enervate the mind, and to raise emotions and fympathies unfriendly to innocence. And certain it is, that fables in which there is neither love nor gallantry, may be made highly interesting even to the fancy and affections of a modern reader. This appears, not only from the writings of Shakespeare, and other great authors, but from the Pilgrim's Progrefs of Bunyan, and the hiftory of Robinfon Crufoe: than which laft, there is not perhaps in any language a more interesting narrative; or a tale better contrived for conveying a lively idea of the importance of the mechanic arts, of the fweets of focial life, and of the dignity of independence.

PART.

PART II.

OF THE

LANGUAGE OF POETRY.

AVING finished what I intended to say on

HAY

the general nature of Poetry, as an Imitative Art, I proceed to confider the INSTRUMENT which it employs in its imitations; or, in other words, to explain the General Nature of POETIC LANGUAGE. For language is the poet's inftrument of imitation, as found is the mufician's, and colour the painter's. My conclufions on this part of the fubject will be found to coincide with the principles already laid down.

Words in Poetry are chofen, first, for their fenfe; and, fecondly, for their found. I fhall confider Poetical Language, firft, as SIGNIFICANT; and, secondly, as SUSCEPTIBLE OF HARMONY.

CHAP

CHA P. I.

Of Poetical Language, confidered as fignificant.

F, as I have endeavoured to prove, Poetry be

imitative of Nature, poetical fictions of real events, poetical images of real appearances in the visible creation, and poetical perfonages of real human characters; it would feem to follow, that the language of Poetry must be an imitation of the language of Nature. For nothing but what is fupposed to be natural can please; and language, as well as fable, imagery, and moral defcription, may difplease, by being unnatural.-What then is meant by Natural Language? This comes to be the first inquiry.

SECT. I.

An idea of Natural Language.

THE term Natural Language has fometimes

been used by philofophers to denote those tones of the human voice, attitudes of the body, and configurations of the features, which, being naturally expreffive of certain emotions of the foul, are universal among mankind, and every where understood. Thus anger, fear, pity, adoration, joy, contempt, and almost every other paffion, has

a look,

a look, attitude, and tone of voice, peculiar to itfelf; which would feem to be the effect, not of men imitating one another, but of the foul operating upon the body; and which, when well expreffed in a picture or ftatue, or when it appears in human behaviour, is understood by all mankind, as the external fign of that paffion which it is for the most part observed to accompany. In this acceptation, natural language is contradiftinguished to thofe 'articulate voices to which the name of Speech has been appropriated; and which are also univerfal among mankind, though different in different nations; but derive all their meaning from human compact and artifice, and are not understood except by those who have been inftructed in the use of them.-But in this inquiry the term Natural Language denotes that use of fpeech, or of artificial language, which is fuitable to the speaker and to the occafion. "Proper "words in proper places," is Swift's definition of a good style; and may with equal propriety serve for a definition of that flyle, or mode of language, which is here called Natural, in contradiftinction, not to artificial (itself being artificial) but to Unnatural; and which it is the poet's business to imitate. I fay, to imitate: for as poets (for a reason already given) copy nature, not as it is, but in that ftate of perfection, wherein, confiftently with verifimilitude, and with the genius of their work, it may be fuppofed to be; and are therefore faid to imitate nature, that is, to give a view of nature fimilar to, but fomewhat different from the reality:

So,

So, in forming poetical language, they must take for their model human fpeech, not in that imperfect ftate wherein it is ufed on the common occafions of life, but in that state of perfection, whereof, confiftently with verifimilitude, it may be fupposed to be susceptible.

But, as we cannot estimate the perfection or imperfection of poetical imagery, till we know the natural appearance of the thing defcribed; fo neither can we judge of this perfection of human fpeech, till we have formed fome idea of that quality of language which is here expreffed by the epithet natural. That fome modes of language are more natural than others, and that one mode may be natural at one time which at another would be unnatural, must be evident even to those who never studied criticism. Would foft words, for example, be natural in the mouth of a very angry man? or do even the vulgar expect bluftering expreffions from him who melts with pity, or love, or forrow? Between groans and pain, tears and grief, laughter and jocularity, trembling and fear, the connection is not more natural, than between certain fentiments of the human mind and certain modifications of human language.

Natural language and good language are not the fame; and Swift's definition, which is equally applicable to both, will not perhaps be found to exprefs adequately the characteristic of either. The qualities of good language are perfpicuity, fimplicity, elegance, energy, and harmony. But language may poffefs all thefe qualities, and yet not