E it. "In the particular descriptions of each of these games (fays the great writer, "before quoted, and from whose sentence, "in matters of tafte, there lies no appeal), "Statius hath not borrowed from either of "his predeceffors; and his poem is so much the worfe for it." 2. The cafe of DESCRIPTION is ftill clearer, and, after what has been fo largely difcourfed on the fubjects of it, will require but few words. For it must have appeared, in confidering them, that not only the ob jects themselves are neceffarily obtruded on the poet, but that the occafions of introducing them are alfo reftrained by many limitations. If we reflect a little, we fhall find, that they grow out of the action reprefented, which, in the greater poetry, implies a great fimilarity, even when most different. What, for inftance, is the purpofe of the epic poet, but to fhew his hero under the most awful and interefting circumstances of human life? To this end fome general defign is formed. He muft war with Achilles, or voyage with Ulyffes. And, to work up his fable to that magni ficence, 1 ficence, METAAOIPETEIAN, which Aristotle rightly obferves to be the characteristic of this poem, heaven and hell muft alfo be interested in the fuccefs of his enterprize. And what is this, in effect, but to own, that the pomp of epic defcription, in its draught of battles, with its feveral accidents, of forms, fhipwrecks, &c. of the intervention of gods, or machination of devils, is, in great measure, determined, not only as to the choice, but application of it, to the poet's hands? And the like conclufion extends to ftill minuter particularities. What concerns the delineation of charafters may feem to carry with it more difficulty. Yet, though thefe are infinitely diverfified by diftinct peculiar lineaments, poetry cannot help falling into the fame general reprefentation. For it is converfant about the greater characters; fuch as demand the imputation of like manners, and who are actuated by the fame governing paffions. To fet off these, the fame combination of circumstances must frequently be imagined; at least so similar, as to bring on the fame series of representation. The piety piety of one hero, and the love of his country. which characterizes another, can only be fhewn by the influence of the ruling princi ple in each, constraining them to neglect inferior confiderations, and to give up all fubordinate affections to it. The more prevalent the affection, the greater the facrifice, and the more ftrongly is the cha rafter marked. Hence, without doubt, the Calypfo of Homer. And need we look farther than the inftructions of common nature for a fimilar contrivance in a later poet? Not to be tedious on a matter which admits no difpute, the dramatic writings of all times may convince us of two things, 1." that the actuating paffions of men are ❝ univerfally and invariably the same;” and 2. that they express themselves conftantly " in fimilar effects." Or, one fingle fmall volume, the characters of Theophraftus, will fufficiently do it. And what more is required to justify this confequence," that the defcriptions of characters, even in the "moft original defigners, will resemble "each other;" and "that the very con"texture of a work, defigned to evidence "them "them in action, will, under the manage"ment of different writers, be, frequently, "much the fame ?" A conclufion, which indeed is neither mine nor any novel one, but was long ago infifted on by a difcerning antient, and applied to the comic drama, in these words, -Si perfonis ifdem uti aliis non licet, 3. In truth, fo far as direct and immediate defcription is concerned, the matter is fo plain, that it will hardly be called into queftion. The difficulty is, to account for the fimilarity of metaphor and COMPARISON (that is, of imagery, which comes in obliquely, and for the purpose of illustrating fome other, and, frequently, very remote and distinct subject) obfervable in all writers. Here it may not feem quite so easy to make out an original claim; for, though descriptions of the fame object, when it occurs, must needs be fimilar, yet it remains τα to fhew how the fame object comes, in this cafe, to occur at all. Before an answer can be given to this queftion, it must be obferved, 1. that there is in the mind of man, not only a strong natural love of imitation, but of comparison. We are not only fond of copying single objects, as they present themselves, but we delight to fet two objects together, and contemplate their mutual afpects and appearances. The pleasure we find in this exercise of the imagination is the main fource of that per petual usage of indirect and allufive imagery in the writings of the poets; for I need not here confider the neceffity of the thing, and the unavoidable introduction of fenfible images into all language. 2. This work of comparison is not gone about by the mind caufelessly and capriciously. There are certain obvious and ftriking resemblances in nature, which the poet is carried neceffarily to obferve, and which offer themselves, to him on the flighteft exercise and exertion of his comparing powers. It may be difficult to explain the causes of this eftablished relationship in call cafes; or to fhew diftinctly |