But this is not the whole that will deferve the reader's regard in this place. A ftrict attention to the scope and turn of the paffage [from] line 96 to 114] will lead him to conclude, 1. "That fome real tragedy of Telephus and "Peleus was intended in 1. 96, in which the "characters were duly preferved and fet forth "in proper language." This the oppofition to the Chremes of Terence abfolutely demands. Let us enquire what this might be. Euripides, we know, compofed tragedies under these names; but it is unlikely, the poet fhould contraft the inftance of a Greek tragedy to a Latin comedy. Nor need it be fuppofed. The fubject was familiar to the Roman poets. For we find a Telephus afcribed to no less than Ennius, Accius, and Navius [b]. One of these then, I doubt not, is here intended. But the Roman, in thofe times, were little more than tranflations of the Greek plays. Hence it is moft likely, that the tragedy of Telephus (and probably of Peleus, though we have not fo direct authority for this) was, in fact, the tragedy of Euripides, tranflated into Latin, and accommodated to the Roman ftage by one of these writers. It remains only to enquire, if the Telephus itself of Euripides answered to this cha[b] See Robert Stephens's Fragm. Vet. Latinorum.

three of them,

racter.

racter. Which, I think, it manifeftly did, from confidering what his enemy, the buffoon Ariftophanes, hath said concerning it. Every body knows, that the BATPAXOI of this poet contains a direct fatire, and burlesque upon Euripides. Some part of it is particularly levelled against his Telephus whence we may certainly learn the objections that were made to it. Yet the amount of them is only this, "That he had "drawn the character of Telephus in too many "circunftances of diftrefs and humiliation." His fault was, that he had represented him more like a beggar than an unfortunate prince. Which, in more candid hands, would, I fuppofe, amount only to this, "That the poet had "painted his distress in the most natural and affecting manner." He had stripped him of his royalty, and, together with it, of the pomp and oftentation of the regal language, the very beauty which Horace applauds and admires in his Telephus.

1

2. Next, I think it as clear from what follows, "That fome real tragedy of Telephus, and "Peleus, was also glanced at, of a different "ftamp from the other, and in which the cha❝racters were not supported by fuch propriety "of language. Let the reader judge. Having quoted a Telephus and Peleus, as examples to the rule concerning the ftyle of tragedy, and afterwards

G 4

afterwards enlarged [from 1. 98 to 103] on the
reasons of their excellence, he returns, with an
air of infult, to the fame names, apoftrophizing
them in the following manner:

Telephe, vel Peleu, male fi mandata loquéris,
Aut dormitabo aut ridebo.

But why this addrefs to characters, which he had
before alledged, as examples of true dramatical
drawing? Would any tolerable writer, after
having applauded Shakespeare's King Lear, as
an inftance of the kingly character in diftrefs,
naturally painted, apoftrophize it, with fuch
pointed vehemence, on the contrary supposition?
But let this pass. The poet, as though a noto-
rious violation of the critic's rules was to be
thoroughly exposed, goes on, in the feven fol-
lowing lines, to fearch into the bottom of this
affair, laying open the fource and ground of his
judgment; and concludes upon the whole,
Si dicentis erunt fortunis absona dicta,

ROMANI TOLLENT EQUITESQUE PATRESQUE

CACHINNUM.

Can any thing be plainer, than that this last line points at fome well-known inftance of a Latin play, which had provoked, upon this account, the contempt and laughter of the best judges? It may further be obferved, that this way of understanding the paffage before us, as it

is more conformable to what is here fhewn to be the general scope of the epiftle, fo doth it, in its turn, likewife countenance, or rather clearly hew, the truth and certainty of this method of interpretation.

99. NON SATIS EST PULCHRA, &c.] Dr. Bentley objects to pulchra, because this, he says, is a general term, including under it every species of beauty, and therefore that of dulcis, or the affecting. But the great critic did not fufficiently attend to the connexion, which, as F. Robortellus, in his paraphrafe on the epiftle, well obferyes, ftands thus: "It is not enough, that tra"gedies have that kind of beauty, which arifes "from a pomp and fplendor of diction, they "muft alfo be pathetic or affecting." Objiciat fe mibi hoc loco aliquis et dicat, fi id fiat [i. e. fi projiciantur ampullæ] corrumpi omnem venuftatem et gravitatem poëmatis tragici, quod nihil nifi grande et elatum recipit. Huic ego ita refpondendum puto, non fatis effe, ut poëmata venusta sint et dignitatem fuam fervent: nam dulcedine quoque et fuavitate quadam funt confpergenda, ut poffint auditoris animum inflectere in quamcunque voluerint partem.

But a very ingenious perfon, who knows how to unite philofophy with criticism; and to all that is elegant in tafte, to add what is most just

and

and accurate in fcience, hath, in the following: note, fhewn the very foundation of Dr. Bentley's criticifin to be erroneous.

"There are a multitude of words in every language, which are fometimes used in a wider, fometimes in a more refrained fenfe. Of this kind are the xaxov of the Greeks, the pulchrum of the Romans, and the words by which they are translated in modern languages. To whatever fubjects thefe epithets are applied, we always intend to fignify that they give us pleasure: and we feldom apply them to any subjects, but those which please by means of impreffions made on the fancy; including under this name the reception of images conveyed directly by the fight itfelf. As poetry thefefore always addreffés itself to the imagination, every fpecies of poetical excellence obtains the name of Beauty: and, among the reft, the power of pleafing us by affecting the paffions; an effect which entirely depends on the various images presented to our view. In this fenfe of the word beautiful, it cannot be opposed to pathetic. Pulchrum enim quafcunque carminis virtutes, etiam ipfam dulcedinem, in fe continere meritò videatur.

But nothing, I think, can be plainer, than that this epithet is often ufed more determinately. Vifible forms are not merely occafions of plea

fure,