[Transcriber’s Note:

This e-text includes characters that will only display in UTF-8(Unicode) text readers, including a number of passages in Greek:

 Ζευς δε Πατηρ ιδηθεν ευτροχον ἁρμα και ἱππους Ολυμπονδ’ εδιωκε, θεων δ’ εξεκετο θωκους. 

If any of these characters do not display properly, or if theapostrophes and quotation marks in this paragraph appear as garbage, make sure your text reader’s “character set” or “file encoding” is setto Unicode (UTF-8). You may also need to change the default font. 

Typographical errors are listed at the end of the text, along withalternative readings for some of the longer quotations. ]

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 The Augustan Reprint Society

 JOHN OGILVIE

 An ESSAY on the LYRIC POETRY of the ANCIENTS

 (1762)

 _Introduction by_ WALLACE JACKSON

 Publication Number 139 William Andrews Clark Memorial Library University of California, Los Angeles 1970

GENERAL EDITORS

 William E. Conway, _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_ George Robert Guffey, _University of California, Los Angeles_ Maximillian E. Novak, _University of California, Los Angeles_

ASSOCIATE EDITOR

 David S. Rodes, _University of California, Los Angeles_

ADVISORY EDITORS

 Richard C. Boys, _University of Michigan_ James L. Clifford, _Columbia University_ Ralph Cohen, _University of Virginia_ Vinton A. Dearing, _University of California, Los Angeles_ Arthur Friedman, _University of Chicago_ Louis A. Landa, _Princeton University_ Earl Miner, _University of California, Los Angeles_ Samuel H. Monk, _University of Minnesota_ Everett T. Moore, _University of California, Los Angeles_ Lawrence Clark Powell, _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_ James Sutherland, _University College, London_ H. T. Swedenberg, Jr. , _University of California, Los Angeles_ Robert Vosper, _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_

CORRESPONDING SECRETARY

 Edna C. Davis, _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_

EDITORIAL ASSISTANT

 Roberta Medford, _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_

INTRODUCTION

John Ogilvie (1733-1813), Presbyterian divine and author, was one of agroup of Scottish literary clergy and a fellow of the Edinburgh RoyalSociety. Chambers and Thomson print the following generous estimation ofhis work:

 Of all his books, there is not one which, as a whole, can be expected to please the general reader. Noble sentiments, brilliant conceptions, and poetic graces, may be culled in profusion from the mass; but there is no one production in which they so predominate, (if we except some of the minor pieces, ) as to induce it to be selected for a happier fate than the rest. Had the same talent which Ogilvie threw away on a number of objects, been concentrated on one, and that one chosen with judgment and taste, he might have rivalled in popularity the most renowned of his contemporaries. [1]

The present letters reproduced here, along with the two volumes of his_Philosophical and Critical Observations on Composition_ (London, 1774), are Ogilvie’s major contributions to literary criticism. The remainderof his work, which is extensive, is divided almost equally betweenpoetry and theological inquiry. At least one of his poems, “The Day ofJudgment” (1758), was known to Churchill, Boswell, and Johnson, butunfortunately for Ogilvie’s reputation Johnson “saw nothing” in it. [2]

I shall attempt no special pleading for Ogilvie here; he is and shallremain a minor neoclassic theorist. At the very least, however, it canbe said that his methods are reasonably various and that, while hisgeneral critical assumptions are not unique, his control is strong. Thefluidity with which he moves from one related position to anotherindicates a mind well informed by the critical tenets of his own time. If he does not surprise, he is nevertheless an interesting and worthyexemplar of the psychological tradition in later eighteenth-centurycriticism; and his historicism provides, and is intended to provide, an extensive field for the workings of psychological inquiry. 

Thus his initial inquiry, in the first letter, into the Aristotelianprinciples of imitation and harmony establishes each as “natural” to themind, and his distinctions between the separate provinces of reason andimagination are for the purpose of assigning to each its separateintellectual capacities. From these orderings follows his idea thatpoetry is of an earlier date than philosophy, the product of anirregular faculty, less governable than the reason and of swifterdevelopment. In turn, these assumptions lead into a form of historicalprimitivism in which the products of the first poets were “extemporaryeffusions, ” rudely imitative of pastoral scenes or celebratory of thedivine being. Thus the first generic distinction Ogilvie makes isbetween pastoral poetry and lyric; the function of the former is toproduce pleasure, the latter to raise admiration of the powers presidingover nature. As poetry is more natural to the young mind thanphilosophy, so is the end of pastoral poetry more easily achieved thanthat of the lyric. The difference resides essentially in Ogilvie’snotion that the pastoral poet contemplates “external objects, ” while thelyric poet regards that which is not immediately available to the sensesand consequently requires a more exuberant invention. What follows uponthese reflections is a rather ingenious form of historical progressivismin which the civilizing powers of the poet provide the principaljustification for lyric poetry. At work in Ogilvie’s thought is aconception of the mythopoeic function of the earliest poets whose nameshave come down to us. Such poets, however, did not create their mythos, but imbibed it from the earlier Egyptian civilization and formeddisguised allegorical poems. Here the instructive function of the firstpoets is related to the enlarging of the reader’s imagination, so thatOgilvie’s rather shrewd defense of lyric poetry is based upon thecivilizing effects of imaginative appeal. 

The infancy of poetry is related to the infancy of civilization, and theanalogical possibilities of the one to the other sustain his argument atevery point. If his historicism is dubious, his discourse is neatlyillustrative of a neoclassic critical method and of the kind ofpsychological assumptions upon which such arguments could proceed. Fromthe rather copious use of allegory and metaphor, as civilizinginstruments, Ogilvie traces the rise of the religious fable as part ofthe inevitable sequence of imaginative development. To account, therefore, for the irregularity of the ode, for the “enthusiasm, obscurity and exuberance” (p. Xxiv) which continue to characterize it, he refers to its anciently established character, a character notsusceptible to amelioration by speculative rules. He allows, however, that both the “Epopee” (or epic) and the drama were gradually improved, and the informing principle of his historical progressivism is againpatent. 

The modifications of the ode are from the fictitious theology of Orpheusand Museus to the elegance and grace of Anacreon, Horace, and Sappho. Itis mainly Horace whom Ogilvie has in view as the exemplar of the lyricpoet, though “a professed imitator both of Anacreon and Pindar”(p.  xxx). We can distinguish, therefore, several different criteriawhich contribute to Ogilvie’s criticism: (1) a unity of sentimentconsistent with a variety of emotions; (2) a propriety of the passionsin which vivacity is controlled by the circumstances of character; (3) ajust relation between language and sentiment; (4) elegant and pointedexpression (“sallies and picturesque epithets” [p.  xxxi. ]) both toheighten the passions expressed and to draw from them their less obviouseffects. Such distinctions define Ogilvie’s typical insistence uponcopying Nature, by which he means that the lyric poet’s task is not onlyto follow the workings of the mind, but to heighten passion in a waythat is more consistent with the nature of the passion itself than withits action in any particular mind. His criticism looks to therepresentation of “the internal movements of the mind warmed byimagination, ” yet “exposed in the happiest and most agreeable attitudes”(p.  xxxv). The relation between the empirical and the ideal is a cruxcommon to Ogilvie and neoclassic theory, not entirely resolved here bythe practical and referential method of citing Horace’s shorter odes. But it is a subject which comes in for more extended treatment in hissecond letter, in my judgment a far more critically ambitious letter andone in which his very fair critical abilities are more conspicuouslyapparent. 

The second letter undertakes to explain the rules of lyric poetry, evenas the first was concerned with the defects and causes of the poetry. Ogilvie rehearses a characteristic later eighteenth-century view of theimagination and makes again the conventional distinctions betweenfaculties appropriate to philosophy and to poetry. His discussion of thefunction of judgment is, if anything, more conventional within theboundaries of neoclassic criticism than is his view of the imagination. Its typical role as concerned with the “disposition of materials” has apedigree extending backward to Hobbes and the critical climate of theearly years of Restoration England. Principally, Ogilvie is eager toassert that the poet is as judicious as the philosopher, by which, however, he does not intend to put forth a view of the cognitivefunction of the poet, but rather the justice with which he paints thepassions. Essentially, therefore, Ogilvie’s distinction between poet andphilosopher is for the sake of distinguishing between the former’sgreater interest in the passions, the latter’s more proper concern withthe reason. Once again there is nothing unusual in his treatment of thesubject at this time, with the possible exception that Ogilvie’sconception of the imagination is not so comprehensive as that beingdeveloped by Alexander Gerard, William Duff, and some of the othercontemporary associatioassociationistsnlsts. In order, however, toemphasize the importance of imagination, by which he largely means theimagistic liveliness of the poet’s mind, he allows that the imaginationis secondary only in didactic or ethical poetry. Such forms are perhapsbest understood as hybrid, a kind of poetizing of philosophy, a sort ofreasoning in verse, and therefore forms in which the imagination is notgiven full exercise. Given his premises it is not surprising thatOgilvie often emphasizes ornamentation or imagistic display and supportshis position by conceiving of the modern lyric as descended from thereligiously consecrated ode. The sublime and exuberant imagery of thelatter exists reductively as an important virtue of the present lyric. 

As Ogilvie develops his argument in the second letter, it is apparentalso that the imagination functions as that faculty which bestcontemplates the sublime and the wonderful. The imagination is thuscontemplative and expressive, and both functions are justified throughthe passions that admiration evokes. In sum, the imagination is evokedby the passions, a proposition which suggests why, for Ogilvie, thecharacteristic mark of genius is a highly animated sensibility. It isapparent also that Ogilvie’s criteria include sympathy, for sympathy isthat which compels the transmission of the poet’s sentiments to hisreaders. What is dimly present here is a theory of the poetic occasion, an occasion brought about by the poet’s participation in a commoncultural condition which inspires the communication of sentiments, bothcommon and important, from one person to another. Corollary to thisproposition is the notion that the poetic achievement is measured by theuniqueness of the poet’s invention. Thus, it is not merely the poet’schoice of a sublime subject that is important, but also the excellencewith which he treats an unpromising subject. Ogilvie’s criteria demandnot merely a celerity of imagining, or a facility for the sublime, but adegree of innovativeness which wins the highest regard. 

To follow the argument is to realize that his conception of theimagination includes judgment, celerity, and innovation. All threefunctions are basic to the imaginative act. It is the last, however, which he most emphasizes; and it is apparent, I think, that oneintention of his argument is to refute the assumption that the sublimeis the principal object of the poetic imagination. It is clear also thatOgilvie is attentive to the excesses of imagism, even as he makes thevariety of a poet’s images (along with the boldness of his transitionsand the picturesque vivacity of his descriptions) one of the major termsof critical assessment. Especially, he is attentive to that whichdetracts from the principal object, and thus a kind of concentration ofpurpose emerges as a tacit poetic value, a concentration to which herefers as a “succession of sentiments which resemble . . . The subject ofhis Poem” (lii). Here again Ogilvie has not so much a unity of structurein view as a unity of the passions, and it is this particular themewhich generally guides his discourse; it is the general premise uponwhich his inquiry depends and on which his major justification of lyricpoetry is based. In more modern terms we might here speak of theprinciple of the correlative, which Ogilvie rehearses in his treatmentof the correspondence of subject and metaphor, and even indeed ofmetaphor as a mode of vision. Poetic discourse, for Ogilvie, does notdepend upon metaphor, but without metaphor such discourse would beimpossible. 

What is important, then, is the principle of propriety, a neat accordbetween the figure and the subject, a kind of aperçu. Thus, metaphorsproperly employed are “generally short, expressive, and fitted tocorrespond with great accuracy to the point which requires to beillustrated” (pp. Liii-liv). Second only to this consideration is thatof color, by which he means tone or emphasis, and here again with a viewtoward the overall unity of the passions. It is perhaps worth notingthat both considerations are relevant to Ogilvie’s sense of theimagination as a judicious faculty operating independently of thereason, but nevertheless obedient to the laws of logical form, organicrelationships, and proper successions, all of which imply an idea ofstructure. 

Much of the time Ogilvie is occupied with quite familiar andconventional critical problems. The relation between regularity andirregularity is one that he particularly stresses, and his resolutionstend to allow a certain wildness as natural to the imagination, even asevidence of the faculty. He is, however, more inclined to permit boldand spirited transitions in the shorter ode than in the longer ode. Asusual Ogilvie’s critical principles are related to the nature of thework in question, and a greater irregularity is natural to the shorterode since it presumes the imitation of the passions. But it is importantto recognize that Ogilvie stresses not only the imitation of thepassions, but the exercise of them as well; and the relation between theone and the other forms at bottom the larger principles on which hissecond letter is based. We might wish to say that he has in view theeducation of the passions, not merely by imitating them, but, as itwere, by drawing from the reader his own possibilities for sensibleresponse. It does not at all imply pre-romantic values to suggest thatOgilvie’s criticism is directed toward a frank exploitation of thereader’s emotion. As Maclean makes clear, [3] such interests are hardlyunique to romantic criticism. Bishop Lowth, for example, distinguishedbetween the internal source and the external source of poetry, preferring the former because through it the mind is immediatelyconscious of itself and its own emotions. [4] Ogilvie does not quite makethe same statement, but his position easily coincides with it; and if, with John Crowe Ransom, [5] we consider romantic poetry as uniquelydirected toward the exploitation of the feelings, we shall be surprisedby any number of minor eighteenth-century critics who are unabashedlyinterested in similar values. Ogilvie’s position very much resemblesThomas Twining’s view that the “description of passions and emotions bytheir sensible effects . . . [is what] principally deserves the name ofimitative. ”[6]

In accord with the psychological bias informing his essay, Ogilvie tendsto reduce the importance of narrative events in favor of vivid andpicturesque descriptions, for the latter most immediately communicatethemselves to the reader and most expressly realize the translation fromthought to feeling. Once again it is the uniqueness of rendering that hehas in mind, the innovative cast of the poet’s mind which transforms thefamiliar and by so doing gives it a newly affective power. It isimportant to recognize that Ogilvie shares with his contemporaries amore limited sense of the varieties of subject-matter than we are likelyto grant. But as this is so for him, and as indeed this condition is afunction of eighteenth-century historiography, it helps to explain theemphasis he places upon the uniqueness with which the subject isrealized. Over and again such an interest shapes his inquiries andbecomes both an attribute and a test of a poet’s capacity. These remarksneed to be qualified only by his inquiry into personification: for hereit is the expectation of the mind that must not be disappointed, andthat which is iconographically established (the figure of Time, forexample) should not be violated. 

While Ogilvie is not a major critic a good part of his charm andinterest for us stems from a mind that is not in the least doctrinaire. His method is inductive, his appeal is always to the human psychology asthat can be known experientially, and his standards are Aristotelian (ifby such a reference we mean to signify a procedure based upon the knowneffects of known works). While there is nothing in these letters thatdeviates from the psychological tradition in later eighteenth-centurycriticism, it is also evident that Ogilvie is not really anassociationist, and that he is less interested in the creativefunctioning of the poet’s imagination than in the precepts of apsychological humanism which underscore his criteria and give validityto his remarks on the range and appeal of lyric poetry. In sum, hishistoricism exists as a justification for his defense of lyric poetryand is intended to provide a basis for the psychological bias of hisargument. 

Duke University

NOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION

 [Footnote 1: _Biographical Dictionary of Eminent Scotsmen_ (Glasgow, 1855), Vol. IV. For a list of Ogilvie’s works consult Stephen and Lee, _Dictionary of National Biography_ (Oxford, 1921-22), Vol. XIV. For an estimation of Ogilvie’s relation to the theology of his own day consult James McCosh, _The Scottish Philosophy_ (London, 1875). ]

 [Footnote 2: _Life of Samuel Johnson_, ed. George Birkbeck Hill (Oxford, 1887), I. , 421, 425. ]

 [Footnote 3: Norman Maclean, “From Action to Image: Theories of the Lyric in the Eighteenth Century, ” in _Critics and Criticism Ancient and Modern_, ed. R.  S. Crane (Chicago, 1952), pp. 408-463. ]

 [Footnote 4: Ibid. , p. 439. ]

 [Footnote 5: John Crowe Ransom, _The New Criticism_ (New York, 1941), p.  15. ]

 [Footnote 6: _An Inquiry into the Fine Arts_ (London, 1784), p.  6. ]

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

This facsimile of _An Essay on the Lyric Poetry of the Ancients_ (1762)is reproduced from a copy in the Duke University Library. 

 POEMS on SEVERAL SUBJECTS. 

 To Which Is Prefix’d, AN ESSAY on the LYRIC POETRY of the ANCIENTS;

 In TWO LETTERS inscribed to The Right Honourable JAMES Lord DESKFOORD. 

 By _JOHN OGILVIE_, A. M. 

 [Illustration]

 _LONDON:_ Printed for G. KEITH, at the _Bible-and-Crown_ in _Gracechurch-Street_. 

 M. DCC. LXII. 

CONTENTS. 

 [Transcriber’s Note: Although the facsimile includes this full Table of Contents, only the introductory section-- the Essay on Lyric Poetry-- was reprinted. ]

An ESSAY on the LYRIC POETRY of the ANCIENTS. 

 LETTER I. Page iii LETTER II. Xxxix

ODES, &c. 

 _To MELANCHOLY_ 1 _To the GENIUS OF SHAKESPEAR_ 8 _To TIME_ 16 _To SLEEP_ 23 _To EVENING_ 29 _To INNOCENCE_ 36

_The DAY OF JUDGMENT. A Poem. _

 BOOK I. 49 BOOK II. 79

MISCELLANEOUS POEMS. 

 The 148th PSALM paraphrased 107 VERSES to a Lady, with VOLTAIRE’S _Temple of Taste_ 112 A TOWN ECLOGUE 116 JUPITER and the CLOWN. A Fable 120 An Elegy on the DEATH of a LINNET 128 An EVENING PIECE 131 To Miss ---- with a Flower 134 SAPPHO’s Ode to VENUS translated 136 To the Memory of Mrs. ---- 138 To the Memory of Mr. H*** M***. An Elegy 143 To the Memory of the late pious, and ingenious Mr. HERVEY 147 The Third Chapter of HABAKKUK paraphrased 152

 An ESSAY on the LYRIC POETRY of the ANCIENTS. 

 Humbly Inscribed to the RIGHT HONOURABLE JAMES Lord DESKFOORD. 

 An E S S A Y on the LYRIC POETRY of the ANCIENTS. 

LETTER I. 

MY LORD, It is an observation, no doubt, familiar to your Lordship, that Geniusis the offspring of Reason and Imagination properly moderated, andco-operating with united influence to promote the discovery, or theillustration of truth. Though it is certain that a separate province isassigned to each of these faculties, yet it often becomes a matter ofthe greatest difficulty to prevent them from making mutualencroachments, and from leading to extremes which are the moredangerous, because they are brought on by an imperceptible progression. --Reason in every mind is an uniform power, and its appearance isregular, and invariably permanent. When this Faculty thereforepredominates in the sphere of composition, sentiments will follow eachother in connected succession, the arguments employed to prove any pointwill be just and forcible; the stability of a work will be principallyconsidered, and little regard will be payed to its exterior ornament. Such a work however, though it may be valued by a few for its intrinsicexcellence, yet can never be productive of general improvement, asattention can only be fixed by entertainment, and entertainment isincompatible with unvaried uniformity[1]. 

 [Footnote 1: Neque ipsa Ratio (says the elegant and sensible Quintilian speaking of Eloquence) tam nos juvaret, nisi quæ concepissemus mente, promere etiam loquendo possemus, --ita, ut non modo orare, sed quod Pericli contigit fulgerare, ac tonare videamur. Institut. Orat. Lib. XI. C.  16. ]

On the contrary, when Imagination is permitted to bestow the graces ofornament indiscriminately, we either find in the general that sentimentsare superficial, and thinly scattered through a work, or we are obligedto search for them beneath a load of superfluous colouring. Such, myLord, is the appearance of the superior Faculties of the mind when theyare disunited from each other, or when either of them seems to beremarkably predominant. 

Your Lordship is too well acquainted with this subject not to haveobserved, that in composition, as in common life, extremes, howeverpernicious, are not always so distant from each other, as uponsuperficial inspection we may be apt to conclude. Thus in the latter, an obstinate adherence to particular opinions is contracted by observingthe consequences of volatility; indifference ariseth from despising thesofter feelings of tenderness; pride takes its origin from the disdainof compliance; and the first step to avarice is the desire of avoidingprofusion. Inconveniencies similar to these are the consequences oftemerity in canvassing the subjects of speculation. The mind of anAuthor receives an early bias from prepossession, and the dislike whichhe conceives to a particular fault precipitates him at once to theopposite extreme. For this reason perhaps it is, that young authors whopossess some degree of Genius, affect on all occasions a floridmanner[2], and clothe their sentiments in the dress of imagery. To themnothing appears so disgusting as dry and lifeless uniformity; andinstead of pursuing a middle course betwixt the extremes of profusionand sterility, they are only solicitous to shun that error of whichPrejudice hath shown the most distorted resemblance. It is indeed butseldom, that Nature adjusts the intellectual balance so accurately asnot to throw an _unequal weight_ into either of the scales. Suchlikewise is the situation of man, that in the first stage of life thepredominant Faculty engrosseth _his attention_, as the predominantPassion influenceth _his actions_. Instead therefore of strengtheningthe weaker power by assisting its exertions, and by supplying itsdefects, he is adding force to that which was originally too strong; andthe same reflection which discovers _his error_, shows him likewise thedifficulty of correcting it. Even in those minds, in which thedistribution was primarily equal, education, habit, or some early biasis ready to break _that perfect poise_ which is necessary to constituteconsummate excellence. 

 [Footnote 2: This is the manner which Quintilian appropriates particularly to young persons. --In juvenibus etiam uberiora paulo & pene periclitantia feruntur. At in iisdem siccum, & contractum dicendi propositum plerunque affectatione ipsa severitatis invisum est: quando etiam morum senilis autoritas immatura in adolescentibus creditur. Lib. II. C.  1. ]

From this account of the different manners, in which the faculties ofthe mind exert themselves in the sphere of competition, your Lordshipwill immediately observe, that the Poet who attempts to combine distantideas, to catch remote allusions, to form vivid and agreeable pictures;is more apt from the very nature of his profession to set up a _falsestandard_ of _excellence_, than the cool and dispassionate Philosopherwho proceeds deliberately from position to argument, and who employsImagination only as the Handmaid of a superior faculty. Having gone thusfar, like persons who have got into a track from which they cannotrecede, we may venture to proceed a step farther; and affirm that the_Lyric Poet_ is exposed to this hazard more nearly than any other, andthat to prevent him from falling into the extreme we have mentioned, will require the exercise of the closest attention. 

That I may illustrate this observation as fully as the nature of thesubject will permit, it will be expedient to enquire into the end whichLyric Poetry proposeth to obtain, and to examine the original standardsfrom which the rules of this art are deduced. 

Aristotle, who has treated of poetry at great length, assigns two causesof its origin, --_Imitation_ and Harmony; both of which are natural tothe human mind[3]. By Imitation he understands, “whatever employs meansto represent any subject in a natural manner, whether it hath a real orimaginary existence[4]. ” The desire of imitating is originally stampedon the mind, and is a source of perpetual pleasure. “Thus” (says thegreat Critic) “though the figures of wild beasts, or of dead men, cannotbe viewed as they naturally are without horror and reluctance; yet theImitation of these in painting is highly agreeable, and our pleasure isaugmented in proportion to that degree of resemblance which we conceiveto subsist betwixt the Original and the Copy[5]. ” By Harmony heunderstands not the numbers or measures of poetry only, but that musicof language, which when it is justly adapted to variety of sentiment ordescription, contributes most effectually to unite the pleasing with theinstructive[6]. This indeed seems to be the opinion of all the Ancientswho have written on this subject. Thus Plato says expressly, that thoseAuthors who employ numbers and images without music have no other meritthan that of throwing prose into measure[7]. 

 [Footnote 3: Εοικασι δε γεννησαι μεν ὁλως την Ποιητικην, αιτιαι δυο και αυται φυσικαι. Το μιμεισθαι συμφυτον τοις ανθρωποις, &c. Και Ἁρμονια και ρυθμος εξ αρχης οἱ πεφυκοτες προς αυτα μαλιστα κατα μικρον προαγοντες εγεινησαν την Ποιησιν‧ Arist. Poet. C.  4. ]

 [Footnote 4: The Reader of curiosity may see this subject particularly discussed in Dacier’s Remarks on the Poeticks of Aristotle, c.  4. ]

 [Footnote 5: Ἁ γαρ αυτα λυπηρως ὁρωμεν, τουτων τας εικωνας τας μαλιστα ηκριβωμενας, χαιρομεν θεωρουντες, οἱτινες θηρεων τε μορφας των αγριοτατων και νεκρων, &c. Poet. C.  4. ]

 [Footnote 6: Τα γαρ μετρα ὁτι μοιρον των ρυθμων εστι, φανερον. Ub. Sup. ]

 [Footnote 7: Ρυθμον μεν και σχηματα μελους χωρις λογους ψιλους εις μετρα τιθεντες. The persons who do this, he compares to Musicians. Μελος δε αυ και ρυθμους ανευ ρημα{των} ψιλη κιθαριξει τε και αυλησει προσχρωμενοι. Plat. De Legib. Lib.  XI. ]

You will no doubt be of opinion, my Lord, upon reflecting on thissubject, that Poetry was originally of an earlier date than Philosophy, and that its different species were brought to a certain pitch ofperfection before that Science had been cultivated in an equal degree. Experience informs us on every occasion, that Imagination shoots forwardto its full growth, and even becomes wild and luxuriant, when thereasoning Faculty is only beginning to open, and is wholly unfit toconnect the series of accurate deduction. The information of the senses(from which Fancy generally borrows her images) always obtains theearliest credit, and makes for that reason the most lasting impressions. The sallies of this irregular Faculty are likewise abrupt andinstantaneous, as they are generally the effects of a sudden impulsewhich reason is not permitted to restrain. As therefore we have alreadyseen, that the desire of imitating is _innate_ to the mind (if yourLordship will permit me to make use of an unphilosophical epithet) andas the first inhabitants of the world were employed in the culture ofthe field, and in surveying the scenery of external Nature, it isprobable that the first rude draughts of Poetry were extemporaryeffusions, either descriptive of the scenes of pastoral life, orextolling the attributes of the Supreme Being. On this account Platosays that Poetry was originally Ενθεος Μιμησις[8], or an inspiredimitation of those objects which produced either pleasure or admiration. To paint those objects which produced pleasure was the business of thepastoral, and to display those which raise admiration was the taskconsigned to the Lyric Poet. --To excite this passion, no method was soeffectual as that of celebrating the perfections of the Powers who weresupposed to preside over Nature. The Ode therefore in its firstformation was a song in honour of these Powers[9], either sung at solemnfestivals or after the days of Amphion who was the inventor of the Lyre, accompanied with the musick of that instrument. Thus Horace tells us, _Musa dedit fidibus Divos, puerosque Divorum_[10], The Muse to nobler subjects tun’d her lyre, Gods, and the sons of Gods her song inspire. FRANCIS. 

 [Footnote 8: Plat. Io. ]

 [Footnote 9: Nec prima illa post secula per ætates sane complures alio Lyrici spectarunt, quam ut Deorum laudes ac decora, aut virorum fortium res preclare gestas Hymnis ac Pæanibus, ad templa & aras complecterentur;--ut ad emulationem captos admiratione mortales invitarent. Strad. Prolus. 4 Poet. ]

 [Footnote 10: Hor. De Art. Poet. ]

In this infancy of the arts, when it was the business of the Muse, as the same Poet informs us, _Publica privatis secernere, sacra prophanis; Concubitu prohibere vago, dare jura maritis, Oppida moliri, leges includere ligno[11]. _

 Poetic Wisdom mark’d with happy mean, Public and private, sacred and profane, The wandering joys of lawless love supprest, With equal rites the wedded couple blest, Plann’d future towns, and instituted laws, &c. FRANCIS. 

your Lordship will immediately conclude that the species of Poetry whichwas first cultivated (especially when its end was to excite admiration)must for that reason have been the _loosest_ and the most_undetermined_. There are indeed particular circumstances, by theconcurrence of which one branch of an Art may be rendered perfect, whenit is first introduced; and these circumstances were favourable to theAuthors of the Eclogue. But whatever some readers may think, yourLordship will not look upon it as a paradox, to affirm that the samecauses which produced this advantage to pastoral poetry, contributed inan equal degree to make the first Lyric Poems the most vague, uncertain, and disproportioncd standards. 

 [Footnote 11: Id. Ibid. ]

In general it may be observed, that the difficulty of establishing rulesis always augmented in proportion to the variety of objects which an Artincludes. Pastoral Poetry is defined by an ingenious Author, to be animitation of what may be supposed to pass among Shepherds[12]. This wasaccomplished the more easily by the first performers in this art, because they were themselves employed in the occupation which theydescribe, and the subjects which fell within their sphere must have beenconfined to a very narrow circle. They contented themfelves withpainting in the simplest language the external beauties of nature, andwith conveying an image of that age in which men generally lived on thefooting of equality, and followed the dictates of an understandinguncultivated by Art. In succeeding ages, when manners became morepolished, and the refinements of luxury were substituted in place of thesimplicity of Nature, men were still fond of retaining an idea of thishappy period (which perhaps originally existed in its full extent, onlyin the imagination of Poets) and the character of a perfect pastoral wasjustly drawen from the writings of those Authors who first attempted toexcel in it[13]. 

 [Footnote 12: Toute Poesie est une imitation. La Poesie Bucolique a pour but d’imiter ce qui a passe et ce qui ce dit entre les Bergers. Mem. De Lit. V.  III. P.  158. ]

 [Footnote 13: Elle ne doit pas s’en tenir a la simple representation du vrai reel, qui rarement seroit agreable; elle doit s’elever jusqu’au _vrai ideal_, qui tend’ a embellir le vrai, tel qu’il est dans la nature, et qui produit dans la Poesie comme dans la Peinture, le derniere point de perfeftion, &c. Mem. De Lit. Ub. Sup. ]

Though we must acknowledge, that the poetic representations of a _goldenage_ are chimerical, and that descriptions of this kind were not alwaysmeasured by the standard of truth; yet it must be allowed at the sametime, that at a period when Manners were uniform and natural, theEclogue, whose principal excellence lies in exhibiting simple and livelypictures of common objects and common characters, was brought at once toa state of greater perfection by the persons who introduced it, than itcould have arrived at in a more improved and enlightned aera. 

You will observe, my Lord, that these circumstances were all of themunfavourable to Lyric Poetry. The Poet in this branch of his Artproposed as his principal aim to excite Admiration, and his mind withoutthe assistance of critical skill was left to the unequal task ofpresenting succeeding ages with the rudiments of Science. He was atliberty indeed to range through the ideal world, and to collect imagesfrom every quarter; but in this research he proceeded without a guide, and his imagination like a fiery courser with loose reins was left topursue that path into which it deviated by accident, or was enticed bytemptation. In short, Pastoral Poetry takes in only a few objects, andis characterized by that simplicity, tenderness, and delicacy which werehappily and easily united in the work of an ancient Shepherd. He hadlittle use for the rules of criticism, because he was not much exposedto the danger of infringing them. The Lyric Poet on the other hand tooka more diversified and extensive range, and his imagination required astrong and steady rein to correct its vehemence, and restrain itsrapidity. Though therefore we can conceive without difficulty, that theShepherd in his poetic effusions might contemplate only the _externalobjects_ which were presented to him, yet we cannot so readily believethat the mind in framing a Theogony, or in assigning distinct provincesto the Powers who were supposed to preside over Nature, could in itsfirst Essays proceed with so calm and deliberate a pace through thefields of invention, as that its work should be the perfect pattern ofjust and corrected composition. 

From these observations laid together, your Lordship will judge of thestate of Lyric Poetry, when it was first introduced, and will perhaps beinclined to assent to a part of the proposition laid down in thebeginning, “that as Poets in general are more apt to set up a falsestandard of excellence than Philosophers are, so the Lyric Poet wasexposed to this danger more immediately than any other member of thesame profession. ” Whether or not the preceding Theory can be justlyapplied to the works of the first Lyric Poets, and how far the Odecontinued to be characterised by it in the more improved state ofancient Learning, are questions which can only be answered by taking ashort view of both. 

It is indeed, my Lord, much to be regretted, that we have no _certainguide_ to lead us through that labyrinth in which we _grope for thediscovery_ of Truth, and are so often _entangled in the maze_ of Errorwhen we attempt to explain the origin of Science, or to trace themanners of remote antiquity. I should be at a loss to enter upon thisperplexed and intricate subject, if I did not know, that History hasalready familiarized to your Lordship the principal objects which occurin this research, and that it is the effect of extensive knowledge andsuperior penetration to invigorate the effort of Diffidence, and torepress the surmises of undistinguishing Censure. 

The Inhabitants of Greece who make so eminent a figure in the records ofScience, as well as in the History of the progression of Empire, wereoriginally a savage and lawless people, who lived in a state of war withone another, and possessed a desolate country, from which they expectedto be driven by the invasion of a foreign enemy[14]. Even after they hadbegun to emerge from this state of absolute barbarity, and had built akind of cities to restrain the encroachments of the neighbouringnations, the inland country continued to be laid waste by thedepredations of robbers, and the maritime towns were exposed to theincursions of pirates[15]. Ingenious as this people naturally were, theterror and suspence in which they lived for a considerable time, keptthem unacquainted with the Arts and Sciences which were flourishing inother countries. When therefore a Genius capable of civilizing themstarted up, it is no wonder that they held him in the highestestimation, and concluded that he was either descended from, or inspiredby some of those Divinities whose praises he was employed in rehearsing. 

 [Footnote 14: Thucyd. Lib. I. ]

 [Footnote 15: Id. Ibid. ]

Such was the situation of Greece, when Linus, Orpheus, and Museus, thefirst Poets whose names have reached posterity, made their appearance onthe theatre of life. These writers undertook the difficult task ofreforming their countrymen, and of laying down a theological andphilosophical system[16]. --We are informed by Diogenes Laertius, thatLinus, the Father of Grecian Poetry, was the son of Mercury and the MuseUrania, and that he sung of the Generation of the world, of the courseof the sun and moon, of the origin of animals, and of the principles ofvegetation[17]. He taught, says the same Author, that all things wereformed at one time, and that they were jumbled together in a Chaos, tillthe operation of a Mind introduced regularity. 

 [Footnote 16: Authors are not agreed as to the Persons who introduced into Greece the principles of philosophy. Tatian will have it that the Greek Philosophy came originally from Ægypt. Orat. Con. Graec. While Laertius (who certainly might have been better informed) will allow Foreigners to have had no share in it. He ascribes its origin to Linus, and says expressly, Αφ’ Ἑλληνων ηρξε φιλοσοφια ἡς και αυτο το ονομα την Βαρβαρον απεστραπτε προσηγοριαν. Laer. In Prœm. ]

 [Footnote 17: This account of the subjects on which Linus wrote, suggests a further prejudice in favour of Laertius’s opinion as to the origin of Greek Philosophy. He has preserved the first line of his Poem. 

 Ην ποτε χρονος οὑτος εν ὡ ἁμα παντ’ επεφυκει. Id. Ibid. ]

After all, however, we must acknowledge, that so complex, sodiversified, and so ingenious a system as the Greek Theology, was toomuch for an _uninstructed_ Genius, however exuberant, to have conceivedin its full extent. Accordingly we are told, that both Orpheus andMuseus travelled into Ægypt, and infused the traditionary learning of acultivated people into the minds of their own illiterate countrymen[18]. To do this the more effectually, they composed Hymns, or short sonnets, in which their meaning was couched under the veil of beautiful allegory, that their lessons might at once arrest the imagination, and beimpressed upon the Memory[19]. This, my Lord, we are informed by thegreat Critic, was the first dress in which Poetry made itsappearance[20]. 

 [Footnote 18: Herod. Lib. I. C. 49. ]

 [Footnote 19: Univ. Hist. Vol. VI. P. 221. ]

 [Footnote 20: Οἱ μεν γαρ σεμνοτεροι τας καλας εμιμουντο πραξεις και τας των τοιουτων τυχας‧ οἱ δε ευτελεστεροι τας των φαυλων πρωτον ψογους ποιουντες, ὡσπερ ἑτεροι ὙΜΝΟΥΣ και ΕΓΚΩΜΙΑ. Arist. Poet. C.  4. ]

Of Orpheus we know little more with certainty, than that the subjects ofhis poems were the formation of the world, the offspring of Saturn, thebirth of the Giants, and the origin of man[21]. These were favouritetopics among the first Poets, and the discussion of them tended at onceto enlarge the imagination, and to give the reasoning faculty a properdegree of exercise. This Poet however, though he obtained the highesthonours from his contemporaries, yet seems to have managed his subjectsin so loose a manner, that succeeding Writers will not allow him to havebeen a Philosopher[22]. At present we are not sufficiently qualified todetermine his character, as most of the pieces which pass under his nameare ascribed to one Onomacritus, an Athenian who flourished about thetime of Pisistratus. That the writings of Orpheus were highly andextensively useful, is a truth confirmed by the most convincingevidence. The extraordinary effects which his Poetry and Music are saidto have produced, however absurd and incredible in themselves, are yetunquestioned proofs that he was considered as a superior Genius, andthat his countrymen thought themselves highly indebted to him. Horacegives an excellent account of this matter in very few words. 

 _Sylvestres homines, Sacer, Interpresque Deorum Cædibus, & victu fœdo deterruit Orpheus, Dictus ob hoc lenire tigres, rabidosque leones. _[23]

 The wood-born race of men when Orpheus tam’d, From acorns, and from mutual blood reclaim’d. The Priest divine was fabled to assuage The tiger’s fierceness, and the lion’s rage. FRANCIS. 

 [Footnote 21: Orph. Argonaut. ]

 [Footnote 22: Εγω δε ει τον περι θεων εξαγορευσαντα τοιαυτα‧ χρη φιλοσοφον καλειν ουκ οιδα τινα δει προσαγορευιν τον το ανθρωπειον παθος αφειδουντο τοις θεοις προστριψαι, και τα σπασιως ὑπο τοιων ανθρωπων αισχρουργουμενα, και τω ταυτης φωνης οργανω. Laer. Ub. Sup. ]

 [Footnote 23: Hor. De Art. Poet. ]

Museus, the Pupil of Orpheus, is as little known to posterity as hisMaster. His only genuine production which has reached the present timesis an Ode to Ceres, a piece indeed full of exuberance and variety[24]. The Ancients in general seem to have entertained a very high opinion ofhis Genius and writings, as he is said to have been the first person whocomposed a regular Theogony, and is likewise celebrated as the inventorof the Sphere[25]. His principle was that all things would finallyresolve into the same materials of which they were originallycompounded[26]. Virgil assigns him a place of distinguishied eminence inthe plains of Elysium. 

 _---- sic est affata Sibylla. Musæum ante omnes, medium nam plurima turba Hunc habet, atque humeris extantem suspicit altis[27]. _

 ---- The Sibyl thus address’d Musæus, rais’d o’er all the circling throng. 

 [Footnote 24: The beautiful story of Hero and Leander, which was written by a person of his name, is thought to have been the work of a Grammarian who lived about the 5th century: a conjecture supported by very probable evidence. See Kenneth’s life of Museus, p.  10. ]

 [Footnote 25: Diogen. Laert. Ub. Sup. ]

 [Footnote 26: Diogen. Laert. Ub. Sup. ]

 [Footnote 27: Æneid. Lib. 6. ]

It is generally allowed that Amphion, who was a native of Bæotia, brought music into Greece from Lydia, and invented that instrument (theLyre) from which Lyric Poetry takes its name[28]. Before his time theyhad no regular knowledge of this divine art, though we must believe thatthey were acquainted with it in some measure, as dancing is an art inwhich we are informed that the earliest Poets were considerableproficients[29]. 

 [Footnote 28: It may not be amiss here to give the reader some idea of the structure of the Ancient lyre, whose music is said to have produced such wonderful effects. This instrument was composed of an hollow frame, over which several strings were thrown, probably in some such manner as we see them in an harp, or a dulcimer. They did not so much resemble the viol, as the neck of that instrument gives it peculiar advantages, of which the Ancients seem to have been wholly ignorant. The Musician stood with a short bow in his right hand, and a couple of small thimbles upon the fingers of his left: with these he held one end of the string, from which an acute sound was to be drawn, and then struck it immediately with the bow. In the other parts he swept over every string alternately, and allowed each of them to have its full sound. This practice became unnecessary afterwards, when the instrument was improved by the addition of new strings, to which the sounds corresponded. Horace tells us, that in his time the lyre had seven strings, and that it was much more musical than it had been originally. Addressing himself to Mercury, he says

 ---- _Te docilis magistro. Movit Amphion lapides canendo: Tuque Testudo, resonare septem Callida nervis; Nec loquax olim, neque grata_ &c. Carm. Lib. III. Od. 11. 

 For a further account of this instrument, we shall refer the reader to Quintilian’s Institutions. Lib. XII. C.  10. ]

 [Footnote 29: Particularly Orpheus and Museus. Lucian says in the general. Τελετην αρχαιαν ουδεμιαν εστιν εὑρειν ανου ορχησεως. Lib. De Salt. ]

Such, my Lord, was the character of the first Lyric Poets, and such werethe subjects upon which they exercised invention. We have seen, in thecourse of this short detail, that these Authors attempted to civilize abarbarous people, whose imagination it was necessary to seize by everypossible expedient; and upon whom chastised composition would haveprobably lost its effect, as its beauties are not perceptible to therude and illiterate. That they employed this method principally toinstruct their countrymen is more probable, when we remember that therudiments of learning were brought from Ægypt, a country in which Fableand Allegory remarkably predominated[30]. By conversing with thispeople, it is natural to suppose that men of impetuous imaginationswould imbibe their manner, and would adopt that species of compositionas the most proper, which was at the same time agreeable to their owninclination, and authorised as expedient by the example of others. 

From the whole, my Lord, we may conclude with probability, that theGreek Hymn was originally a loose allegorical Poem, in which Imaginationwas permitted to take its full career, and sentiment was rendered atonce obscure and agreeable, by being screened behind a veil of therichest poetic imagery. 

 [Footnote 30: This allegorical learning was so much in use among the Ægyptians, that the Disciples of a Philosopher were bound by an oath. Εν ὑποκρυφοις ταυτα εχειν‧ και τοις απαιδευτοις και αμνητοις μη μεταδεδιναι. Vid. Seld. De Diis Syr. ]

The loose fragments of these early writers which have come down to ourtimes, render this truth as conspicuous as the nature of the subjectwill permit. A Theogony, or an account of the procession of fabulousDeities, was a theme on which Imagination might display her inventivepower in its fullest extent. Accordingly Hesiod introduces his work withrecounting the genealogy of the Muses, to whom he assigns “an apartmentand attendants, near the summit of snowy Olympus[31]. ” These Ladies, hetells us, “came to pay him a visit, and complimented him with a scepterand a branch of laurel, when he was feeding his flock on the mountain ofHelicon[32]. ” Some tale of this kind it was usual with the Poets toinvent, that the vulgar in those ages of fiction and ignorance mightconsider their persons as sacred, and that the _offspring of theirimaginations_ might be regarded as _the children of Truth_. 

 [Footnote 31: ---- Ἡσιν αοιδη Μεμβλεται, εν στηθεσσιν ακηδεα θυμον εχουσαις Τυτθον απ’ ακροτατης κορυφης νιφεντος Ολυμπου. Ενθα σφιν λιπαροι τε χοροι, και δωματα καλα. Theog. A lin. 61. ]

 [Footnote 32: Ὡς εφασαν Ηουραι Μεγαλου Διος αρτιεπειαι· Και μοι σκεπτρον εδον, δαφνης εριθελεος οζον Δρεψασθαι θηητον· επενευσαν δε μοι αυδην &c. Theogon. L. 30. ]

From the same licentious use of Allegory and Metaphor sprung the Fablesof the wars of the Giants, of the birth and education of Jupiter, of thedethroning of Saturn, and of the provinces assigned by the Supreme tothe Inferior Deities; all of which are subjects said to have beenparticularly treated by Orpheus[33]. The love of Fable became indeed soremarkably prevalent in the earliest ages, that it is now impossible inmany instances to distinguish real from apparent truth in the History ofthese times, and to discriminate the persons who were useful members ofsociety, from those who exist only in the works of a Poet, whose aim wasprofessedly to excite Admiration. Thus every event of importance wasdisfigured by the colouring of poetic narration, and by ascribing to oneman the separate actions which perhaps were performed by several personsof one name[34], we are now wholly unable to disentangle truth from aperplexed and complicated detail of real and fictitious incidents. 

 [Footnote 33: Orph. Hym. In Apollon. Rhod. ]

 [Footnote 34: Of this, History furnisheth many examples. When one man made an eminent figure in any profession, the actions of other persons who had the same name were ascribed to him; and it was perhaps partly for this reason that we find different cities contending for the honour of giving birth to men of Genius, or eminence. Callimachus in his Hymn to Jupiter makes an artful use of this circumstance. 

 Εν δοιη μαλα θυμος· επει γενος αμφεριστον. Ζευ σε μεν Ι’ δαιοισιν εν ουρεσι φασι γενεσθαι Ζευ σε δ’ εν Αρκαδιη· ποτεροι Πατερ εψευσαντο Κρητες αει ψευσται· και γαρ ταφον, ὡ ανα σειο Κρητες ετεκτηναντο· συ δ’ ου θανες· εσσι γαρ αιει. Callim. P. 4. ]

It appears likewise from these shreds of antiquity, that the subjects ofthe Hymn were not sufficiently limited, as we sometimes find one of themaddressed to several Deities, whose different functions recurringconstantly to the mind must have occasioned unavoidable obscurity[35]. The Poet by this means was led into numberless digressions, in which theremote points of connection will be imperceptible to the reader, whocannot place himself in some situation similar to that of the Writer, and attend particularly to the character and manners of the period atwhich he wrote. 

 [Footnote 35: Thus Theocritus. 

 Ὑμνεομες Ληδας. Τε και αιγιοχω Διος Ὑιω, Καστορα και φοβερον Πολυδευκεα πυξ ερεθιζεν Ὑμνεομες και Δις, και το Τριτον. ]

Your Lordship, without the testimony of experience, would hardly believethat a species of composition which derived its origin from, and owedits peculiarities to the circumstances we have mentioned, could havebeen considered in an happier æra as a pattern worthy the imitation ofcultivated genius, and the perusal of a polished and civilized people. One is indeed ready to conclude, at the first view, that a mode ofwriting which was assumed for a particular purpose, and was adopted tothe manners of an illiterate age, might at least have undergoneconsiderable alterations in succeeding periods, and might have receivedimprovements proportioned to those which are made in other branches ofthe same art. But the fact is, that while the other branches of poetryhave been gradually modelled by the rules of criticism, the Ode hathonly been changed in a few external circumstances, and the enthusiasm, obscurity and exuberance, which characterised it when first introduced, continue to be ranked among its capital and discriminating excellencies. 

To account for this phenomenon, my Lord, I need only remind yourLordship of a truth which reflexion has, no doubt, frequentlysuggested;--that the rules of criticism are originally drawen, not fromthe speculative idea of perfection in an art, but from the work of thatArtist to whom either merit or accident hath appropriated the mostestablished character. From this position it obviously follows, thatsuch an art must arrive at once to its highest perfection, as theattempts of succeeding performers are estimated not by their ownintrinsic _value_ or demerit, but by their conformity to a standardwhich is previously set before them. It hath happened fortunately forthe republic of letters, that the two higher species of poetry areexempted from the bad consequences which might have followed an exactobservation of this rule. An early and perfect standard was settled toregulate the Epopee, and the Drama was susceptible of _gradualimprovement_, as Luxury augmented the subjects, and decorated themachinery of the theatre. We have already seen that Lyric Poetry was notintroduced with the advantages of the former, and reflection mustconvince us, that it is not calculated to gain the slow andimperceptible accessions of the latter. We may observe however in thegeneral, that as the opinions of the bulk of mankind in speculativematters are commonly the result of accident rather than the consequencesof reflection, so it becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible, insome instances to point out a defect in an _established model_ withoutincurring the censure of the multitude. Such, my Lord, is the nature ofman, and so trifling and capricious are the circumstances upon which hissentiments depend. 

Accustomed as your Lordship has been to survey the improved manners ofan enlightned age, you will contemplate with pleasure an happier aera inthe progression of Science, when the Ode from being confined wholly tofictitious Theology, was transposed to the circle of Elegance and theGraces. Such is its appearance in the writings ot Anacreon, of Horace, and in the two fragments of Sappho. 

Anacreon was nearly contemporary with that Onomacritus, whom we havementioned as the Author of those poems which are ascribed to Orpheus. He flourished between the 60th and the 70th Olympiad. His pieces are theoffspring of genius and indolence. His subjects are perfectly suited tohis character. The devices which he would have to be carved upon asilver cup are extremely ingenious. 

 ---- Διος γονον Βακχον Ευιον ἡμιν. Μυστιν αματε Κυπριν Ὑμεναιοις κροτουσαν. Και Εροτας αποπλους Και χαριτας γελωσας, &c. [36]

 ---- The race of Jove, Bacchus whose happy smiles approve; The Cyprian Queen, whose gentle hand Is quick to tye the nuptial band; The sporting Loves unarm’d appear, The Graces loose and laughing near. 

 [Footnote 36: Anac. Carm. P. 35. ]

Sweetness and natural elegance characterise the writings of this Poet, as much as carelessness and ease distinguished his manners. In some ofhis pieces there is exuberance and even wildness of imagination, as inthat particularly which is addressed to a young girl, where he wishesalternately to be transformed into a mirror, a coat, a stream, a bracelet, and a pair of shoes, for the different purposes which herecites[37]. This is meer sport and wantonness, and the Poet wouldprobably have excused himself for it, by alledging that he took nogreater liberties in his own sphere than his predecessors of the sameprofession had done in another. His indolence and love of ease is oftenpainted with great simplicity and elegance[38], and his writings aboundwith those beautiful and unexpected turns which are characteristic ofevery species of the Ode[39]. 

 [Footnote 37: Anac. P. 87. ]

 [Footnote 38: This appears remarkably in that piece, where he gives so ingenuous a character of himself. 

 Ὁν μοι μελει Γυγου Του Σαρδεων Ανακτος Το σημερον μελει μοι. P. 28. ]

 [Footnote 39: The reader will find a striking example of this beauty, in the Ode addressed to a swallow, where he runs a comparison betwixt the liberty of that bird and his own bondage. 

 Συ μεν φιλη χελιδων, &c. P. 60. ]

Though we must allow Anacreon to have been an original Genius, yet it isprobable, as I formerly observed, that he took Lyric Poetry as he foundit; and without attempting to correct imperfections, of which he mighthave been sensible, made on the contrary the same use of this which aman of address will do of the foibles of his neighbour, by employingthem to promote his own particular purposes. We may conclude indeed fromthe character of this Poet, that he was not fitted to strike out newlights in the field of Science, or to make considerable deviations fromthe practice of his Predecessors. He was, no doubt, of opinion likewise, that his manner was authorised in some measure by the example of theMitylenian Poetess, whose pieces are celebrated for softness anddelicacy[40], and who possessed above all others the art of selectingthe happiest circumstances which she placed likewise in the moststriking points of view[41]. Longinus produceth, as a proof of this, herfine Ode inscribed to a favourite attendant, in which the progression ofthat tumultuous emotion, which deprived her of her senses, is describedwith peculiar elegance and sensibility[42]. 

 [Footnote 40: Thus Horace represents her

 _Æoliis fidibus quærentem Sappho puellis de popularibus_. Lib. II. Od.  13. ]

 [Footnote 41: Θεου ἡ Σαπφω τα συμβαινοντα ταις ερωτικαις μανιαις παθηματα εκ των παρεπομενων, και εκ της αληθειας, αυτης ἑκαστοτε λαμβανει, &c. De Lub. C.  10. ]

 [Footnote 42: Longinus speaks with transport of this beautiful fragment of antiquity. Ου θαυμαζεις ὡς ὑπ’ αυτο την ψυχην το σωμα τας ακοας την γλωσσαν τας οψεις την χροαν, πανθ’ ὡς αλλοτρια διοιχομενοι επιζητει. Και καθ’ ὑπεναντιωσεις ἁμα ψυχεται, καιεται, αλογιστει, φρονει--ἱνα μη εν τι περι αυτην παθος φαινεται, παθων δε ΣΥΝΟΔΟΣ. De. Lub. C.  10. ]

We are at a loss to judge of the character of Alcæus, the countryman andrival of Sappho, because scarce any fragment of his writings has reachedthe present times. He is celebrated by the Ancients as a spiritedAuthor, whose poems abounded with examples of the sublime and vehement. Thus Horace says, when comparing him to Sappho, that he sung so forciblyof wars, disasters, and shipwrecks, that the Ghosts stood still to hearhim in silent astonishment[43]. The same Poet informs us, that helikewise sung of Bacchus, Venus, the Muses, and Cupid[44]. From thesesketches of his character we may conclude that his pieces weredistinguished by those marks of rapid and uncontrolled imagination, which we have found to characterise the works of the first Lyric Poets. 

 [Footnote 43: _Te sonantem plenius aureo Alcæe plectro, dura navis, Dura fugæ mala, dura belli. Utrumque sacro digna silentio Mirantur Utmbræ dicere. _ ----Hor. Ub. Sup. ]

 [Footnote 44: _Liberum & Musas, Veneremque & illi Semper hærentem puerum canebat, Et Lycum nigris oculis nigroque Crine decorum. _ Carm. Lib. I. Od. 32. ]

Your Lordship needs not be told, that the Roman Poet who had theadvantage of improving upon so many originals, takes in a greatervariety of subjects than any of his predecessors, and runs into morediffuse and diversified measure. I have said, my Lord, that his subjectsare more diversified, because in the character of a Lyric Poet we mustconsider him as a professed imitator both of Anacreon and of Pindar. Inthe former point of view he falls under our immediate cognisance; in thelatter we shall take a view of him afterwards, when we come to examinethe works of that great Original, whose example he follows. 

The Reader will observe, that in the shorter Odes of Horace there iscommonly one leading thought, which is finely enlivened with the gracesof description. A constant Unity of sentiment is therefore preserved ineach of them, and the abrupt starts and sallies of passion are soartfully interwoven with the principal subject, that upon a review ofthe whole piece, we find it to be a perfect imitation of Nature. ThisPoet (whose judgment appears to have been equal to his imagination) isparticularly careful to observe propriety in his most irregularexcursions, and the vivacity of his passion is justified by thecircumstances in which he is supposed to be placed. The diction of thesepoems is likewise adapted with great accuracy to the sentiment, as it isgenerally concise, forcible, and expressive. Brevity of language oughtindeed particularly to characterise this species of the Ode, in whichthe Poet writes from immediate feeling, and is intensely animated by hissubject. Delicacy is likewise indispensibly requisite, because thereader is apt to be disgusted with the least appearance of constraint orharshness in a poem, whose principal excellence lies in the happy andelegant turn of a pointed reflection. In short, little sallies andpicturesque epithets have a fine effect in pieces of this kind, as bythe former the passions are forcibly inflamed, and by the latter theireffects are feelingly exposed. 

Of all these delicate beauties of composition, the Odes of Horace aboundwith pregnant and striking examples. Sometimes he discovers the strengthof his passion, when he is endeavouring to forget it, by a sudden andlively turn which is wholly unexpected. Thus he tells Lydia, _Non si me satis audias, Speres perpetuum dulcia barbare Lædentem oscula, quæ Venus Quinta parte sui nectaris imbuit[45]. _

 [Footnote 45: Carm. Lib. I. Od. 13. ]

Sometimes his pictures are heightned with beautiful imagery, and heseizeth the imagination before he appeals to reason. Thus, when he isadvising his friend not to mourn any longer for a man who was dead, instead of proposing the subject immediately he says, _Non semper imbres nubibus hispidos Manant in agros_, &c. [46] Not always snow, and hail, and rain Defend, and beat the fruitful plain. CREECH. 

 [Footnote 46: Carm. Lib. II. Od. 9. ]

On other occasions he breaks abruptly into a short and spiritedtransition. 

 _Auditis? an me ludit amabilis Insania? audire et videor pios Errare per lucos, amœnæ Quos et aquae subeunt et auræ[47]. _

 Dos’t hear? or sporting in my brain, What wildly-sweet deliriums reign! Lo! mid Elysium’s balmy groves, Each happy shade transported roves! I see the living scene display’d, Where rills and breathing gales sigh murmuring thro’ the shade. 

 [Footnote 47: Id. Lib. III. Od. 4. ]

On some subjects he is led imperceptibly into a soft melancholy, whichpeculiar elegance of expression renders extremely agreeable in the endof this poem. There is a fine stroke of this kind in his Ode toSeptimus, with whom he was going to fight against the Cantabrians. He figures out a poetical recess for his old age, and then says, _Ille te mecum locus, et beatæ Postulant arces, ibi tu calentem Debita sparges lachryma favillam Vatis amici[48]. _

 That happy place, that sweet retreat. The charming hills that round it rise, Your latest hours, and mine await; And when your Poet Horace dyes; There the deep sigh thy poet-friend shall mourn, And pious tears bedew his glowing urn. FRANCIS. 

 [Footnote 48: Carm. Lib. II. Od. 6. ]

Upon the whole, my Lord, you will perhaps be of opinion, that though thesubjects of this second species of the Ode are wholly different fromthese of the first; yet the same variety of images, boldness oftransition, figured diction, and rich colouring which characterised thisbranch of poetry on its original introduction, continue to be uniformlyand invariably remarkable in the works of succeeding performers. Reflection indeed will induce us to acknowledge, that in this branch ofLyric Poetry the Author may be allowed to take greater liberties than wecould permit him to do in that which has formerly been mentioned. It isthe natural effect of any passion by which the mind is agitated, tobreak out into short and abrupt sallies which are expressive of itsimpetuosity, and of an imagination heated, and starting in the tumult ofthought from one object to another. To follow therefore the workings ofthe mind in such a situation and to paint them happily, is in otherwords to copy Nature. But your Lordship will observe, that thetransitions of the Poet who breaks from his subject to exhibit anhistorical detail whose connection with it is remote, or who issolicitous to display the fertility of a rich imagination at the expenceof perspicuity, when it is not supposed that his passions are inflamed:you will observe, my Lord, that his digressions are by no means soexcusable as those of the other, because obscurity in the latter may bean excellence, whereas in the former it is always a blemish. 

It is only necessary to observe farther on this head, that thedifference of the subjects treated by Anacreon and Horace, from those ofOrpheus, Museus, &c. Is owing to the different characters of the ages inwhich they lived. We could not indeed have expected to meet with anything very serious, at any period, from so indolent and careless awriter as Anacreon. But Luxury even in his time had made considerableprogress in the world. The principles of Theology were sufficiently wellestablished. Civil polity had succeeded to a state of confusion, and menwere become fond of ease and affluence, of wine and women. Anacreonlived at the court of a voluptuous Monarch[49], and had nothing todivert his mind from the pursuit of happiness in his own way. His Odestherefore are of that kind, in which the gentler Graces peculiarlypredominate. Sappho and Horace were employed in the same manner. TheLady had a Gallant, of whom it appears that she was extremely fond, andthe Roman Poet lived in a polite court, was patronized by a man ofdistinguished eminence, and was left at full liberty to pursue thatcourse of life to which he was most powerfully prompted by inclination. 

 [Footnote 49: Polycrates, Tyrant of Samos. ]

The poetic vein in these Writers takes that turn, which a stranger musthave expected upon hearing their characters. Their pieces are gay, entertaining, loose, elegant, and ornamented with a rich profusion ofthe graces of description. The reader of sensibility will receive thehighest pleasure from perusing their works, in which the internalmovements of the mind warmed by imagination, or agitated by passion, areexposed in the happiest and most agreeable attitudes. This, perhaps, isthe principal excellence of the looser branches of poetic composition. The mind of the Poet in these pieces is supposed to be intensely kindledby his subject. His Fancy assumes the rein, and the operation of reasonis for a moment suspended. He follows the impulse of enthusiasm, andthrows off those simple but lively strokes of Nature and Passion, whichcan only be felt, and are beyond imitation. 

 _Ut sibi quivis Speret idem, sudet multum, frustraque laboret Ausus idem_[50]!

 All may hope to imitate with ease: Yet while they drive the same success to gain, Shall find their labour and their hopes are vain. FRANCIS. 

 [Footnote 50: Hor. De Art. Poet. ]

The unequal measures which are used in these shorter Odes, are likewiseadapted with great propriety to the subjects of which they treat. Horacesays, that this inequality of numbers was originally fixed upon asexpressive of the complaints of a lover; but he adds, that they becamequickly expressive likewise of his exultation. 

 _Versibus impariter junctis Querimonia primum Post etiam inclusa est voti sententia compos[51]. _

 Unequal measures first were taught to flow, Sadly expressive of the Lover’s woe. 

 [Footnote 51: Id. Ibid. ]

These looser and shorter measures distinguish this branch of the Odefrom the Hymn which was composed in heroic measure[52], and from thePindaric Ode (as it is commonly called) to which the dithyrambique ormore diversified stanza was particularly appropriated. Of the shorterOde therefore it may be said with propriety, _Son stile impetueux souvent marche au hazarde Chez un beau disordre est un effect de l’art[53]. _

 [Footnote 52: Aristotle expressly mentions this circumstance, when he explains the Origin of the Drama. Παραφανεισας δε της Τραγωδιας και Κωμωδιας, οἱ εφ’ ἑκατερον τη ποιησεν ἁρμωντες κατα την οικειαν φυσιν οἱ μεν αντι των Ιαμβων, Κωμωδοποιοι εγενοντο‧ οἱ δε αντι των Επων τραγωδιδασκαλοι, δια τω μειζω και ενεμοτερα τα σχηματα ειναι ταυτα εκεινων. Arist. Poet. C.  4. ]

 [Footnote 53: Boil. Art. Poet. ]

Thus, my Lord, we have taken a view of the Lyric poetry of the Ancients, as it appeared originally in the works of the earliest Poets, and as itwas afterwards employed to enliven a train of more elegant and delicatesentiment. I have attempted, in the course of this enquiry, to followthe lights which Antiquity throws on this subject as closely aspossible, to explain facts by placing them in connection, and toillustrate reasoning by example. 

Your Lordship’s acquaintance with the principles of civil Government, and your experience of the effects of education have enabled you toobserve the _character_, which the Manners _of an age_ stamp upon theproductions of the Authors who live in it. Experience will convince us, that these general revolutions resemble more nearly than we are apt toimagine at first view, the circumstances of an Individual at thedifferent periods of life. In one age he is captivated by the beautiesof description, at another he is fond of the deductions of Philosophy;his opinions vary with his years, and his actions, as directed by these, are proportionably diversified. In all these circumstances however, theoriginal bias which he received from Nature remains unalterable, and thepeculiarity of his character appears conspicuous, notwithstanding theaccidental diversity of fluctuating sentiments. It is to be expected insuch a situation, that changes similar to these will usually take placein arts which are susceptible of perpetual mutation; and of this aparticular instance is exhibited in the preceding detail. Another branchof this subject remains to be considered, and on this I shall give yourLordship the trouble of perusing a few remarks in a subsequent letter. Permit me only to observe, from what hath already been advanced, thatthe ingredients of Genius are often bestowed by Nature, when the polishof Art is wanted to mould the original materials into elegantproportion. He who possesseth the former in the highest degree may be aShakespear or an Æschylus; but both were united in forming the moreperfect characters of Demosthenes and Homer. 

LETTER II. 

The view, my Lord, of the Lyric Poetry of the Ancients which has beentaken in the preceding part of this Essay, may probably have suggested aQuestion to your Lordship, to which it is necessary that an answershould be given, before I enter upon that part of the subject whichremains to be considered. From the observations formerly made, I amafraid that your Lordship has been looking upon my procedure, as youwould have viewed that of the honest Irishman, who pulled an old houseabout his ears, before he had reflected that it was necessary tosubstitute a better in its room. In the same manner you will perhapsthink, that I have taken a good deal of pains to point out the _Defects_of Lyric Poetry, and to assign the _Causes_ which originally producedthem; without however establishing the rules of this branch of the Art, and without enquiring what proportion of poetic embellishment naturallybelongs to it, considered as distinguished from every other species. 

Permit me therefore to observe, that my intention in the precedingremarks will be greatly mistaken, if, when I have been endeavouring toexpose the _abuse_ of imagination, it should be thought, either that Iwould wholly repress the excursions of this noble Faculty, or that Iwould confine its exercise within narrow limits. It must be obvious toevery person who reflects on this subject, that Imagination presidesover every branch of the Poetic Art, and that a certain infusion of herpeculiar beauties is necessary to constitute its real and essentialcharacter. The Poet therefore of every denomination may be said withgreat propriety in an higher sense than the Orator, “to paint to theeyes, and touch the soul, and combat with shining arms[54]. ” It is fromthis consideration that Horace says, speaking of Poetry in general, _Descriptas servare vices, operumque colores, Cur ego si nequeo ignoroque, Poeta salutor_[55]?

 [Footnote 54: Les grands Orateurs n’emploient que des expressions riches capables de faire valoir leurs raisons. Ils tachent d’eblouir les yeux, et l’esprit, et pour ce sujet ils ne combattent qu’avec des armes brillantes. Lam. Rhet. Liv. IV. C.  13. ]

 [Footnote 55: Hor. De Arte Poet. ]

Though the influence of imagination on every species of Poetry is soobvious, as not to stand in need of illustration, yet we must observe atthe same time, that this power is exerted in different degrees[56], asthe Poet is led by the nature of that subject to which his Genius hathreceived the most remarkable bias. Thus the simple beauties of theEclogue would appear in the same light, when transposed to the Epopee, as plants brought to forced vegetation in a Green-house must do to thosewho have seen them flourishing in their native soil, and ripened by thebenignity of an happier climate. In the one case they are considered asunnatural productions, whose beauty is surpassed by the Natives of thesoil; in the other they are regarded as just and decent ornaments, whosereal excellence is properly estimated. The same remark may be appliedindiscriminately to all the other branches of this art. Though they areoriginally the offspring of _one Parent_, yet there are certaincharacteristic marks, by which a general resemblance is fullydistinguished from perfect similarity. 

 [Footnote 56: Una cuique proposita lex, suus decor est. Habet tamen omnis Eloquentia aliquid commune. Quintil. Instit. Lib.  X c.  II. ]

It is necessary to observe in general on this subject, that whateverdegree of superiority the reasoning Faculty ought ultimately to possessin the sphere of Composition, we are not to consider this Power asacting the same part in the work of a Poet, which it should always actin that of a Philosopher. In the performance of the latter, an appeal toreason is formally stated, and is carried on by the process of connectedargumentation; whereas in that of the former the Judgment is_principally_ employed in the disposition of materials[57]. Thus thePhilosopher and the Poet are equally entitled to the character ofjudicious, when the arguments of the one are just and conclusive, andwhen the images of the other are apposite and natural. 

 [Footnote 57: In the Epopee we judge of the Genius of the Poet, by the variety and excellence of those materials with which Imagination enricheth his subject. His Judgment appears in the disposition of particular images, and in the general relation which every subordinate part bears to the principal action of the Poem. Thus it is the business of this Faculty, as an ingenious Critic says, “Considerer comme un corps qui no devoit pas avoir des membres de natures differentes, et independens les uns des autres. ” Bossu du Poem. Epiq. Liv.  II. Ch.  2. It is true indeed, that Tragedy is rather an address to the passions than to the imagination of mankind. To the latter however we must refer all those finer strokes of poetic painting, which actuate so forcibly the affections and the heart. We may, in short, easily conceive the importance of a warm imagination to the Dramatic Poet, by reflecting upon the coldness and indifference with which we peruse those pieces, which are not enlivened by the sallies of this Faculty when it is properly corrected. Though we must acknowledge that Passion seldom adopts the images of description, yet it must be owned at the same time, that neither can a person who wants imagination feel with sensibility the impulse of the Passions. A Poet may even merit a great encomium who excels in painting the effects, and in copying the language of Passion, though the Disposition of his work may be otherwise irregular and faulty. Thus Aristotle says of a celebrated dramatic Poet, Και Ὁ Ευριπιδης ει και τα αλλα μη ευ οικονομει, αλλα ΤΡΑΓΙΚΩΤΑΤΟΣ γε των Ποιητων φαινεται. De Poet. C. 13. Upon the whole therefore, Didactic or Ethical Poetry is the only species in which Imagination acts but a secondary part, because it is unquestionably the business of reason to fix upon the most forcible arguments, as well as to throw them into the happiest disposition. We have seen however, in some late performances, what superior advantages this branch of the Art receives from a just and proper infusion of the poetic idioms. ]

When your Lordship reflects on the Nature and End of Lyric Poetry, it will appear to be at least as much characterised by the Graces ofornament as any other species whatever. We have already seen that theOde was early consecrated to the purposes of Religion, and that it wasintended to raise Admiration by extolling the attributes of the SupremeBeing. On a subject of this nature the Poet probably thought, thatsublime and exuberant imagery was necessary to support the grandeur ofthose sentiments which were naturally suggested to his mind[58]. Evenwhen these original topics were laid aside, and the Lyric Muse acted inanother sphere, her strains were still employed, either to commemoratethe actions of Deified Heroes, or to record the exploits of persons whomrank and abilities rendered eminently conspicuous. 

 [Footnote 58: For this reason, says an ingenious and learned Critic, L’Ode monte dans les Cieux, pour y empronter ses images et ses comparaisons du tonnerre, des astres, et des Dieux memes, &c. Reflex. Crit. Vol. I. Sect.  33. ]

All these subjects afford a noble field for the play of imagination, andit is a certain truth that the purity of composition is generallydefective, in proportion to that degree of sublimity at which the Poetis capable of arriving[59]. Great objects are apt to confound and dazzlethe imagination. In proportion as this faculty expands to take them in, its power of conceiving them distinctly becomes less adequate to thesubject; and when the mind is overwrought and drained as it were ofsentiment, it is no wonder that we find it sometimes attempting torepair this loss, by substituting in the room of true sublimity anaffected pomp and exuberance of expression. 

 [Footnote 59: Εγω δε οιδα μεν ὡς αἱ ὑπερβολαι μεγεθους φυσαι ἡκιστα καθαραι. Το γαρ εν παντα ακριβες, κινδυνος σμικροτητος‧ εν δε τοις μεγεθεσιν ὡσπερ εν τοις αγαν πλουτοις, ειναι τε χρη και παραλιγωρουμενον. Μη ποτε ηδε τουτο και αναγκαιουσιν, το τας μεν τα{πειν}ας και μεσας φυσεις δια το μηδαμη παρακινδυνευειν μηδε εφιεσθαι των ακρων, αδαμαρτητου ὡς επι το πολυ και ασφαλεστερας διαφερειν. Longin. De Sublim. Sect.  33. ]

That we may conceive more fully the propriety of this observation withregard to Lyric Poetry, I shall now proceed to enquire what partImagination naturally claims in the composition of the Ode, and what arethe errors into which the Poet is most ready to be betrayed. 

As to the first, I need not tell your Lordship, that whatever Artproposeth as an ultimate end to excite Admiration, must owe itsprincipal excellence to that Faculty of the mind which delights tocontemplate the sublime and the wonderful. This indeed may be called thesphere, in which Imagination peculiarly predominates. When we attempt, even in the course of conversation, to paint any object whosemagnificence hath made a strong impression upon the memory, we naturallyadopt the boldest and most forcible epithets we can think of, to conveyour own idea as compleatly as possible to the mind of another. We areprompted by a powerful propensity to retouch our description again andagain, we select the most apposite images to animate our expression;in short, we fall without perceiving it, into the stile and figures ofpoetry. If then Admiration produceth such an effect upon the mind in themore common occurrences of life, we may conceive the superior influencewhich it must have upon the imagination of a Poet, when it is wound upto the highest pitch, and is placing a great object in every point oflight by which its excellence may most conspicuously appear. It will atleast be obvious, that in such a situation the feelings of the heartmust be more intensely animated than in any other, not only becauseGenius is supposed to be the Parent of Sensibility, but as the personwho is possessed of this quality exerts the full force of his talentsand art to produce one particular effect. He endeavours (as Longinusexpresseth it) “not to be seen himself, but to place the idea which hehath formed before the very eye of another[60]. ”

 [Footnote 60: De Sublim. Sect. 32. ]

It is a common mistake among people who have not examined this subject, to suppose that a Poet may with greater ease excite Admiration when histheme is sublime, than when it is such as we have been more accustomedto contemplate[61]. This opinion is indeed plausible at the first view, because it may be said that we go half-way to meet that Author, whoproposeth to reach an end by means which have an apparent probability toeffectuate it; but it will appear upon reflection, that this verycircumstance, instead of being serviceable, is in reality detrimental tothe Poet. 

 [Footnote 61: The reader will observe, that Admiration through the whole of this part of the Essay is taken in the largest sense, as including a considerable degree of wonder, which is however a distinct feeling. The former is excited principally by the sublime; the latter by the new and uncommon. These feelings are united, when a subject of moderate dignity is treated in a sublime manner. See the Essay, p.  47,  48. ]

Admiration is a passion which can never be excited in any person, unlesswhen there is something great and astonishing, either in the generaldisposition of a work or in some of the separate members of which it isformed. Thus we admire a whole piece, when we observe that the partswhich compose it are placed in a striking and uncommon combination, andwe even consider one happy stroke as an indication of genius in theArtist. It frequently happens that the subject of a Poem is of such anature, as that its most essential members cannot be set in any lightdistinct from that in which custom and experience has led us to considerthem. Thus when the Poet addressed an Hymn to Jupiter, Diana, or Apollo, he could not be ignorant that his readers were well apprised of thegeneral manner, in which it was necessary to treat of these Personages, and that they would have been offended, if he had presumed to differ inany material point from the opinions handed down by traditionaryevidence. It was therefore necessary, that the Poet should manage asubject of this kind in the same manner as Rubens and Caypel havepainted the Crucifixion, by either varying _the attitude_ of theprincipal object to make it more sublime and admirable, or by renderingsome _inferior figure_ picturesque and animated which had escaped thenotice of his Predecessors. When therefore a sublime object is not shownin some great and uncommon point of view, the Poet sinks in our esteemas much as he would have risen in it, if we had found his Genius equalto his Ambition. 

As I have already borrowed one illustration from painting, permit me torecall to your Lordship’s memory, that noble figure by which the Churchof Rome permitted Raphael to represent the Eternal Father, a figurewhich has always been considered as one of the greatest ornaments of thegalleries of the Vatican[62]. Any person may conclude that thedifficulty of succeeding in this great attempt, must have bore someproportion to the _temerity_ (shall we call it) of venturing to designit. If this celebrated Artist had failed of throwing into that figure anAir wholly extraordinary, his Design would either have been consideredas rash, or his imagination censured as deficient. 

 [Footnote 62: Raphael is said to have stolen the expression of this figure from Michael Angelo, who was at work on the same subject in another part of the Vatican. We are indebted for this curious anecdote to the ingenious Abbe du Bos. See his Reflex. Crit. Sur la Poes. Et la Peint. Vol.  II. ]

On the contrary, the Poet who chuseth a more unpromising subject, anddisplays an unexpected fertility of invention in his manner of treatingit, is admired as an Original Genius, and the perusal of his workexcites in our mind the most agreeable mixture of surprize and pleasure. 

It must immediately occur to any reader who peruseth the Hymn ofCallimachus to Jupiter, that the subject was too great to be properlymanaged by the correct and elegant genius of that writer. Instead ofenlarging (as we should have naturally expected) on any particularperfection of this Supreme Deity, or even of enumerating in a poeticalmanner the attributes which were commonly ascribed to Him, he entertainsus coldly with traditionary stories about His birth and education; andthe sublime part of his subject is either wholly omitted, orsuperficially passed over. Thus speaking of the bird of Jove, he saysonly, Θηκαο δ’ οιωνον μεγ’ ὑπειροχον αγγελεωτην, Σων τεραων‧ ἁτ’ εμοισι φιλοις ενδεξια φαινοις[63]. 

 Thy bird, celestial messenger, who bears Thy mandate thro’ the sky;--O be his flight Propitious to my friends!

 [Footnote 63: Callim. Hymn. In Jov. A lin.  68. ]

Pindar introduceth this King of the feathered race in a much nobler andmore animated manner. He exhibits with true poetic enthusiasm, as aninstance of the power of harmony, the following vivid picture. 

 -- -- -- -- -- εὑ- δει ανα σκαπτω Διος αιετος, ω- κειαν πτερυγ’ αμφοτερω- θεν χαλαξεις, Αρχος αιωνων‧ -- -- -- -- ὁ δε κνωσσων ὑγρον νωτον αιωρει, τεαις ρεπαισι κατασχομενος[64]. 

 The birds fierce Monarch drops his vengeful ire; Perch’d on the sceptre of the Olympian King, The thrilling darts of harmony he feels, And indolently hangs his rapid wing, While gentle sleep his closing eye-lids seals; And o’er his heaving limbs, in loose array To every balmy gale the ruffling feathers play. WEST. 

 [Footnote 64: Pind. Pyth. I. ]

Homer never touches this sublime subject, without employing the utmostreach of his invention to excite admiration in his reader. 

 Ζευς δε Πατηρ ιδηθεν ευτροχον ἁρμα και ἱππους Ολυμπονδ’ εδιωκε, θεων δ’ εξεκετο θωκους. Τω δε και ἱππους μεν λυσε κλυτος Εννοσιγαιος Ἁρματα δ’ αμβρωμοισι τιθει, κατα λιτα πετασσας. Αυτος δε χρυσειον επι θρωνον ευρυοπα Ζευς Ἑζετο, τω δε ὑπο ποσσι μεγας πελεμιζετ’ Ολυμπος[65]. 

 ---- The Thund’rer meditates his flight From Ida’s summits to th’ Olympian height. Swifter than thought the wheels instinctive fly, Flame thro’ the vast of air, and reach the sky. ’Twas Neptune’s charge his coursers to unbrace, And fix the car on its immortal base, &c. He whose all-conscious eyes the world behold, Th’ eternal Thunderer, sate thron’d in gold. High heav’n the footstool of his feet He makes, And wide beneath him all Olympus shakes. POPE. 

 [Footnote 65: Iliad. Lib. VIII. ]

I have mentioned these examples, as they shew the light in which a greatobject will be contemplated by a man of genius; and as the reader willobserve that our admiration is not merely excited by the dignity of thetheme, but that it results from the great and uncommon circumstanceswhich are happily thrown into the description. Pindar, no doubt, foundit a much easier task to raise this passion in favour of Theron, whom heartfully introduceth to the reader’s attention, after enquiring of hisMuse what God or what distinguished Heroe he should attempt tocelebrate[66]. 

 [Footnote 66: This is one of the most artful and best conducted of Pindar’s Odes. The introduction is abrupt and spirited, and the Heroe of the Poem is shown to great advantage. 

 Αναξιφορμιγγες ὑμνοι τινα θεον, τιν’ ἡροα, τινα δ’ ανδρα κελαδησομεν; ητοι πισα μεν Διος‧ Ολυμπιαδα δ’ εστα- σεν Ηρακλεης, &c. Θηρωνα δε τετραοριας ἑνεκα νεκαφορου γεγωνητεον, οπε &c. Pind. Olym. 2da. ]

It is however obvious, from what hath been advanced on this subject, that whatever may be the nature of the theme on which the Poet insists, it is the business of Fancy to enliven the whole piece with thosenatural and animating graces which lead us to survey it with admiration. From the whole therefore it appears, that this Faculty of the mindclaims an higher share of merit in the competition of the Ode than inany other species of Poetry; because in the other branches of this artdifferent ends may be obtained, and different expedients may be fallenupon to gain them; but the most perfect kind of Lyric Poetry admits onlyof that end, to the attainment of which fertility of Imagination isindispensably requisite. 

You will recollect, my Lord, a petition laid down in the beginning ofthis Essay;--that “when Imagination is permitted to bestow the graces ofornament indiscriminately, sentiments are either superficial, and thinlyscattered through a work, or we are obliged to search for them beneath aload of superfluous colouring. ” I shall now endeavour to evince thetruth of this reflection, by enquiring more particularly what are thefaults into which the Lyric Poet is most ready to be betrayed, by givinga loose rein to that Faculty which colours and enlivens his composition. 

It may be observed then in general, that we usually judge of the Geniusof a Lyric Poet by the variety of his _images_, the boldness of his_transitions_, and the picturesque vivacity of his _descriptions_. I shall under this head trouble your Lordship with a few reflections oneach of these considered separately. 

By the Images which are employed in the Ode, I mean those illustrationsborrowed from _natural_ and often from _familiar_ objects, by which thePoet either clears up an obscurity, or arrests the attention, andkindles the imagination of his reader. These illustrations have verydistinct uses in the different species of poetic composition. Thegreatest Masters in the Epopee often introduce metaphors, which haveonly a general relation to the subject; and by pursuing these through avariety of circumstances, they disengage the reader’s attention from theprincipal object. This indeed often becomes necessary in pieces oflength, when attention begins to relax by following too closely oneparticular train of ideas. It requires however great judgment in thePoet to pursue this course with approbation, as he must not only fixupon metaphors which in some points have a striking similarity to theobject illustrated, but even the digressive circumstances must be soconnected with it, as to exhibit a succession of sentiments whichresemble, at least remotely, the subject of his Poem[67]. It must beobvious, at first view, that as the Lyric Poet cannot adopt this plea, his metaphors will always have the happiest effect, when they correspondto the object in such a manner, as to shew its compleat proportions inthe fullest point of view, without including foreign and unappropriatedepithets. This however is not the course which a Writer of imaginationwill naturally follow, unless his judgment restrains the excursions ofthat excentric faculty. He will, on the contrary, catch with eagernessevery image which Fancy enlivens with the richest colouring, and he willcontemplate the external beauty of his metaphor, rather than considerthe propriety with which it is applied as an illustration. It isprobably owing to this want of just attention to propriety, that thefirst Lyric Poets have left such imperfect standards to the imitation ofposterity. 

 [Footnote 67: The reader will meet with many examples of this liberty in the Iliad, some of which Mr. Pope has judiciously selected in the notes of his translation. Milton, in the same spirit, compares Satan lying on the lake of fire, to a Leviathan slumbering on the coast of Norway; and immediately digressing from the strict points of connection, he adds, “that the mariners often mistake him for an island, and cast anchor on his side. ” Par. Lost, B.  II. In this illustration it is obvious, that though the Poet deviates from close imitation, yet he still keeps in view the general end of his subject, which is to exhibit a picture of the fallen Arch angel. See Par. Lost, B.  I. ]

When we examine the works of later Poets among the Ancients, we findthat even those of them who are most exceptionable in othercircumstances, have yet in a great measure corrected this mistake oftheir predecessors. In the lyric Odes of Euripides and Sophocles, themetaphors made use of are generally short, expressive, and fitted tocorrespond with great accuracy to the point which requires to beillustrated[68]. Pindar is in many instances equally happy in the choiceof his images, which are frequently introduced with address, and producea very striking effect[69]. 

 [Footnote 68: The reader may consider, as an example, of the following verses of the Ode of Sophocles to the Sun. 

 Πολλα γαρ ὡστ’ ακαμαντος η Νωτου η Βορεα τις κυματα ευρει ποντω βαντ’ επιοντα τ’ ιδοι οὑτο δε τον καδμογενη τρεφει‧ το δ’ αυξει βιοτου πολυπονον ὡστε πελαγος κρητιον. Soph. Trachin. ]

 [Footnote 69: Of this the reader will find a noble instance in Pindar’s first Pythian Ode, where he employs from the verse beginning ναυσιφορηταις δ’ αδρασεα, &c. To the end of the stanza, one of the happiest and most natural illustrations that is to be met with either in the works of Pindar, or in those of any Poet whatever. The abrupt address to Phœbus, when he applies the metaphor, is peculiarly beautiful. ]

It is likewise necessary that the Poet should take care in the higherspecies of the Ode, to assign to every object that precise degree ofcolour, as well as that importance in the arrangement of sentimentswhich it seems peculiarly to demand. The same images which would beconsidered as capital strokes in some pieces can be admitted only assecondary beauties in others; and we might call in question both thejudgment and the imagination of that Poet who attempts to render a faintillustration adequate to the object, by clothing it with profusion ofornament. A defect likewise either in the choice, or in the disposition, of images, is conspicuous in proportion to the importance of thesubject, as well as to the nature of those sentiments with which itstands in more immediate connection. It is therefore the business of theLyric Poet, who would avoid the censure of competing with inequality, to consider the colouring of which particular ideas are naturallysusceptible, and to discriminate properly betwixt sentiments, whosenative sublimity requires but little assistance from the pencil of art, and a train of thought which (that it may correspond to the former)demands the heightening of poetic painting. The astonishing inequalitieswhich we meet with, even in the productions of unquestioned Genius, areoriginally to be deduced from the carelessness of the Poet who permittedhis imagination to be hurried from one object to another, dwelling withpleasure upon a favourite idea, and passing slightly over intermediatesteps, that he may catch that beauty which fluctuates on the gaze ofExpectation. 

I shall only observe further on this subject, that nothing is morecontrary to the end of Lyric Poetry, than that habit of spinning out ametaphor which a Poet sometimes falls into by indulging the sallies ofimagination. This will be obvious, when we reflect that every branch ofthe Ode is characterised by a peculiar degree of vivacity and evenvehemence both of sentiment and expression. It is impossible to preservethis distinguishing character, unless the thoughts are diversified, andthe diction is concise. When a metaphor is hunted down (if I may usethat expression) and a description overwrought, its force and energy aregradually lessened, the object which was originally new becomesfamiliar, and the mind is satiated instead of being inflamed. 

We must not think that this method of extending an illustrationdiscovers always a defect or sterility of the inventive Faculty. It is, in truth, the consequence of that propensity which we naturally feel toconsider a favourite idea in every point of light, and to render itsexcellence as conspicuous to others as it is to ourselves. By this meanssentiments become _superficial_, because the mind is more intent upontheir _external dress_, that their _real importance_. They are likewise_thinly scattered through a work_, because each of them receives anhigher proportion or ornament than justly belongs to it. We frequentlyjudge of them likewise, in the same manner as a birthday suit isestimated by its purchaser, not by the standard of intrinsic value, butby the opinion of the original proprietor. Thus to superficial readers, ------ _verbum emicuit si forte decorum, Si versus paulo concinnior unus aut alter Injuste totum ducit, venditque poema[70]. _

 One simile that solitary shines In the dry desart of a thousand lines, Or lengthen’d thought that gleams thro’ many a page, Has sanctified whole poems for an age. POPE. 

 [Footnote 70: Hor. Epist. Lib. II. Epist.  1. ]

Custom, my Lord, that sovereign arbiter, from whose decision in literaryas well as in civil causes, there frequently lies no appeal, will leadus to consider boldness of transition as a circumstance which ispeculiarly characteristic of the Ode. Lyric Poets have in all agesappropriated to themselves the liberty of indulging imagination in hermost irregular excursions; and when a digression is remotely similar tothe subject, they are permitted to fall into it at any time by theinvariable practice of their Predecessors. Pindar expressly lays claimto this privilege. 

 Εγκαμιων γαρ αωτες Υυμνων επ’ αλλοτ’ αλλον ως τε με- λισσα θυνει λογον. [71]

 The song that spreads some glorious name Shifts its bold wing from theme to theme; Roves like the bee regardless o’er, And culls the spoils of every flower. 

 [Footnote 71: Pin. Pyth. Ode X. ]

We must indeed acknowledge in general, that when an high degree ofspirit and vivacity is required to characterize any species ofcomposition, the Author may be allowed to take greater liberties than weshould grant to another, whose subject demanded regularity andconnection. Let it however be observed at the same time, that thisfreedom is often granted, not because the theme indispensibly requires, but because we naturally expect it from the genius of the Writer. Wejustly suppose, that the Philosopher seldom mistakes his talents so faras to be solicitous of shining in a sphere, for which he must knowhimself to be wholly disqualified; and from the work of a Poet whoaddresseth imagination, we look for those marks of wildness andincoherence which discover the extent of that faculty. 

I have acknowledged in a former part of this Essay, that the shorter Odenot only admits of bold and spirited transitions, but that these are inmany instances necessary to constitute a perfect imitation ofnature[72]. This observation however cannot be applied with so muchpropriety to the other kinds of it, because the transport of passion isabrupt, instantaneous, and the mind returns suddenly to the point fromwhich it had digressed. On the contrary, as the passions cannot be kepton their full stretch for any considerable time, we expect that in thehigher species of Lyric Poetry, the Poet will keep the principal objectmore immediately in his eye, and that his transitions will never make uslose sight of it so far, as not to recall with ease the intermediatepoints of connection. 

 [Footnote 72: Letter I. P. Xxxiii. ]

When this rule is not violated, we can enter with pleasure into thedesign of the Poet, and consider his work as a whole in which everyseparate member has its distinct and proper use. Thus, when Pindar iscelebrating Aristagoras, we can easily observe that the Poet’s obliqueencomium on the Father and friends of his Heroe, is introduced withgreat propriety, as every remark of this kind reflects additional lustreon the character of the principal personage[73]. We are even sometimeshighly entertained with digressions, which have not so near a relationto the subject of the Ode as the last mentioned circumstance; becausethough the immediate design is not going forward, we can still howeverkeep it in view with the same ease, as a traveller can do the publicroad, from which he willingly makes an excursion to survey theneighbouring country. Thus the noble panegyric upon the whole peopleof Rhodes, and the account of their Founder Tlepolemus, which we meetwith in the Ode inscribed to Diagoras the Rhodian; these are happy andbeautiful embellishments, whose introduction enlivens the whole piecewith a proper variety of objects[74]. 

 [Footnote 73: Pin. Nem. Ode XI. ]

 [Footnote 74: Id. Olym. Ode VII. ]

The same principle which induceth us to approve of Poet’s transitions inthe preceding instances, must (as your Lordship will immediatelyconceive) lead us to condemn those which are far-fetched, pursued tooclosely, or foreign to the subject of the poem. This is frequently theconsequence of following the track of imagination with implicitcompliance, as the Poet without being sensible of his mistake runs intoone digression after another, until his work is made up of incoherentideas; in which, as Horace expresseth it, velut ægri somnia vanæ Finguntur species, ut nec pes, nec caput uni Reddatur formæ[75]. 

This is the character of the Ode to Thrasidæus the Theban, in which thePoet is insensibly led from one digression to another, until his readerslose sight of the principal subject which is dropped almost as soon asproposed[76]. 

 [Footnote 75: Hor. De Art. Poet. ]

 [Footnote 76: Pind. Pyth. Ode XI. ]

The last circumstance mentioned as characteristic of the Ode, was acertain picturesque vivacity of description. In this we permit the LyricPoet to indulge himself with greater freedom than any other, becausebeauties of this kind are necessary to the end of exciting admiration. It is the peculiar province of imagination to give that life andexpression to the ideas of the mind, by which Nature is most happily andjudiciously imitated. By the help of this poetical magic the coldestsentiments become interesting, and the most common occurrences arrestour attention. A man of Genius, instead of laying down a series of dryprecepts for the conduct of life, exhibits his sentiments in the mostanimating manner, by moulding them into symmetry, and superadding theexternal beauties of drapery and colour[77]. His reader by thisexpedient is led through an Elysium, in which his Fancy is alternatelysoothed and transported with a delightful succession of the mostagreeable objects, whose combination at last suggests an important moralto be impressed upon the memory. The Ancients appear to have been fullysensible of the advantages of this method of illustrating truth, as theworks not only of their Poets, but even those of their Philosophers andHistorians abound with just and beautiful personifications[78]. Theirtwo allegorical Philosophers, Prodicus and Cebes, carry the matter stillfurther, and inculcate their lessons, by substituting in place of cooladmonition a variety of personages, who assume the most dignifiedcharacter, and address at the same time the imagination, the passions, and even the senses of mankind[79]. These Authors consider man as acreature possessed of different, and of limited faculties, whose actionsare directed more frequently by the impulse of passion, than regulatedby the dictates of reason and of truth[80]. 

 [Footnote 77: Thus the reader, who would pay little regard to the person who should forbid him to trust the world too much, will yet be struck with this simple admonition, when it appears in the work of a genius. 

 Lean not on earth, ’twill pierce thee to the heart; A broken reed at best, but oft’ a spear, On its sharp point Peace bleeds, and Hope expires. NIGHT THOUGHTS. ]

 [Footnote 78: Thus Xenophon, the simplest and most perspicuous of Historians, has borrowed many noble images from Homer; and Plato is often indebted to this Poet, whom yet he banished from his Commonwealth. Cicero in his most serious pieces studies the _diction_, and copies the _manner_ of the Greek Philosopher; and it evidently appears, that Thucydides has taken many a _glowing Metaphor_ from the Odes of Pindar. We might produce many examples of this from their writings, if these would not swell this note to too great a length. The reader of taste may see this subject fully discussed in Mr. Gedde’s ingenious Essay on the Composition of the Ancients. ]

 [Footnote 79: Δει δε τους μυθους συνισταναι, και τη λεξει συναπεργαζεσθαι οντι μαλιστα προς ομματων τεθεμενον. Οὑτο γαρ αν’ εναργεστατα ὁρων ὡσπερ παρ αυτοις γιγνομενος τοις πραττομενοις, εὑρισκοι το πρεπον, και ἡκιστα αν’ λανθανοιτο τα ὑπεναντια. Arist. Poet. C.  17. ]

 [Footnote 80: Thus Cicero tells us. Nec est majus in dicendo, quam ut Orator sic moveatur, ut impetu quodam animi, & perturbatione magis quam concilio regatur. Plura enim multo homines judicant odio, & amore, & cupiditate, &c. Quam veritate & præscripto. De Orat. Lib. II. C.  42. ]

It is obvious, that in Lyric Poetry the Author cannot run into thisseries of methodised allegory, because the subjects of the Ode are realincidents which would be disfigured by the continued action offictitious personages. His descriptions therefore ought to be concise, diversified, and adapted properly to that train of sentiment which he isemployed to illustrate. When this is the case, we are highly entertainedwith frequent personifications, as these are criterions by which weestimate the genius of the Poet. 

I need not, my Lord, to suggest on this branch of my subject, that itrequires the utmost delicacy to personify inanimate objects so justly, as to render them adapted in every circumstance to the occasion on whichthey are introduced. Your Lordship however will permit me to observe, that as the happiest effect is produced upon the mind of the reader bythe judicious introduction of an ideal personage; so he is apt to bedisgusted in an equal degree, when the conduct of the Poet in thisinstance is in the smallest measure irregular or defective. When anintellectual idea falls under the cognizance of an external sense, it isimmediately surveyed with an accuracy proportioned to its importance, and to the distance at which we suppose it to be placed. We judge ofVirtue and Vice, when represented as persons, in the same manner as wejudge of men whose appearance is suggested by memory; and we thereforeexpect that these ideal figures shall be discriminated from each otherby their dress, attitudes, features, and behaviour, as much as two realpersons of opposite characters always are in the familiar intercourse ofordinary life. In reality we assign a particular shape, complection, andmanner to the creatures of imagination, by the same rule which leads usto ascribe a certain assemblage of features to a person whom we havenever seen, upon seeing his character particularly displayed, or uponlistening to a minute detail of his actions. Nay, odd as it may appear, it is yet certain, that in many instances our idea of the imaginaryperson may be more distinct and particular than that of the real one. Thus we often find that the representation exhibited by Fancy of thefigure of an Heroe, whose actions had raised admiration; I say, we findthat this representation has been wide of the truth, when we come eitherto see the original, or a faithful copy of it: but our ideas ofimaginary persons are generally so exact, that upon seeing a group ofthese displayed on a plate, we are capable to give each its properdesignation, as soon as we observe it. Thus Anger, Revenge, Despair, Hope, &c. Can be distinguished from each other almost as easily whenthey are copied by the pencil, as when _we feel their influence on ourown minds, or make others observe it on our actions_. 

From this detail it obviously follows, that as our ideas of imaginarypersonages are more just and accurate, than those which are excitedmerely by a particular relation of the actions of real ones; so we willjudge with more certainty of the precise colouring which belongs to theformer, and of the propriety with which they are introduced, than we canpossibly do with regard to the latter. A Painter may deceive us, bythrowing into the face of an Heroe, whom we have never seen, particularmarks of resolution and fortitude, which form only a part of hischaracter. But we cannot be deceived with regard to the signatures whichshow the predominancy of these virtues, with whatever degree of justicethey may be applied. This observation has equal force, when we refer itto the allegorical personages of the Poet. The least impropriety in thecolouring, dress, or arrangement of objects, is immediately perceptible, and we pass a favourable judgment, when faults of this kind are ascribedto inattention. In short, the imaginary persons who are introduced in apoem, must on all occasions be distinguished by peculiar characters, andthe manners attributed to each of them ought to be such as can beapplied with no propriety to any other object. Every picture musttherefore be, as Pope somewhere has it, Something whose truth convinc’d at sight we find. That gives us back the image of the mind. 

A little reflection will enable us to discover the reason of thisdifference betwixt our ideas of allegorical and of real personages. We are (as I formerly observed) often mistaken in our notions of thelatter of these, because the mind cannot receive a sufficient degreeof information, concerning the person, to be able to form any perfectjudgment of his address or demeanour. Upon hearing, for instance, a recital of the actions of a man who is unknown to us, our idea ofhim is taken from the passion which appears to have predominated in hisconduct; but we are not acquainted with numberless little peculiaritieswhich enter into a complicated character, and have their correspondingexpressions imprinted on the countenance. Thus when we consider only themartial exploits of the celebrated Duke de Vendome, we have the idea ofan Heroe full of spirit and impetuosity; but this idea would be veryimperfect as a representation of his character, if we did not knowlikewise that he was slovenly, voluptuous, effeminate, and profuse[81]. 

 [Footnote 81: Volt. Siec. Louis XIV. C. 21. ]

These different ingredients, which enter into the mind of a real agent, ought likewise to be nicely estimated as to the degrees in which theypredominate, before we could be properly qualified to judge of theirinfluence on his external appearance. As it is evidently impossible thatwe can ever be thoroughly apprised of the former, it is thereforeobvious that our judgment of the latter must be always imperfect. On thecontrary, we are never at a loss to conceive a just idea of one simpleexpression, because the Original from which the Copy is drawn exists inour own mind. We are likewise naturally taught to distinguish properlythe insignia of imaginary creatures. Thus Fear is always known by her_bristled hair_, Admiration by his _erected eyes_, Time has his _scythe_and his _hour-glass_, and Fortune (unchangeable in one sense) stands_blind_ on the _globe_, to which she was exalted by Cebes[82]. 

 [Footnote 82: Cebet. Tab. ]

I ought, my Lord, to apologize for the length of this Digression on thenature of allegorical Persons; a subject which I have treated moreparticularly, as I do not remember to have seen it canvassed minutely byany Writer either ancient or modern. 

I shall only observe further on this head, that though a Poet is seldomin hazard of being grossly faulty, with respect to the dress andinsignia of his personages, yet intemperate imagination will induce himto use this noble figure too frequently by personifying objects of smallcomparative importance; or by leaving the simple and natural path, toentangle himself in the labyrinth of Fiction. This is the fault whichwe have already found to characterise the writings of the first LyricPoets, from which we should find it an hard task to vindicate theirsuccessors, even in the most improved state of ancient learning. Insteadof producing examples of this intemperance, which the Greek Theology waspeculiarly calculated to indulge, I shall only observe in general, thatwe are mistaken in thinking that the Genius of a Poet is indicated bythe diversified incidents which enter into his Fable. True Genius, evenin its most early productions, be discovered rather by _vivid_ and_picturesque descriptions_, than by any circumstances howeverextraordinary in the _narration_ of _events_. It is no difficult matterto conceive a series of fictitious incidents, and to connect themtogether in one story, though it requires judgment to do this in such amanner, as that the whole may have some happy and continued allusion totruth. We can imagine, for instance, with great ease something asimpossible as Ariosto’s Magician pursuing the man who had taken off hishead. But it will be found a much more difficult task, either to throwout one of those strokes of Nature which penetrate the heart, and cleaveit with terror and with pity; or to paint Thought in such strikingcolours, as to render it immediately visible to the eye[83]. 

 [Footnote 83: Upon the principle established here, we may account in some measure for Voltaire’s apparently paradoxical assertion, with regard to the comparative merit of Homer and Tasso. The Italian (says that spirited writer) has more conduct, variety and justness than the Greek. Admitting the truth of this reflection, we might still reply, that the principal merit of the Iliad, considered as the production of Genius, lies in the grandeur of the sentiments, the beauty and sublimity of the illustrations, and the _original_ strokes which are wrought into the description of the _principal Actors_. In all these respects we may venture to affirm, that Homer remains without a superior among Authors unaided by Inspiration; and the reader must be left to judge whether or not it is from these criterions that we estimate the Genius of a Poet. Our Author proceeds upon the same principles to compare the Orlando Furioso with the Odyssey, and give a preference to the former. The merit of these works may be ascertained in some measure, by the rules we have already established. We need only to add further on this head, that among many beauties we meet with examples of the turgid and bombast in the work of Ariosto; from which that of the Greek Poet is wholly free. The two first lines of his Poem, _Le Donne, e Cavalieri, l’arme, gli amore, Le Cortesie l’audaci impresi io canto. _

 if they do not put one in mind of the Cyclic Writer mentioned by Horace, who begins his Poem with

 _Fortunam Priami cantabo, & nobile bellum. _

 yet are of a very different strain from those which introduce the Odyssey, Ανδρα μοι ενεπε Μουσα πολυτροπον, ὅς μαλα πολλα Πλαγκθη &c. 

 I cannot help thinking that the whole of this introduction is remarkably simple and unornamented, though a very judicious and ingenious Critic seems to be of a contrary opinion. ]

The noblest instances of this personification are to be found in theSacred Writings. Nothing can exceed the majesty, with which the descentof the Almighty is described by the Prophet Habakkuk. “Before Him (hetells us) went the Pestilence, &c. ” then suddenly addressing the Deityin the second person, he says “the Mountains _saw Thee_, and they_trembled_, the Overflowing of the waters _passed by_, the _Deep utteredhis voice_, and _lift up his hands_ on high[84]. ” In another place, theDeluge is nobly animated, in order to display the Omnipotence of God. “The waters (says the Psalmist) stood above the mountains. At thy rebukethey _fled_, at the voice of thy thunder they _hasted away_. ”

 [Footnote 84: Hab. Ch. Iii. V. 3. ]

From this simple and impartial view of the Lyric Poetry of the Ancients, considered as one branch of a cultivated Art, your Lordship will perhapsbe inclined to conclude, that in the Arts, as in the characters of men, those which are susceptible of the highest excellence, are likewisefrequently marked with the most striking defects. This mixture of beautyand deformity, of grandeur and meanness, which enters so often into theaction as well as the speculation of mankind, ought to be considered asthe characteristic of the human mind, which in the chimerical pursuit ofperfection is hurried by its own impetuosity from one extreme toanother. Your Lordship has, no doubt, frequently observed, that there isupon the whole a greater uniformity in the characters of men thansuperficial enquiry would lead us to conceive. A temptation operatingforcibly on the ruling passion will produce in a temper naturally gentleand equal, an irregularity as remarkable, and sometimes carried to agreater length, than the most powerful stimulus is able to excite in aman of warm passions, and florid imagination. This is a fact, of whichexperience will suggest examples to every person who is conversant withmankind. 

We ought not therefore to wonder, when we observe in the writings of aGreat Genius beauties and blemishes blended promiscuously, and when wefind the Poet’s imagination distinguished only by those marks ofinaccuracy which appear in the actions of others, and which areultimately to be derived from the complicated ingredients of the humanmind. 

I have been led into this train of reflection, as it will enable us toaccount for the inequalities which are to be met with in the writings ofPindar, exposed as they have been to the admiration, and to the censureof posterity. Whatever propriety the preceding rules may have withregard to Lyric Poetry, it is certain that this Poet is not the standardfrom whose work they are deduced. We have already seen that He himselfdisclaims all conformity to the shackles of method, and that he insistsupon the privilege of giving a loose rein to the excursions ofimagination. The consequences of this proceeding are eminentlyconspicuous in every part of his writings. His composition is colouredwith that rich imagery which Fancy throws upon the coldest sentiments, his digressions are often too frequent and but remotely connected withthe principal subject, his personifications are bold and exuberant, andhe has made as free an use of theological fable as any Poet among theAncients. 

The learned and ingenious Translator of Pindar has suggested severalstriking pleas in his favour, both with respect to the _connection ofhis thoughts_ and the _regularity of his measure_[85]. To resume on thepresent occasion any part of what he hath advanced, would be equallyuseless and improper. As to the first, I shall only add to thisGentleman’s observations, that all the writings of Pindar which havereached the present times are of the panegyrical kind, in which _remotecircumstances_ and _distant allusions_ are often referred to with greatpropriety; that sometimes several Odes are inscribed to _the sameperson_; and that all of them are wrote on subjects too _exactlysimilar_ to afford room for _continued variety of description_, withoutallowing him frequently to digress. It is obvious that in thesecircumstances the Poet must have been forcibly prompted to indulge thenatural exuberance of his genius, that he might gain materials to fillup his subject, and that he might pay a compliment to his Patron by somedigression on the merit of his Ancestors, as well as by an encomium onhis personal qualities[86]. If these considerations do not fullyapologize for the excursions of this Great Genius, they render them atleast more excusible in him, than the same liberties without an equalinducement can possibly be in any of his imitators. 

 [Footnote 85: Mr. West. See the Preface and Notes of his Translation. ]

 [Footnote 86: It is generally to be supposed, that a Poet in a panegyrical address to his Patron will select with solicitude every circumstance in his character and actions which excite approbation, in order to render his encomium as perfect and compleat as possible. When therefore he is unexpectedly engaged to retouch a subject which he had formerly discussed, we ought to expect, either that he will fix upon _new points of panegyric_, which is always a matter of the greatest difficulty; or we must indulge him in the liberty of calling in _adventitious assistance_, when he is deprived of other materials. This appears on many occasions to have been the case of Pindar. No less than four of his Odes are inscribed to Hiero King of Syracuse, all on account of his victories in the Games of Greece. Two Odes immediately following the first to Hiero are addressed to Theron King of Agrigentum; Psaumis of Camarina is celebrated in the 4th and 5th Olympic; and the 9th and 10th are filled with the praises of Agesidamus the Locrian. Every reader must make _great allowances_ for a Poet, who was so often obliged to retouch and to _diversify_ subjects of one kind. ]

After all however we must acknowledge, that Pindar has rendered hispieces obscure on many occasions by giving too much scope to a wildimagination; and perhaps the true reason for which he took this libertywas that he _imitated the example of his Predecessors_. He had seen thefirst Lyric Poets indulging the boldest sallies of Fancy, and applyingto particular purposes the Mythology of their country; and as theirwritings had been held in admiration by succeeding ages, instead ofbeing exposed to the researches of criticism, he was encouraged toproceed in the same course, by the expectation of obtaining a similarreward. From a passage formerly quoted, it would appear that Pindarthought himself peculiarly exempted from conforming to rules of any kindwhatever[87], and we can suppose this opinion to have proceededoriginally from no other foundation than his knowledge of the practiceof former authors. 

 [Footnote 87: Vide supra, p. 57. ]

I am sufficiently aware, my Lord, that some readers may object to thepreceding theory, that it is probable, if Pindar had been of opinionthat Lyric Poetry in his time stood in need of material emendations, thesame fertility of invention which enabled him to reach the heighth ofexcellence in this art, without however altering its originalprinciples; that this would have led him likewise to invent new rules, and to supply the deficiencies of his Predecessors. I will venture toaffirm, that this is the only species of invention, in which we haveseldom reason to expect that an Original Genius will attempt to excel. 

It hath often been observed, that the earliest productions of a GreatGenius are generally the most remarkable for wildness and inequality. A sublime imagination is always reaching at something great andastonishing. Sometimes it seizeth the object of its pursuit, and atothers, like a person dizzy with the heighth of his station, it staggersand falls headlong. When the mind of such a person ripens, and hisjudgment arrives at its full maturity, we have reason to expect that thestrain of his competition will be more confident and masterly; but hisimagination, cramped by the rules which have been formerly laid down, will be still desirous of _breaking_ the _old fetters_, rather thanfelicitous of _inventing new ones_. Though therefore it must beacknowledged that the same Faculty which is able to invent characters, and to _colour_ sentiment may likewise discover the rules and principlesof an Art, yet we have no ground to hope that it will often be employedto effectuate a purpose which an Author may consider as in some measureprejudicial. 

To compensate for the blemishes formerly mentioned, the writings ofPindar abound with the most instructive moral sentiments, as well aswith the most exquisite beauties of descriptive poetry. The Poet oftenthrows in a reflection of this kind in the most natural manner, as itseems to arise spontaneously from the subject. Thus he prepares the mindto hear of the catastrophe of Tlepolemus by an exclamation perfectlyapposite, and appropriated to the occasion. 

 Αμφι δ’ ανδρω- πων φρεσιν αμπλακιαι Αναριθμητοι κρεμανται τουτο δ’ αμηκανον εὑρειν Ὁτι νυν, και εν τελευ- τα φερτατον ανδρε τυχειν. Pin. Olym. VII. 

 But wrapt in error is the human mind, And human bliss is ever insecure; Know we what fortune yet remains behind? Know we how long the present shall endure? WEST. 

This method of introducing moral observations adds peculiar dignity andimportance to Lyric Poetry, and is likewise happily suited to the Ode, whose diversified composition naturally admits of it. 

I shall only observe further with regard to Pindar, that his characteris eminently distinguished by that noble superiority to vulgar opinions, which is the inseparable concomitant of true genius. He appears to havehad his Zoilus as well as Homer, and to have been equally fallible ofthe extent and sublimity of his own talents. Thus he compares hisenemies to a parcel of crows and magpies pursuing an eagle. 

The learned Abbe Fraquier in a short dissertation on the character ofPindar affirms, that one will discover too obvious an imitation of thisPoet in those pieces of Horace which are sublime and diversified[88]. Hementions, as examples of this, his celebrated Odes to Virgil[89] and toGalatea[90], intended to dissuade them from going to sea; and that inwhich he so artfully represents to the Roman people the danger andimpropriety of removing the seat of the Empire to Troy[91]. Uponcomparing these with the Odes of Pindar, he says that we shall find morestrength, more energy, and more sublimity in the works of the Greek, than in those of the Roman Poet[92]. In the three Odes formerlymentioned, he observes that the digressions never lead us far from theprincipal subject, and the Poet’s imagination appears to be too muchconfined to one place. On the contrary, Pindar never curbs theexuberance of his Genius. He celebrates promiscuously in the same Ode, Gods, Heroes, and persons who have made a shining figure in their ageand country, by imitating illustrious examples[93]. 

 [Footnote 88: Ce son des tableaux d’un Eleve habile, ou l’on reconnoit la maniere du Maitre, bien qu’ on n’y retrouve pas a beaucoup près tout son genie. Mem. De Liter. Tom. III. P.  49. ]

 [Footnote 89: Car. Lib. I. Od. 3. ]

 [Footnote 90: Id. Lib. III. Od. 27. ]

 [Footnote 91: Carm. Lib. III. Ode 3. ]

 [Footnote 92: Il est aise d’en marquer la difference sans parler de celle du stile qui dans Pindare a toujours plus de force, plus d’energie, & plus de noblesse que dans Horace, &c. Mem. De Lit. Ubi supra. ]

 [Footnote 93: Id. Ibid. ]

From the observations made on the manner of Horace in a preceding partof this Essay, it is sufficiently obvious, that his Genius in LyricPoetry was principally fitted to excel in the composition of the shorterOde; and that his imagination was not so equal as that of Pindar to thehigher and more perfect species. Of the three Pieces, however, whichthis Author hath mentioned as imitations of the Greek Poet, we can onlyadmit one to have been compleatly attempted in the manner of this GreatMaster. It is that which regards the design of removing the imperialseat to Troy. The other two Odes are highly beautiful in their kind; butthe subjects are not treated at so much length, nor with that variety ofhigh poetic colouring which characteriseth so eminently the writings ofthe latter. The Ode to the Roman people is indeed composed in an higherstrain, and is full of that enthusiasm which the subject might naturallybe supposed to excite in the mind of a Poet, who was animated by thelove of his country. Through the whole of this noble performance, theaddress of the Author, and the emphatical energy with which thesentiments are conveyed, deserve to be equally the objects ofadmiration. The Poem opens with a just and poetical description of thesecurity of Virtue; from which the Poet takes occasion to introduce anartful compliment to Augustus, whom he ranks with Bacchus and Romulus;on the ascent of which last to heaven, Juno expresseth her aversion tothe repeopling of Troy. She breaks abruptly into the subject, in amanner expressive of eager solicitude. 

 ---- _Ilion, Ilion, Fatalis incestusque Judex Et Mulier peregrina vertit In pulverem[94]. _

 Troy, --perjured Troy has felt The dire effects of her proud tyrant’s guilt;-- An Umpire partial and unjust, And a lewd woman’s impious lust, Lay heavy on her head, and sunk her to the dust. ADDISON. 

 [Footnote 94: Car. Lib. III. Od. 3. ]

She then proceeds in the most artful manner to insinuate, that as thedestruction of this city was occasioned by her ingratitude to the Gods, as well as by the particular injury done to her and Minerva, if Troyshould be thrice rebuilt by the hand of Apollo, the Greeks would thricebe permitted to overturn it; and

 ---- _ter Uxor Capta, virum puerosque ploret[95]. _

 Thrice should her captive dames to Greece return, And their dead sons, and slaughter’d Husbands mourn. ADDISON. 

 [Footnote 95: Id. Ibid. ]

The prosperity which she promiseth to the Roman arms is thereforegranted, only upon condition that they never think of rebuilding thisdetested city. 

From the preceding short account of this celebrated Ode, it will appearthat the transitions are extremely artful, the sentiments noble, andthat the whole conduct is happy and judicious. These, if I mistake not, are the distinguishing excellencies of the larger Odes of Horace, inwhich the Poet’s _didactic_ genius is remarkably conspicuous. Perhapshowever, your Lordship, like the French Critic, is at a loss to find inall this, the energy, the vehemence, the exuberance of Pindar. Horacehimself was perfectly sensible of the superior excellence of the GreekPoet, and never rises to truer sublimity than when he is drawing hischaracter. The following image is great, and appropriated to thesubject. 

 _Monte decurrens velut amnis, imbres Quem super notas aluere ripas Fervet, immensusque _ruit_ profundo Pindarus ore[96]. _

 Pindar like some fierce torrent swoln with show’rs, Or sudden Cataracts of melting Snow, Which from the Alps its headlong Deluge pours, And foams, and thunders o’er the Vales below, With desultory fury borne along, Rolls his impetuous, vast, unfathomable song. WEST. 

 [Footnote 96: Car. Lib. IV. Od. 2. ]

I know not, my Lord, how it happens, that we generally find ourselvesmore highly pleased with excess and inequality in poetic composition, than with the serene, the placid, and the regular progression of acorrected imagination. Is it because the mind is satiated withuniformity of any kind, and that remarkable blemishes, like a few barrenfields interspersed in a landschape give additional lustre to the morecultivated scenery? Or does it proceed from a propensity in human natureto be pleased, when we observe a great Genius sometimes _sinking as farbelow the common level_, as at others, he is capable of _rising aboveit_? I confess, that I am inclined to deduce this feeling morefrequently from the _former_ than from the _latter_ of these causes;though I am afraid that the warmest _benevolence_ will hardly prevailupon your Lordship not to attribute it in some instances to _a mixtureof both_. 

Whatever may be in this, it is certain that the Odes of Horace, in whichhe has professedly imitated Pindar, are much more correct and faultlessthan these of his Master. It would, perhaps, be saying too much, toaffirm with some Critics, that the judgment of the Roman Poet wassuperior to that of his Rival; but it is obvious, that the operation ofthis Faculty is more remarkable in his writings, because his imaginationwas more ductile and pliable. --Upon the whole, therefore, we shall notdo injustice to these two great men, if we assign to their works thesame degree of comparative excellence, which the Italians ascribe to thepieces of Dominichino and Guido. The former was a _great_ but an_unequal Genius_; while the more corrected performances of the latterwere _animated by the Graces_, and _touched by the pencil ofElegance_[97]. 

 [Footnote 97: The Reader will observe, that nothing has been said in this Essay on the regularity of the measure of Pindar’s Odes. This subject is treated so fully in the preface of Mr. West’s Translation, that we need only here to refer the curious to his remarks. The Ancient Odes are always to be considered as songs which were set to musick, and whose recital was generally accompanied with dancing. If we may be permitted to form an idea of this music, from the nature and composition of the Ode, it must have been a matter of great difficulty to excel in it, as it is certain that poems which abound with sentiments are more proper to be set to music, than those which are ornamented with imagery. These sister-arts usually keep pace with each other, either in their improvement or decay. Ne ci dobbiamo (says an ingenious Foreigner, speaking of the modern Italian music) maravigliare, ce corrotta la Poesia, s’e anche corrotta la musica; perche come nella ragior poetica accennammo, tutte le arti imitative hanno una idea commune, dalla cui alterazione si alterano tutte, e particolarmenti la musica dall alterazion del la poesia si cangia come dal corpo l’ombra. Onde corrotta la poesia da e soverchi ornamenti e dalla copia delle figure, ha communicato anche il suo morbo alla musica, ormai tanto sfigurata, che ha perduta quasi la natural est pressione. Gavina della Traged. P.  70. ]

I am afraid, that your Lordship is now thinking it high time tobring the whole of this detail to a period. ----Upon reviewing theobservations made on the Lyric Poetry of the Ancients through thepreceding part of this Essay, you will find that the subject has beenconsidered under the three following heads. In the first part I haveattempted to lay before your Lordship, the state of Lyric Poetry in theearliest ages, as it appears from what we can collect either of thecharacter of the writings of Amphion, Linus, Orpheus, Museus, andHesiod. In the course of this enquiry I have had occasion to assign thecauses, whose concurrence rendered this branch of the poetic Art lessperfect at its first introduction than any of the other species. --Uponadvancing a little further, a richer and more diversified prospectopened to the imagination. In _the first dawn_ of this more enlightenedperiod, we meet with the names of Alcaeus and Sappho, who, withoutaltering _the original character_ of the Ode, made a considerable changeon the _subjects_ to which it was appropriated; and in _the fullmeridian_ of Science, we find this second form of Lyric Poetry broughtto its highest perfection in the writings of Horace. --Some remarks onthe nature of those beauties which are peculiarly characteristic of the_higher species_ of the Ode, and on the part which Imaginationparticularly claims in its composition, led me to mention, a few rules, the exact observation of which will, perhaps, contribute to render thisspecies of poetry more correct and regular, without retrenching any partof its _discriminating_ beauties, and without straitning too much theGenius of the Poet. With this view I have endeavoured to characterizeimpartially the pindaric manner, by pointing out _its excellencies_, byenumerating _its defects_, and by enquiring from what particular causesthe latter are to be deduced. 

I consider it, my Lord, as a circumstance particularly agreeable on thepresent occasion, that the Persons who are most capable to observe the_defects_ of an Author, are likewise commonly the readiest to _excusethem_. Little minds, like the fly on the Edifice, will find manyinequalities in _particular members_ of a work, which an enlargedunderstanding either overlooks as insignificant, or contemplates as _themark of human imperfection_. I am, however, far from intending toinsinuate, that feelings of this nature will prevail on your Lordship toconsider real blemishes merely as the effects of an inadvertency, whichis excusable in proportion to the intricacy of a subject. I have beeninduced to throw together the preceding remarks, with an intention torescue Lyric Poetry from the contempt in which it has been unjustly heldby Authors of unquestioned penetration, to prove that it is naturallysusceptible of the _highest poetic beauty_; and that under properregulations, it may be made subservient to purposes as beneficial as anyother branch of the Art. These facts will indeed be sufficiently obviousto persons unacquainted with the Ancients, by perusing the works ofeminent _Poets_ of the present age, whose names it would be superfluousto mention. I dismiss this attempt, and the pieces which accompany it, to the judgment of the public, with that timidity and diffidence whichthe review of so many great names, and the sense of Inexperience arefitted to inspire. Whatever may be the fate of either, I shall remember, with pleasure, that they have afforded me an opportunity of testifyingthat high and respectful esteem, with which I have the Honour to be, MY LORD, Your Lordship’s Most Obliged, and Most Obedient Servant, J. OGILVIE. 

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Errata (Noted by Transcriber):

 a native of Bæotia [_error for Bœotia_] [Footnote 32] Ὡς εφασαν Ηουραι [_error for Κουραι_] [Footnote 34] Ζευ σε μεν Ι’ δαιοισιν . . . [_error for Ἰδαιοισιν_] [Pindar, Pythian X] Εγκαμιων γαρ αωτες Υυμνων [_error for ὑμνων_] [Ariosto] _Le Donne, e Cavalieri, l’arme, gli amore, Le Cortesie l’audaci impresi io canto. _ [_errors for amori . . . Imprese_] [Odyssey] Πλαγκθη [_error for Πλαγχθη_] [Footnote 97] Gavina [_error for Gravina_]

Supplementary Notes:

1. Handwriting

The facsimile of the title page includes two handwritten lines between“Lord Deskfoord” and the author’s name:

 The last Earl of Findlater who died _1812_ without issue Title claimed by Sir W^m Ogilvie Bart of Carnousie, who died Feb 20^th _1861_

The two lines were probably written at different times: the first useslong “s” while the second had to have been written in or after 1861. Theunderlined year “1812” is an error for 1811 (October). The WilliamOgilvie (more often spelled Ogilvy) of the second line was born in 1810, so his claim to the title cannot have been immediate. He does not appearto have been related to the book’s author. 

2. Italian

The quotation from Gravina (misspelled Gavina), _Della Tragedia_, isgiven exactly as printed in note 97, including clear errors. The passageappears in the 1819 _Opere Scelte_ (Selected Works) as:

Né ci dobbiamo maravigliare, se corrotta la poesia, si è anche corrottala musica: perché, come nella Ragion Poetica accennammo, tutte le artiimitative hanno una idea comune, dalla cui alterazione si alteranotutte; e particolarmente la musica dall’ alterazion della poesia sicangia, come dal corpo l’ombra. Onde corrotta la poesia dai soverchiornamenti e dalla copia delle figure, ha comunicato il suo morbo anchealla musica, ormai tanto figurata, che ha perduta quasi la naturalespressione. 

3. Greek

The printed Greek used no diacritics, except for the one word ὅς(including accent) in the Odyssey quotation. All other rough-breathingmarks have been added by the transcriber. Line breaks in verse citationsare as in the original. 

The errors are unusual. Instead of confusing similar letters such as υand ν, or garbling diacritics, the Greek passages read as if they werelearned orally, and written down from memory. Substitutions of ο for ωand ι for ε are especially common. The more significant differencesbetween Ogilvie’s text and “standard” readings are given here. 

Aristotle, _Poetics_ 1448b (in footnotes 3, 5, 6 as “c. 4”):

 Και Ἁρμονια και ρυθμος εξ αρχης _or:_ τῆς ἁρμονίας καὶ τοῦ ῥυθμοῦ . . . ἐξ ἀρχῆς

 οἱτινες θηρεων τε μορφας των αγριοτατων και νεκρων _or:_ οἷον θηρίων τε μορφὰς τῶν ἀτιμοτάτων καὶ νεκρῶν

 Τα γαρ μετρα ὁτι μοιρον των ρυθμων . . . _or:_ τὰ γὰρ μέτρα ὅτι μόρια τῶν ῥυθμῶν . . . 

Plato, _Leges_ 669de (in footnote 7 as “Lib. XI”):

 Μελος δε αυ και ρυθμους ανευ ρημα{των} [_end of word illegible_] _or:_ μέλος δ’ αὖ καὶ ῥυθμὸν ἄνευ ῥημάτων

Hesiod, _Theogony_ 31 (in footnote 31 as l. 63):

 Δρεψασθαι θηητον· επενευσαν δε μοι αυδην _or:_ δρέψασαι, θηητόν· ἐνέπνευσαν δέ μοι αὐδὴν

Aristotle, _Poetics_ 1449a (in footnote 52 as “c. 4”):

 . . . οἱ δε αντι των Επων τραγωδιδασκαλοι, δια τω μειζω και ενεμοτερα τα σχηματα ειναι . . . 

 _or:_ . . . οἱ δὲ ἀντὶ τῶν ἐπῶν τραγῳδοδιδάσκαλοι, διὰ τὸ μείζω καὶ ἐντιμότερα τὰ σχήματα εἶναι . . . 

Callimachus I. 68-69 (body text and footnote 63):

 Θηκαο δ’ οιωνον μεγ’ ὑπειροχον αγγελεωτην, Σων τεραων‧ ἁτ’ εμοισι φιλοις ενδεξια φαινοις

 _or:_ θήκαο δ’ οἰωνῶν μέγ’ ὑπείροχον ἀγγελιώτην σῶν τεράων‧ ἅ τ’ ἐμοῖσι φίλοις ἐνδέξια φαίνοι

Iliad VIII. 438-443 (body text and footnote 65):

 Ζευς δε Πατηρ ιδηθεν ευτροχον ἁρμα και ἱππους Ολυμπονδ’ εδιωκε, θεων δ’ εξεκετο θωκους. Τω δε και ἱππους μεν λυσε κλυτος Εννοσιγαιος Ἁρματα δ’ αμβρωμοισι τιθει, κατα λιτα πετασσας. Αυτος δε χρυσειον επι θρωνον ευρυοπα Ζευς Ἑζετο, τω δε ὑπο ποσσι μεγας πελεμιζετ’ Ολυμπος. 

 _or:_ Ζεὺς δὲ πατὴρ Ἴδηθεν ἐύ̈τροχον ἅρμα καὶ ἵππους Οὔλυμπον δὲ δίωκε, θεῶν δ’ ἐξίκετο θώκους. τῷ δὲ καὶ ἵππους μὲν λῦσε κλυτὸς ἐννοσίγαιος, ἅρματα δ’ ἂμ βωμοῖσι τίθει κατὰ λῖτα πετάσσας: αὐτὸς δὲ χρύσειον ἐπὶ θρόνον εὐρύοπα Ζεὺς ἕζετο, τῷ δ’ ὑπὸ ποσσὶ μέγας πελεμίζετ’ Ὄλυμπος. 

Pindar, _Pythian_ I. 33 (footnote 69)

 ναυσιφορηταις δ’ αδρασεα _or:_ ναυσιφορήτοις δ’ ἀνδράσι

Aristotle, _Poetics_ 1455a (in footnote 79 as “c. 17”):

 Δει δε τους μυθους συνισταναι, και τη λεξει συναπεργαζεσθαι οντι μαλιστα προς ομματων τεθεμενον. Οὑτο γαρ αν’ εναργεστατα ὁρων ὡσπερ παρ αυτοις γιγνομενος τοις πραττομενοις, εὑρισκοι το πρεπον, και ἡκιστα αν’ λανθανοιτο τα ὑπεναντια. 

 _or:_ δεῖ δὲ τοὺς μύθους συνιστάναι καὶ τῇ λέξει συναπεργάζεσθαι ὅτι μάλιστα πρὸ ὀμμάτων τιθέμενον: οὕτω γὰρ ἂν ἐναργέστατα [ὁ] ὁρῶν ὥσπερ παρ’ αὐτοῖς γιγνόμενος τοῖς πραττομένοις εὑρίσκοι τὸ πρέπον καὶ ἥκιστα ἂν λανθάνοι [τὸ] τὰ ὑπεναντία.