper on the fame fubject, (fee Anal. Rev. vol. xxvi, p. 251.)

Dr. D. has devoted two numbers (x and x1) to the defence of Dyer's Fleece against the criticism of Dr. Johnfon: we read thefe papers. with great pleasure, being truly fenfible of the unmerited neglect, into which this didactic poem has fallen, in confequence, doubtlefs in fome degree, of the furly, tattelefs criticifm of that literary cenfor. Our author has given a fight analysis of the Fleece, and enlivened his remarks with copious extracts from it; he has alfo pointed out peculiar beauties, and occafionally brought parallel paffages from other authors, as an additional illuftration. He concludes his remarks with expreffing a hope, P. 171, that the exquifite fpecimens, which he has brought forward, will induce many readers of the Literary Hours to pay due attention to the volume of Dyer; they will find it written in a true claffical ftyle, and with feveral happy imitations of the ancients, But let it be recollected that the beau tiful and elaborate effufions of genius, pregnant with claffical and hiftorical allufion, and chaftifed by refined tafte, are not to be understood, or relished from a fuperficial perutal. To form an efti. mate of excellencies fuch as thefe, reiterated efforts, and no fmall

portion of poetical erudition will be found effential; an enjoyment, however, of the highest rank awaits him who ftudioufly elevates his mind to a perception of the nobleft energies of imagination, and to a keen fenfe of the finer beauties of compofition.

• From fuch the Fleece of Dyer, having once obtained attention, will receive its long-delayed reward, nor, though mingled, like every human work, with occafional error, has it much to apprehend from the most acute yet candid critic.'

In number xiv are fome ingenious remarks on paftoral poetry,' and fome juft hints refpecting the appropriate language, imagery, and incident of a bucolic; this fpecies of poetry has, in a great measure funk into contempt, from the fervile and very infipid imitations of the father of pastoral poetry, of the idyls of Theocritus: fo very contemptible has this imitation been, that fome of his copiers have abfolutely transferred the coftume and fcenery, of Sicily into their own country. · If rural life,' fays our author, P. 225, ' no longer prefent us with fhepherds finging and piping for a bowl or a crook, why perfift, in violation of all probability, to introduce fuch characters? if paftoral cannot exift without them, let us cease to compofe it, for to Theocritus thefe perfonages were objects of hourly obfervation, and the peafants of Sicily a kind of improvifateri. I am perfuaded, however, that fimplicity in diction and fentiment, a happy choice of rural imagery, fuch incidents and circumstances as may even now occur in the country, with interlocutors equally removed from vulgarity or confiderable refinement, are all that are effential to fuccefs. Upon this plan the celebrated GESNER has written his Idyllia, compofitions which have fecured him immortality and placed him on a level with the grecian. By many indeed, and upon no trifling grounds, he is preferred, having with much felicity aflumed a medium between the rufticity of Theocritus, and the too refined and luxuriant imagination of Bion and Mofchus, preferving at the fame time the natural painting of the Sicilian, with the pathetic touches and exquifite fenfibility of the contemporary bards.'

There certainly is no occafion, however, to delineate exactly the features of rufticity, and copy with minutenefs the vulgar manners and the coarfe converfation of a half-civilized peafantry; the great object of poetry in general, and bucolic poetry forms no exception, is to pleafe; but fuch minutenefs would difguft, and the object of the poem would, of course, be defeated. Our own language has unquestionably produced many beautiful and chafte fpecimens of paftoral poetry; Dr. D. has enumerated the best authors, and interfperfed fome judicious obfervations on their performances. This number is concluded with a paftoral production of his own, Edwin and Orlando. It is written in purfuit of the idea ftarted in the extract we have already given, that fimplicity in diction and fentiment, a proper choice of rural imagery, fuch incidents and circumftances as may, even now, occur in the country, together with interlocutors, equally removed from vulgarity or confiderable refinement, are all that are effential to fuccefs.

In numbers XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, our author enters into a very claborate criticism on Mr. Cumberland's Calvary. At the time of it's appearance we devoted feveral pages to an examination of this

poem,

poem, (fee Anal. Rev. vol. x111, p. 121, &c.) The opinion of Dr. D. on the merits of it is, generally fpeaking, very different to that which, after an attentive perufal of his remarks, we yet hold: inone or two places, however, we detected a coincidence of ftricture, .which must be grateful to both parties. It must be left to others to determine between us.

Number xx111, on lyric poetry. In this ingenious and entertaining paper is controverted the remark of Dr. Warton, that the moderns have perhaps practifed no fpecies of poetry with so little fuccefs, and with fuch indifputable inferiority to the ancients, as the ode.' Our author arranges the productions of the lyric mufe under four claffes, the fublime, the pathetic, the deferiptive, and the amatory; he sketches the prominent characteristics of thefe feparate fpecies, enumerates our beft lyric poets and their best compofitions, and by an occafional comparison of their merits with thofe of the ancient mafters, rescues the modern poets, of this ifland at leaft, from an unmerited imputation, by a conclufion, which we think juft, that in the fublime, pathetic, and defcriptive ode, they are not inferiour to the ancients, and in the amatory make a near approach to their models. As an humble appendage to thefe ftrictures,' Dr. D. has introduced an original ode, the ftorm:' it is to be arranged under the first clafs, and does great credit to his poetic powers.

In the twenty-fourth number our author expatiates on the poetry of Catullus,' points out fome of his most delicate and pathetic paffages, and to the original has appended*, con amore, very elegant translations. We cordially unite with him in regretting, that the late anonymous tranflator of Catullus, instead of giving to the public his entire works, did not form a collection of thofe productions only, which are free from beaftlinefs and fenfuality. I will venture to affirm,' fays Dr. D., that all that is valuable in this poet would then have been prefented, and a volume, unparalleled perhaps for it's amatory and pathetic excellence, opened to every age, and to both fexes."

The laft critical difquifition is elaborated through two numbers, XXVI and XXVII, with great ingenuity and fuccefs; it is a comparifon between the poetry of the ages of Elizabeth and the Charleses, and of the prefent reign.' The task, which Dr. D. has imposed on himself here, is by no means fo difficult, as that which he executed in his twenty-third number: it is bold to wreath the brows of a modern lyric, where Pindar, Sophocles, Æfchylus, and Horace, are competitors. In giving a decided preference, indeed, to the poetry of the prefent age above that of Elizabeth and the Charleses, it will naturally be asked, has the doctor forgotten the names, of Spenfer, Shakspeare, and Milton? Let us hear what he fays himself: P. 442.

Even our three great poets, Spenfer, Shakspeare, and Milton, are clogged with materials that prefs heavy on the patience of the critical reader, and certainly abound in quaintneffes, puerilities and conceits which would blaft the reputation of any poet of the

• This is a very favourite word of the author's.

prefent

prefent day. Not to mention many cantos of Spenfer which, I am afraid, must be pronounced both tedious and disgusting, the Paradife Loft would be greatly diminished were its metaphyfic and abftrufe theology, furely no proper ornaments of an epic poem, entirely expunged. The third book, its exquifite invocation, and a few other paffages excepted, is more worthy the genius of Thomas Aquinas than of Milton, and of Shak fpeare it may juftly be affirmed that many of his plays are barely tolerated out of deference to the excellencies of his happier productions. The beauties of thefe writers are, however, above all praife, and I am accuftomed to ap proach their works with an admiration almoft bordering upon idolatry. But let not their faults, the faults, in a great meafure, of the age in which they existed, be thrown into the fhade for the purpose of enhancing the luftre of their genius when placed in competition with that of their difciples. They want no fuch injudicious aid, nor does the negative praife of avoiding their blemishes conftitute the fole merit of our prefent race of poets; it will be found perhaps ere the fubject be concluded, that an emulation of their inventive powers, as well as a folicitude to efcape their errors, is the proper foundation of their fame. As to the various poets who were coexiftent with our three immortal bards, though they occafionally exhibit very brilliant paffages, yet they are mingled with fuch a mass of obfcurity, vulgarity, obfcenity and colloquial barbarifm, that he must be a very hardy critic indeed, who can venture to station them on a level with the modern votaries of the muse.'

It was the aim of Mr. Headley's very ingenious and very elegant introduction to the Select Beauties of Ancient English Poetry, to inculcate a preference for the poetry of the age of Elizabeth and Charles, and Mr. H. gives a lift of the poets from the acceffion of the one, to the reftoration of the other, inclufively, a period of ninety-one years, and confiders these as forming a conftellation of poetic luftre, far fuperior to any thing that can be exhibited from that time to this, a space amounting to nearly a century and a half.' It is the aim of Dr. D. to fhow, without any recurrence to poets of a date anteriour to 1755, that fo far from our poetical genius having degenerated, a cluster of names may be formed during the lapfe of lefs than half a century, which, perhaps, with the exception of a fingle individual, the unrivalled Shakspeare, will rife fuperior, not only to the phalanx Mr. Headley has arranged, but to the entire previous body of our poetry, fhould it be mustered in oppofition to the product of the period we have affigned.' Our author proceeds to place before his reader the table of Mr. Headley, and offers a few flight, but juft and ingenious ftrictures on it's contents. After having commented on this arrangement, he gives a fimilar table of the poets who have honoured their country for the last forty or fifty years, offers fome obfervations on the individuals who compofe it, and contraits them, as he proceeds, with thofe who have filled the more extended period, from the acceffion of Elizabeth to the restoration of Charles.

So far as Dr. D.'s table is directed against thofe critics, more querulous than juft, who have lately employed themfelves in depreciating the efforts of the modern mufes,' who infift with rapture on the beauties of our ancient poets, and are willing to believe that

the