C018/Y01725.json

[
{"source_document": "", "creation_year": 1725, "culture": " English\n", "content": "Produced by S.R.Ellison, David Starner, and the Online Distributed\nProofreading Team.\n            _Essays on Poetry_\n  Thomas Purney, _A Full Enquiry into the\n     True Nature of Pastoral_ (1717)\n           With an Introduction by\n               Earl Wasserman\n         The Augustan Reprint Society\n  _GENERAL EDITORS_\n  RICHARD C. BOYS, _University of Michigan_\n  EDWARD NILES HOOKER, _University of California, Los Angeles_\n  H. T. SWEDENBERG, JR., _University of California, Los Angeles_\n  _ASSISTANT EDITOR_\n  W. EARL BRITTON, _University of Michigan_\n  _ADVISORY EDITORS_\n  EMMETT L. AVERY, _State College of Washington_\n  BENJAMIN BOYCE, _University of Nebraska_\n  LOUIS I. BREDVOLD, _University of Michigan_\n  CLEANTH BROOKS, _Yale University_\n  JAMES L. CLIFFORD, _Columbia University_\n  ARTHUR FRIEDMAN, _University of Chicago_\n  SAMUEL H. MONK, _University of Minnesota_\n  ERNEST MOSSNER, _University of Texas_\n  JAMES SUTHERLAND, _Queen Mary College, London_\n  Lithoprinted from copy supplied by author\n  by\n  Edwards Brothers, Inc.\n  Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.\nINTRODUCTION\nIn the preface to each of his volumes of pastorals (_Pastorals. After\nthe simple Manner of Theocritus, 1717_; _Pastorals. viz. The Bashful\nSwain: and Beauty and Simplicity, 1717_) Thomas Purney rushed into\ncritical discussions with the breathlessness of one impatient to reveal\nhis opinions, and, after touching on a variety of significant topics,\ncut himself short with the promise of a future extensive treatise\non pastoral poetry. In 1933 Mr. H.O. White, unable to discover the\ntreatise, was forced to conclude that it probably had never appeared\n(_The Works of Thomas Purney_, ed. H.O. White, Oxford, 1933, p. 111),\nalthough it had been advertised at the conclusion of Purney's second\nvolume of poetry as shortly to be printed. A copy, probably unique, of\n_A Full Enquiry into the True Nature of Pastoral_ (1717) was, however,\nrecently purchased by the William Andrews Clark Memorial Library of the\nUniversity of California, and is here reproduced. Despite the obvious\nfailure of the essay to influence critical theory, it justifies\nattention because it is the most thorough and specific of the remarkably\nfew studies of the pastoral in an age when many thought it necessary to\nimitate Virgil's poetic career, and because it is, in many respects, a\ncontribution to the more liberal tendencies within neoclassic criticism.\nEssentially, the _Full Enquiry_ is a coherent expansion of the random\ncomments collected in the poet's earlier prefaces.\nPurney belongs to the small group of early eighteenth-century\ncritics who tended to reject the aesthetics based upon authority and\npre-established definitions of the _genres_, and to evolve one logically\nfrom the nature of the human mind and the sources of its enjoyment; in\nother words, who turned attention from the objective work of art to the\nsubjective response. These men, such as Dennis and Addison, were\nnot searching for an aesthetics of safety, one that would produce\nunimpeachable correctness; Purney frequently underscored his preference\nfor a faulty and irregular work that is alive to a meticulous but dull\none. This is not to be understood as praise of the irregular: the rules\nof poetry must be established, but they must be founded rationally on\nthe ends of poetry, pleasure and profit, and the psychological process\nby which they are received, and not solely on the practices and\ndoctrines of the ancients. Taking his cue from the Hobbesian and Lockian\nmethodology of Addison's papers of the pleasures of the imagination\nwithout delving into Addison's sensational philosophy, Purney outlined\nan extensive critical project to investigate (1) \"the Nature and\nConstitution of the human Mind, and what Pleasures it is capable\nof receiving from Poetry\"; (2) the best methods of exciting those\npleasures; (3) the rules whereby these methods may be incorporated into\nliterary form (_Works_, ed. White, p. 48). It is this pattern of thought\nthat regulates the _Full Enquiry_. Perhaps more than any other poetic\ntype, the pastoral of the Restoration and the early eighteenth century\nwas dominated by classical tradition; the verse composed was largely\nimitative of the eclogues of Theocritus and Virgil, especially the\nlatter, and criticism of the form was deduced from their practices or\nfrom an assumption that the true pastoral of antiquity was the product\nof the Golden Age. Of this mode of criticism Rapin and Pope were the\nleading exemplars. In opposition, Fontenelle, Tickell (if he was the\nauthor of the _Guardian_ essays on the pastoral), and Purney developed\ntheir theories empirically and hence directed the pastoral away from the\nclassical tradition. (On these two schools see J.E. Congleton, \"Theories\nof Pastoral Poetry in England, 1684-1717,\" _SP_, XLI, 1944, pp.\n544-575.) Although Purney adopted a modification of Aristotle's critical\ndivisions into Fable, Character, Sentiment, and Diction, and took\nfor granted the doctrine of the distinction of _genres_, he otherwise\nrejected traditional formulae and critical tenets, and began with the\npremise that man is most delighted by the imaginative perception of the\nstates of life for which he would willingly exchange his own. These are\n\"the busy, great, or pompous\" (depicted in tragedy and the epic) and\n\"the retir'd, soft, or easy\" (depicted in the pastoral). From this\nanalysis of \"the Nature of the Human Mind,\" the characteristics of the\ntrue pastoral, such as the avoidance of the hardships and vulgarities\nof rural life, follow logically. Similarly, since a minutely drawn\ndescription deprives the reader's fancy of its naturally pleasurable\nexercise, pastoral descriptions should only set \"the Image in the finest\nLight.\" Rapin, on the other hand, had determined the proper length of\ndescriptions by examining Virgil and Theocritus. For the association of\nthe pleasure afforded by the pastoral with the natural human delight\nin ease, Purney was indebted to the essays on the pastoral in _The\nGuardian_ (see no. 22), from which he borrowed extensively for many of\nhis principles, and to Fontenelle, who constructed his theory of the\npastoral upon the premise that all men are dominated \"par une certaine\nparesse.\" By contrast, although Pope adopted Fontenelle's premise, he\ntested its validity by relating it to the accepted definition of the\n_genre_.\nOne of Purney's major purposes in the essay was to dignify the pastoral\nby demonstrating that it admits all the components generally reserved\nfor tragedy and the epic. Most critics had considered the pastoral\na minor form and consequently had narrowed their attention to a few\nfrequently debated questions, mainly the state of rural life to be\ndepicted and the level of the style to be adopted. All agreed that the\npoem should be brief and simple in its fable, characters, and style.\nBut it was therefore a poetic exercise, no more significant, Purney\ncomplained, than a madrigal. He was intent upon investing the pastoral\nwith all the major poetic elements--extended, worthy fable; moral;\nfully-drawn characters; and appropriate expression. For in his mind the\npoem best incorporates one of the only two true styles, the tender, and\ntherefore warrants a literary status beneath only tragedy and the epic.\nLike his critical method, Purney's decision that the pastoral should\ndepict contemporary rural life divested of what is vulgar and painful\nin it, rather than either the life of the Golden Age or true rustic\nexistence places him on the side of Addison, Tickell, Ambrose Philips,\nand Fontenelle (indeed, his statement is a paraphrase of Fontenelle's),\nand in opposition to the school of Rapin, Pope, and Gay, who argued for\na portrait of the Golden Age. Both schools campaigned for a simplicity\nremoved from realistic rusticity (which they detected in Spenser and\nTheocritus) and refinement (as in Virgil's eclogues); but to one group\nthe term meant the innocence of those remote from academic learning and\nsocial sophistication, and to the other the refined simplicity of an\nage when all men--including kings and philosophers--were shepherds. With\nreservations, the first group tended to prefer Theocritus and Spenser;\nand the second, Virgil. Hence, too, the first group approved of Philips'\nefforts to create a fresh and simple pastoral manner. As a poet, Purney\nmoved sharply away from the classical pastoral by curiously blending an\nentirely original subject matter with a sentimentalized realism and a\nnaive, diffuse expression; and as a critic he pointed in the direction\nof Shenstone and Allan Ramsay by emphasizing the tender, admitting\nthe use of earthy realism in the manner of Gay, and recommending for\npastoral such \"inimitably pretty and delightful\" tales as _The Two\nChildren in the Wood_. Had his contemporaries read the treatise,\nhow they would have been amused to contemplate the serious literary\ntreatment of chapbook narratives, despite Addison's praise of this\nballad.\nIn his usual nervous manner, the critic did not confine himself to his\ntopic, but touched on a number of significant peripheral subjects. He\nshowed the virtue of concrete and specific imagery at a time when most\npoets sought the sanctuary of abstractions and universals; commented\ncogently on the styles of Chaucer, Spenser, and Shakespeare; anticipated\nthe later doctrine of the power of the incomplete and the obscure to\nsuggest and therefore to compel the imagination to create; adopted and\nexpanded Addison's distinction between the sublime and the beautiful;\nand, borrowing a suggestion that he probably found in Dennis (_Critical\nWorks_, ed. Edward N. Hooker, Baltimore, 1919, I, 47), developed a\nprofitable distinction between the sublime image and the sublime thought\nby examining their different psychological effects.\nBut, because they run counter to the accepted opinions of his age, it\nis Purney's comments on matters of style that are especially striking,\nalthough it must be remembered that most of them have to do with the\npastoral alone and do not constitute a general theory of poetics.\nPerhaps his most original contribution is his attack upon the cautious\ncontemporary styles of poetry: \"strong lines,\" a term that originally\ndefined the style of the metaphysical poets, but that now described the\ncompact and pregnant manner of Dryden's satires, for example, and the\n\"fine and agreeable,\" exemplified, let us say, by Pope's _Pastorals_ or\nPrior's _vers de soci\u00e9t\u00e9_. To these Purney preferred the bolder though\nless popular styles, the sublime and the tender, corresponding to the\ntwo pure artistic manners that Addison had distinguished. How widely\nPurney intended to diverge from current poetry can be judged by his\ndefinition of the sublime image as one that puts the mind \"upon the\nStretch\" as in Lady Macbeth's apostrophe to night; and by his praise of\nthe simplicity of Desdemona's \"Mine eyes do itch.\" Both passages were\nusually ridiculed by Purney's contemporaries as indecorous.\nEqually original is Purney's concept of simplicity, which he insisted\nshould appear in the style and the nature of the characters, not in\ndenuding the fable and in divesting the poem of the ornaments of poetry,\nas Pope had argued in the preface of his _Pastorals_. It was this\nconcept that also led Purney to his unusual theory of enervated diction.\nHow unusual it was can be judged by comparing with the then-current\npractices and theories of poetic diction his recommendation of\nmonosyllables, expletives, the archaic language of Chaucer and Spenser,\nand current provincialisms--devices that Gay had used for burlesque--as\nmeans of producing the soft and the tender.\nBut it is hardly true that Purney's \"true kinship is with the\nromantics,\" as Mr. White claims, for there is a wide chasm between a\nromantic and a daring and extravagant neoclassicist. Rather, Purney's\nsearch for a subjective psychological basis for criticism is one of the\nelements out of which the romantic aesthetics was eventually evolved,\nand it frequently led him to conclusions that reappear later in the\neighteenth century.\nIn addition to editing Purney's pastorals, Mr. H.O. White has published\nan exhaustive study of \"Thomas Purney, a Forgotten Poet and Critic of\nthe Eighteenth Century\" in _Essays and Studies by Members of the English\nAssociation_, XV (1929), 67-97. University of Illinois.\n  Earl. R. Wasserman\nA FULL ENQUIRY INTO THE TRUE NATURE OF PASTORAL.\nThe PROEME or first Chapter of which contains a SUMMARY of all that the\nCRITICKS, ancient or modern, have hitherto deliver'd on that SUBJECT.\nAfter which follows what the Author has farther to advance, in order to\ncarry the POEM on to its utmost Perfection.\nWritten by Mr. _PURNEY_.\n[Illustration]\n_LONDON_\nPrinted by _H.P._ for JONAS BROWN, at the _Black Swan_ without\n_Temple-Bar_. 1717.\nPROEME.\n_Cubbin_ (ye know the Kentish Swain) was basking in the Sun one\nSummer-Morn: His Limbs were stretch'd all soft upon the Sands, and his\nEye on the Lasses feeding in the Shade. The gentle Paplet peep'd at\nColly thro' a Hedge, and this he try'd to put in Rhime, when he saw a\nPerson of unusual Air come tow'rd him. Yet neither the Novelty of his\nDress, nor the fairness of his Mien could win the Mind of the Swain from\nhis rural Amusement, till he accosted the thoughtful Shepherd thus.\nIf you are the _Cubbin_, said he, I enquire for, as by the Peculiarity\nof your Countenance, and the Firmness of your Look, you seem, young\nBoy, to be; I would hold some Discourse with you. The Pastorals of your\nPerformance I have seen; and tho' I will not call 'em Perfect, I think\nthey show a Genius not wholly to be overlookt. My Name, continued he, is\nSophy, nor is it unknown in the World. In this Book (and here he pluckt\nit out of his Pocket) I have pen'd some Rules for your future Guidance.\n_Cubbin_ was strangely taken with the mild Address and Sweetness of\nSophy. A thousand times he thanked him, as often smil'd upon him, and\nspread his Coat for him to set more soft upon the Sands.\nSophy was a true-born _Britton_, and admir'd a forward _Spirit_. The\n_French_ he little loved; Their Poets dare not (said he) think without\nthe Ancients, and their Criticks make use of their Eyes instead of their\nUnderstandings. 'Twas his way to pardon, nay admire a Critick, who\nfor every fifty Errors would give him but one Remark of Use, or good\nDiscovery. But always read one Sheet, then burnt those dull insipid\nRogues, who thought that to write a good was to write a faultless Piece.\nBy which means their whole Work becomes one general Fault.\nThis Censure, I fear, would fall pretty heavy on the [A]_Criticks_ of\n_France_; if this were a proper Place to persue the Argument in. But\nSophy thus resum'd his Talk.\n[Footnote A: _In the Preface to the Second Part of our_ Pastorals,\n_viz._ THE BASHFUL-SWAIN, _and_ BEAUTY AND SIMPLICITY, _we have shown\nto what Perfection the whole Science of_ CRITICISM _was brought by the\nAncients, then what Progress the_ French Criticks _have further made,\nand also what remains as yet untouch'd, and uncompleat_.]\nIn this, said he, I like your Temper, Cubbin. By those few Pieces we\nhave seen of your's, and those I hear you have in Manuscript, you seem\ndetermin'd to engage in those Kinds of Poetry and those Subjects in\nCriticism, which the Ancients have left us most imperfect. Here, if you\nfail, you may be still some help to him who shall Attempt it next; and\nif all decline it, apprehensive of no fair success, how should it ever\nattain Perfection.\nThen Cubbin told the _Critick_, that the reason of his entering upon\nPastoral, where the Labour was excessive and the Honour gain'd minute,\nwas this; He had unhappily reflected on that thing, we call a Name, so\nthoroughly, and weigh'd so closely what like Happiness it would afford,\nthat he could now receive no pleasure from the Thoughts of growing\nfamous; nor would write one Hour in any little kind of Poetry, which was\nnot able to take up and possess his Mind with Pleasure, tho' it would\nprocure him the most glaring Character in Christendom. This Temper was\nespecially conspicuous while he tarried at the Fountain where he imbibed\nthe little Knowledge he possesses. He seem'd as out of humour with\nApplause, and dafted aside the Wreath if ever any seem'd dispos'd to\noffer it.\nI' faith, said _Cubbin_, I am nothing careful whether any Pastorals be\ncry'd up or not. Were I dispos'd to write for a Name, no whit would I\nengage in either the Sublime or Soft in Writing: For as the middle Way,\nmade up of both, is vastly easiest to attain; so is it pleasant to the\nmost Imaginations, and acquires the widest Character.\nThere are originally, answer'd Sophy, no perfect and real Kinds of\nWriting but them two. As for the Strong Lines, 'tis supplying the want\nof the Sublime with the Courtly and Florid Stile; as what we usually\ncall the Fine and Agreeable is but bastard and degenerate from the truly\nTender. But yet it must be added that this suits the Populace the best.\nHere Cubbin answer'd Sophy, that these were pretty ways of making\nVerses, but his mind was of such a peculiar Turn, that it requir'd some\ngreater Design, and more laborious to occupy it, or else it would not\nbe sufficiently engag'd to be delighted. Twould not be taken off\nfrom reflecting on what a stupid Dream is Life; and what trifling and\nimpertinent Creatures all Mankind. Unless, said He, I'm busy'd, and in a\nhurry, I can't impose upon my self the Thought that I am a Being of some\nlittle significance in the Creation; I can't help looking forward and\ndiscovering how little better I shall be if I write well, or ill, or not\nat all. I would fain perswade my self, continued he, that a _Shakespear_\nand a _Milton_ see us now take their Works in hand with Pleasure and\nread with Applause.\nTis certain, answer'd Sophy, that the less we know of Nature and our\nSelves, the more is Life delightful. If we take all things as we see\n'em, Life is a good simple kind of Dream enough, but if we awaken out\nof the dull Lethargy, we are so unhappy as to discover, that tis all and\nevery thing Folly, and Nonsense and Stupidity.--But we walk in a vain\nShadow and disquiet our selves in vain.\nHere Cubbin fell with his Face to the Ground, and said, I prethee now no\nmore of this; your Book you open'd but forgot to give me the Contents.\nSophy recollected him; and told the Swain, That Book contain'd some\nRules for his Direction. But as I have not patience, added he, to make\na Treatise of some hundred Pages, which consists of other Persons Hints,\nbut flourish'd and dilated on; or the Rules and Observations of the\nAnciants set in a different Light; I shall first sum up the whole\nDiscoverys the _French_ or any other Criticks yet have made in Pastoral;\nand where they have left it I shall take the Subject, and try how far\nbeyond I am able to carry it. For after that, every single Thought\nwill be the free Sentiment of my own Mind. And I desire all to judge\nas freely as I write; and (if, after a strict Examination of the Rules,\nthey see any Reason) to condemn as peremtorily; for we cannot get out of\nan Error too soon.\n_RUAEUS_ say's, The Pastoral Sentiments must have a Connection Plain and\nEasy. Affirming that tho' Incoherence, may add a neglegence and simple\nloosness to Pastoral, yet 'tis not such a Negligence or Simplicity as\nPastoral delight's in.\n_DRYDEN_ observe's, that the Dialect proper for Pastoral, must have a\nRelish of the Fascion of speaking in the Country.\n_FONTENELL_ that most excellent _Frenchman_ takes Notice, that no\nPassion is so proper for Pastoral as that of Love. He mean's as to what\nwe are to describe in our Swains; not mentioning those Passions that\nPoem is to raise in the Reader.\n_RAPIN_ observe's, The Fable should be One. The Swains not abusive, or\nfull of Raillery. The Sence should not be extended or long. This Author\nhas other Observations new, but you may guess of what a Nature, when he\nconfesses He walk'd but as _Theocritus_ and _Virgil_ lead him. Therefore\nhe cannot have carried the Poem to any Perfection beyond the Condition\nthey left it in; and so much any Reader may see from the Authors\nthemselves, without reading a large Volume to find it out.\nMr. _DRYDEN_, in another place, has an Observation which carrys the\nKnowledge of Pastoral still farther. Pastorals, says he, must contain an\nagreeable Variety after the manner of a Landscape.\nBut in the _GUARDIANS_, Vol. I. The Reader may see the Nature of\nPastoral more explain'd and enter'd into, in a few Dissertations, than\nby all these Authors have deliver'd on the Subject. As these are Books\nin every Bodies Hands, I shall not trouble my self to extract the\nSummary of 'em. But he will find the Criticism on Phillips and the other\nObservations are extreamly Ingenious.\nCHAP. I\n_Of the Parts of Pastoral; and of the several Sorts of that Poem_.\nPASTORAL, in it's Imitation of the Lives of Shepherds, makes use of\nFABLE, CHARACTERS, SENTIMENTS and LANGUAGE; and by these four Parts\nconjoyntly obtain's it's End; that is, excites our Pity, or our Joy,\nor both. For in FABLE I include the MORAL; in SENTIMENTS both IMAGE and\nTHOUGHT; and in LANGUAGE I comprehend the HARMONY.\nThese four Parts of PASTORAL would lead us into an easy and natural\nenumeration of the several Kinds or Sorts of that Poem: According as\nthey have more or fewer of those Parts; and as they do or do not excite\nthe Pastoral passions. Not that all those Kinds are perfect Pastorals,\nor even Poems, but only such as Authors have given us Examples of, from\n_THEOCRITUS_ and _VIRGIL_.\nBut I omit this Division for another more material. A Difference more\nfundamental, arises in the PASTORALS written by different AUTHORS,\naccording to the Age which the Poet chuses to describe, or the different\nDescriptions which he gives us of the COUNTRY. For he may draw it as\n'tis suppos'd to have been in the Golden Age; or be may describe his\nown COUNTRY, but touching only what is agreable in it; or lastly,\nmay depaint the Life of Swains exactly as it is, their Fatigues and\nPleasures being equally blended together. And this, last Kind most\nWriters have given into; for _Theocritus's_ rude unmanner'd Muse (as\nmany Criticks have stiled it, not much amiss) naturally led him\ninto this Method; and then, tis easy to conceive why the latter\nPastoral-Writers chose the same.\nBut as the second Method is plainly more delightful than the last, as\nit collect's the most beautiful Images and sweetest Thoughts the Country\nafford's; so I shall show that 'tis preferable on many other Accounts;\nand even finer for Pastoral than the Golden Age. But this when I speak\nof the Characters.\nI would only settle now in short the most compleat Kind of Pastoral; And\nsuch, I think, is that which most beautifully draw's the present Life of\nShepherds, and raises Pity or Joy, by the four Parts of Pastoral,\nFable, Characters, Sentiments, and Language. And since 'tis these which\nconstitute a perfect Pastoral, I shall crave leave to speak separately\nof 'em all. And first of the Fable.\nCHAP. II.\n_Of the Fable; and the means of making a perfect One_.\nA Fable proper for Pastoral, and best adapted to delight, must have\nthese following Qualities to render It compleat.\n_First_, It must be one entire _Action_, having a Beginning, a Middle,\nand an End.\n_Secondly_, A perfect _Fable_ must have a due _Length_. And not consist\nof only a mournful Speech which a Shepherd find's occasion to make; or\nthe like.\n_Thirdly_, And since all Poetry is an Imitation of the most\nConsiderable, or the most Delightful Actions in the Person's Life we\nundertake; not any trifling Action can be sufficient to constitute the\n_Fable_.\n_Fourthly_, Another Quality which a Pastoral Fable should have to be the\nmost compleat is a _Moral Result_.\nI shall speak to all these Heads, except the first, concerning the\n_Unity_; for without that Quality, it's self-evident that 'tis no Fable.\nBy _Unity_ I mean the same with Aristotle.[A]\n[Footnote A: _See his 6th Chapter_.]\nSECT. 1.\n_What Length a perfect Pastoral should have_.\nAll _Pastoral-Writers_ have used the same _Length_ which _Theocritus_\nat first happen'd into. I shall be therefore obliged, I doubt, to dwell\nlonger, on this Head, than the Importance of it may seem to require; and\nmust premise, that tho' a _Fable_ would need, finely carry'd on, to\nbe three or four Hundred Lines, yet let no Writer be under any Concern\nabout this: If a _Fable_ have Unity, shews a delightful story, paints\nproper Characters, and contains a Moral, I shall not doubt to call the\nPoem a perfect and compleat _Pastoral_, tho' the Length exceeds not\nfifty Lines. But my Reasons for extending it are these:\nSome Author I have seen, ingeniously observes, that even in telling\ncommon Stories, 'twere best to give some short Account of the Persons\nfirst, to be heard with Delight and Attention; For, says he, 'tis not so\nmuch this being said, but its being said on such a particular Occasion,\nor by such a particular Person. As this is true in a common Story, so\n'tis more so in a Poem. The strongest Pleasure that the Mind receives\nfrom Poetry, flows from its being engaged and concerned in the Progress\nand Event of the Story. We naturally side in Parties, and interest our\nselves in their Affairs of one side or the other. Then 'tis, our Care\npursues our Favourite Character, where're he goes. We anticipate all his\nSuccesses, and make his Misfortunes our own. Were the Catastrophe in a\nTragedy to appear in the first Act, but little should we be moved by it,\nnot having as yet imbibed a favourable Opinion of the Hero, nor learn'd\nto be in Pain as often as he is in Danger.\nNow, we may read, I fear, some Number of the _Pastorals_ of the ordinary\nLength, before we shall meet with this Pleasure. The Truth is, we are\ncommonly past a hundred Lines, the length of these Pieces, before the\nMind and Attention is entirely fix'd, and has lost all its former and\nexternal Thoughts. All the Pleasure therefore which proceeds from the\nStory is lost in these short Pieces.\n'Tis true Indeed, I think it possible for a Novel, or perhaps a Poem,\nto contain a Story in a hundred Lines which shall be able to engage the\nMind so as to delight it from the _fable_ it self, stript of all its\nOrnaments. But how few in a hundred Ages have had Genius's capable of\nthis. And if 'tis difficult in a Novel or Poem, which may couch the\nCircumstances close together, how much more Difficult must it be in\n_Pastoral_. In the former Pieces nothing is to be observed but the Story\nitself, in the latter a thousand Beauties are to be adjoyn'd and as many\nRules observ'd.\nSECT 2.\n_The proper Length of Pastoral further collected from the Consideration\nof the_ Characters.\nAnother Pleasure which the brevity of these Pieces robs us of, is this.\nThe Characters cannot finely and distinctly be depainted in so short a\nCompass. And 'tis observable, we are concern'd for the Personages in\nno Poetry so much as those of Pastoral. Simplicity and Innocence have\nCharms for every Mind, and we pity most, where most our Pity's wanted.\nSo that the two noblest Beauties, and which constitute the main\nDifference between Poetry and Versification, between a perfect Poem and\na Madrigal, Epigram or Elegy, are entirely lost in those Pieces, and\nthe only Pleasure they can raise, must proceed alone from Sentiment and\nDiction.\nSECT 3.\n_The Length of Pastoral, yet further shown from the Passions it raises_.\nIn every rational and consistent Piece, the Writer has some Aim in View;\nas, to work every thing up to one End and a Moral Result; or to excite\nsome Passion, or the like. Otherwise it is but an Assay of Wit, a Flirt\nof the Imagination, and no more. Too trifling to detain the rational\nMind. Now, that these short Pieces are not capable of having a Moral,\nor raising any Passion, I need trouble my self for no other Proof than\nthere never having been such one produced.\nBut give me leave to instance in the usual Method of forming a Pastoral.\nOne Shepherd meets another; tells him some body is dead; upon which,\nthey begin the mournful Dialogue, or Elegy. But in such an Elegy, there\nis but one thing can raise a fine Pleasure; which can be the only solid\nReason for the Writers performing such a Work; and that is the raising\nPity, without which no End is obtain'd by such a Dialogue. And 'tis only\na School-Boy tryal of Wit; like a single Description. Unless the Poet\nthink's it enough that the Scene is laid in the Country, and the very\nTalk of Shepherds is enough to support a Piece. And the truth is, of\na Nature so exceeding pleasant is Pastoral, that a Piece which has but\nFields and Hedges repeated pretty often in it, is at least tolerable;\nwhereas in any other Poetry, we see every day far better Poems cast out\nof the World as soon as they enter into it. But another reason of their\nSuccess proceeds from the little Knowledge most People have of\nPastoral; all Poets having gone in exactly the same Track, without one\nendeavouring to raise the Poem to any greater Perfection than they\nfound it in; whereas Epick Poetry, Tragedy, and Comedy, arriv'd by slow\ndegrees to the Perfection they now bear; and this Writer still went\nbeyond the last of an equal Genius.\nBut I was going to give an Instance how incapable these Pieces are of\nraising the Passions. A mournful Dialogue, or Elegy is formed upon the\nDeath of some Person. But if this Elegy raises not our Pity, 'tis a\nTrifle, and only a childish Copy of Verses. But in order to raise that\nmost delightful Passion, should not the Reader be first prepossess'd in\nfavour of the Party dead? Can I pity a Person because deceas'd, without\nknowing any thing of his while alive?\n'Tis the same in that other well-known way of drawing up a Pastoral.\nI mean, where two Shepherds sing alternately. _Theocritus_ haply light\nupon this, and every Pastoral Writer since his time, (that I have\nseen) has been so unfortunate as to happen exactly upon the same. And\nI believe it has as often been indifferent to the Readers which of the\nShepherds overcame. Our Joy in this Case is equal to our Grief in the\nother.\nSECT. 4.\n_From the length by Nature prescribed to all Pieces, Epick, Tragick, &c.\nis shown, That Pastoral will, at least, admit of the Length of three or\nfour hundred Lines_.\nThus far of the Necessity of extending a Pastoral to the Length of\nthree or four hundred Lines, if we would not deprive our selves of the\nOpportunities of being as delightful as Poetry will permit. But if any\nCommentator, who think's himself oblig'd to defend _Theocritus_ and\n_Virgil_ in every particular, should not only not allow this Length to\nbe preferable, but even condemn it as faulty, it would oblige us to come\nmore close to the Point, and to take the Question from the bottom. What\nis the Length by Nature fix'd for all Pieces? And why mayn't an Epick\nbe as short as a Tragick Poem? Methink's a Poet should not be content\nto take these things on Trust, and tye himself down to Brevity or Length\nonly because _Theocritus_ wrote short and _Homer_ long Pieces.\nI have not Leisure to enter fully into this Question, but would\nrecommend it to some Person who has, as a Subject that would prove as\nEntertaining to the Reader as the Writer. However, I shall speak just\nwhat I have at present in my Mind upon it.\nWithout considering Tragedy as drawn into Representation, it is plain it\nwould not endure the Length of Epick Poetry, without being wearious in\nthe Reading, for these Reasons among others: It's Nature is more heated\nand violent than the Epick Poem, and consists of only Dialogue; whereas\nthe former has the Variety of Dialogue and Narration both. Besides, the\nunder-actions which work up to the main Action in Heroick Poetry, are\neach as great and as different from each other, as the main Actions of\ndifferent Tragedies.\nNor would Pastoral bear the Length of even Tragedy. For it admits not\nboth those two kinds of Writing, the Sublime and the Beautiful, which\nare the most different of any in Nature, having only the last. But these\ntwo give so sweet a variety to the same Piece, when they are artfully\nblended together, that a good Tragedy or Epick Poem can never tire. Soon\nas we begin to be sated and cloy'd with Passion and Sublime Images, the\nPoet changes the Scene; all is, on a sudden soft and beautiful, and we\nseem in another World.\nYet is Pastoral by no means ty'd down by nature to the Length used by\n_Theocritus_ and all his Followers. 'Tis only Example has introduc'd\nthat Method. For, 'tis a Poem capable of raising two Passions, and those\ntho' all consistent with one another, yet what raise Pleasures, the most\nwidely different of any, in the Mind. When we have tir'd the Reader with\na mournful and pitious Scene, we may relieve and divert his Mind with\nagreeable and joyous Images. And these the Poet may diversify and vary\nas often as he pleases. And so different are the Passions of Pity and\nJoy, that he may all thro' the Poem please in an equal Degree, yet all\nthro' the Poem in a different Manner.\nBesides, this Poem changes the general Scene, which is more than even\nTragedy does. A Poet who has form'd a perfect Notion of the Beautiful,\nand furnished his Mind with a sufficient number of delightful Images,\nbefore he set's down to write a Pastoral, will lead the Reader thro' so\nsweet a Variety of amusing scenes, and show so many beautiful Pictures\nto his Imagination, that he will never think the tenth Part of a\nTragedy's Length too much for a Pastoral.\n'Tis true indeed that they who make a Pastoral no more considerable\nthan a Song or Ballad (as _Theocritus_, _Virgil_, &c.) without Passions,\nCharacters, a delightful Fable, or any Moral, do well to make it of no\ngreater Extent than a Song or Ballad. Where there is nought to delight\nbut the Sentiments, (for they aim at neither the soft nor the sublime\nLanguage) a Reader cannot attend to more than a hundred Lines; but where\nthe Mind is engag'd and concern'd for the Issue of the Story, and eager\nto know the Event, 'tis insensibly drawn on, and haveing some Aim in\nView, is much less weary'd, tho' led on to a greater Extent.\nCHAP. III.\n_That the Pastoral Action must not be very little and minute; also that\nseveral Under-actions must run thro' the Poem_.\nA Third Quality, laid down as necessary to constitute a Fable wholly\nperfect, was this, That as there must be but one Action, that Action\nmay not be any trifling, silly Circumstance of a Shepherd's Life. As\none Swain's telling the other how poor and bare he is grown. Or one\ncomplaining to the other, that his Flock has had some Mischance, or the\nlike; which is as much as can be gather'd out of the Pastorals form'd\nafter the ordinary Way. For if you take the Actions of any of 'em,\ndivested of the Ornaments of Poetry, and the constant Repetition of the\npleasing Words, Grove, Breeze, Mead, &c. you will find nothing, even\nnothing at all in any of 'em.\nSo that, tho' these Pastorals mostly may have Actions, nay, and Unity\nof Action; yet are they Actions no more proper for a Poem, than a\nProposition of Euclid, turn'd into Verse, would be. There is nothing,\n(not even the telling how the Sow and Pigs swallow'd their Wash, and\nfought the while,) but might be call'd one Action, with a Beginning,\nMiddle and End. So that 'tis nothing to have unity of Fable, if the\nFable be not proper.\nShepherds are indeed suppos'd to be happy, and devoid of Stir, and\nNoise, and Bustle; but does it follow, that there are no Actions or\nIncidents in a Shepherd's Life? If there are delightful Actions, 'tis\nplain we don't run counter to a Shepherd's Life in drawing 'em into\nPoetry; and Poetry imitates the Actions of Men. Which show's that these\nordinary Pastorals are no more Poetry, than Lucretius is, or than any\nother Philosopher, if turn'd into Verse, would be. Sure I think, as we\nallow an Epick Writer to take his Hero in that Part or Character of his\nLife, where he will make the best Figure in Poetry, so we should allow a\nPastoral-Writer the same Opportunity of pleasing.\n'Tis necessary also that several lesser Actions work up to the main One;\nthat the whole Piece may be fill'd with Circumstances. 'Tis the very\nSoul of Poetry to imitate Actions; to lead the Mind thro' a Variety of\nScenes; and to present a Number of Pictures before it.\n'Tis plain a Shepherd's Life has as many Incidents, as other Person's;\nonly one Kind are in low Life, the other not. The Simplicity of Pastoral\nis nothing touch'd by this, if these Incidents are Pastoral: For the\ndifference between Epick or Tragick Poetry, and Pastoral, must not\nproceed from the One haveing many, the other no Under-Actions, but\nrather from the different Actions, which a Hero and a Swain are engag'd\nin. A Shepherd's leading his Lass to a Shade, and there sticking her\nBosom with Flowers, is the same in Pastoral, as an Hero's hurling a\nJavelin, is in Epick Poetry. And a variety of Circumstances and Actions\nis equally necessary in both Pieces. Or perhaps in Pastoral most; since\nthe Coolness and Sedateness of Pastoral is very apt to sate and tire\nthe Reader, if he dwell's long on one Action; and we can bear a longer\nDescription of a Battle than of two Shepherd's sitting together; because\nthe first fill's and actuate's the Mind the most; and where it is so\nmuch employ'd, it cannot so easily flag and grow dull.\nSECT. 2.\n_Whether the Pastoral Fable should be simple or complex; and how it must\ndiffer from the Epick Fable_.\nThe Implex Fables are to me, in all Poetry, the finest. And even\nPastoral may receive an additional Beauty from a Change of Fortune in\nthe chief Character, if manag'd with Discretion. 'Tis not easy to give\ndirect Proofs for things of this Nature. But what little I have to offer\nfor Pastoral's requiring an Implex Fable, is as follows.\nPastoral, like all Poetry, should aim at Pleasure and Profit. Pleasure\nis best produc'd, if the Poem raises Pity, or Joy, or both; and Profit\nby its having a Moral. Now the Implex Fable attain's it's End the\neasiest. For we pity Misfortunes no where so much as in one we saw but\nlately happy: Nor do we joy to see a Man flourish; but to see him rise\nfrom Ills to a flourishing Condition, rejoyces the Mind. And as for\nthe other End of Poetry, which is Profit, every one may see that Implex\nFables are greatly best for producing a Moral.\nBut great Care must be taken in this Way. Whereas the Catastrophe in\nEpick Poetry, is work'd up by violent Means, as Machines, and the like;\nIn Pastoral it must be produced so easy and natural, as to seem to\nproceed from it self.\nNor must the Change of Fortune be produced by any sudden Contrast, as\nin most Tragedies it is; since Surprize (unless very weak) is a Fault in\nPastoral, tho' a Beauty in other Poetry.\n'Tis also evident that the Ills which a Shepherd falls into, from some\nslight, and almost inevitable Slip (from which the Moral is form'd) must\nbe infinitely less than those which embarrass a Hero; because Ills must\nbe proportion'd to the Fault; and 'tis plain, the Faults of a Swain are\nsuppos'd to be very minute.\nA hundred Observations, like this last, might be made, too\ninconsiderable to enumerate; but the Poet, when he form's his Fable,\ncannot avoid observing 'em. Otherwise, 'tis best he keep to the Simple\nFable; which, tho' a better may, by Industry, be form'd, is far enough\nfrom being faulty.\nSECT. 3.\n_What Circumstances or Actions of a Shepherd's Life are properest for\nthe Poet to go upon_.\nWe cannot be pleas'd with the Description of any State, or Life, which\nat that time we would not willingly exchange our present State for.\nNor is it possible to be pleas'd with any thing that is very low and\nbeggarly. Therefore, methinks, I would raise my Shepherd's Life to a\nLife of Pleasure; contrary to the usual Method. For when a Citizen or\nPerson in Business divert's himself in the Country, 'tis not from seeing\nthe Swains employ'd or at Labour; he visits the Country for the easy\nand agreeable Retiredness of it; and I believe the Pleasure of seeing\na Shepherd folding his Sheep, proceeds from the Prospect of Evening, of\nthe Woods and Fields, and from the Innocence we conceive in the Sheep,\nand the like; not from the Action of the Shepherd folding them. So of\nReapers, we conceive 'em filling the following Year with Plenty; We\nhave, while we see 'em, the Thought of Fulness, and the time when every\nthing is brought to Perfection; and these, and the like Thoughts, rather\nraise the Delight of seeing those particular Labours, than the Actions\nthemselves. For we see, that if we behold Sheep, or the like, in a City,\ntho' Countrymen are ordering them, we have no such Delight; because\nthere the Silence of Evening, the Prospect of Fields, &c. are not added.\nI would therefore omit the Labour of Shepherds, if I could invent a Life\nmore agreeable; but the latter must be form'd from a Man's Imagination,\nthe former from Observation; and _Virgil_ could draw that almost as well\nas _Theocritus_. I wonder the Writers of Pastoral should be so fond\nof showing their Shepherds Beating Their Ronts, or Scolding With each\nother, or the like; when they might describe 'em sleeping upon Violets;\nplaiting rosy Chaplets by a lovely Rivulet; getting _Strawberries_ for a\nLass, &c.\n'Tis observable, that no Tragedy can be well constituted without a\nmixture of Love; and even _Shakespear_, (who seem's to have had so\nlittle of the Soft or Tender in his Genius) was obliged to have some\nrecourse to that Passion, in forming his most regular Tragedy; I mean\nOthello. Not that an Hero should be soften'd, much less drawn in his\nmost degenerate Hours, when he is in Love. For, methinks, the French\nseem a little too fond of introduceing Love, when they draw their\ngreatest Hero's as amorous Love-Sops, and omit all that is truly Great\nin their Characters.\nNow if Love, with Reason manag'd, appear so well in Tragedy, it must\nsure be extreamly proper for Pastoral. In the first we are to be rais'd\nand heated; in the latter sooth'd and soften'd: The one has to do with\nPersonages, all gentle and tender; the Subject of the other is Fury and\nBravery. I would therefore have, methinks, a Sprinkling of Love thro'\nall my Pastorals; and 'twill give the Writer an Opportunity of showing\nthe Tenderness, and the Simplicity of his Characters in the finest\nManner: Yet must it be so diversify'd and broken, by other Incidents\ninterfering, as not to cloy and nauseate the Reader, with the Repetition\nof nothing but Love and Love.\nThe vulgar Notion is, that Wrestling, and such like Incidents are\nproperest for Pastoral; but if a Writer introduces such, he'll find 'em\nso few, that 'twill be necessary to touch upon Love besides.\nBut methinks, I would not show my _CHARACTERS_ in so low and clownish\na degree of Life; For if I draw 'em so rough, and Porter-like, in one\nplace, I cannot give 'em Tenderness and Simplicity in another; without\nbreaking in upon the Manners.\nSo that if I was compell'd to put this Circumstance of Wrestling into\na Pastoral, I would have recourse, even there, to Love, to render it\nPleasurable to the Mind; as thus: A tender-hearted Lass should be plac'd\nSpectator of her Wrestling Lover: By this means the Poet might make it\nshine in Poetry; if he described her Behaviour, her soft Concern and\njoyous Smiles, occasioned by every little Failure, and every Prospect of\nSuccess.\nBut this is a Subject of so great Extent, that I have not time to\ngo thro' with it. Take therefore this general Rule for all. Those\nCircumstances or Actions in the Fable, which show barely the\nDelightfulness of the Country, are good. Those which give us a Sight\nof also the Sprightliness and Vigour of it, are better; and those which\ncomprehend further, the Simplicity and the Tenderness of the young\nLasses, are best. And from hence a Writer or Reader will be able to make\na Judgment of any Circumstance that may occur.\nSECT. 4.\n_That this Variety of Actions does by no means impair the Simplicity of\nPastoral_.\nThere is nothing in Pastoral, of which Persons have a wronger Notion\nthan of the word Simplicity. Because the Poem should be simple, they\nstrip it of all Beauty and Delightfulness; that is, they lay the\nSimplicity where it should not so much be (in the Fable) and deprive\nit of all Simplicity, where 'twould be beautiful (in the Sentiments and\nDiction.)\nIf all the Incidents or Actions, that are truly simple and delightful,\nthro' the whole Number of _Theocritus_'s Idylls, were collected into\none Pastoral, so as to follow naturally each other, and work up to one\ngeneral End, I think that Pastoral would be more truly simple than any\nwe have at present. 'Tis true, a Poet may thrust into Pastoral as great\na multitude of Actions, and as surprizingly brought about, as we find\nin Tragedy, but there is no necessity, because he must use a Number\nsufficient to please, that therefore he must fall into that fault. Yet\nfor mine own part, I had rather see too much, than too little Action, as\nI cannot help preferring a faulty Writer before a dull One.\nBut a Poet of Genius will diversify and adorn his Fable, as much as he\nlawfully may; and as for the Simple, he will draw such soft and tender\nCharacters, as will furnish his Poem with enough of that, and of the\nmost delightful Kind. The generality of Pastoral Writers seem to\nthink they must make their Pieces simple, by divesting them of all the\nOrnaments of Poetry; and the less and more inconsiderable Sketches they\nare, the more Simple they are. A strange Conception sure of Simplicity.\nWhile their Sentiments are false almost in every Line; either in their\nown Nature; or with respect to Pastoral; or to the Person speaking; or\nsome other foreign Cause. But I shall always wave the being particular\nin such Cases as these. To point at Faults directly, I think the\nBusiness of a Carper, not a Critick.\nCHAP. IV.\n_Of the Moral; and what kind of Moral Pastoral require's_.\nThe fourth Quality that a Fable ask's, to render it compleat, is a\nMoral Result. I need not trouble you with a Proof of a Moral's being\nnecessary; 'tis plain that every Poem should be made as perfect as 'tis\ncapable of being, and no one will ever affirm a Moral to be unnatural in\nPastoral. But if any one should demand a Proof, 'tis thus: Poetry aim's\nat two Ends, Pleasure and Profit; but Pastoral will not admit of direct\nInstructions; therefore it must contain a Moral, or lose one End, which\nis Profit. We might as easy show that the other End of Poetry, _viz_.\nPleasure, is also impair'd, if the Moral be neglected; but the thing is\nplain.\nTo hasten therefore to enquire what kind of Moral is proper for\nPastoral, we must look back into the Reasons prescribed by Nature for\nthe Morals in all Sorts of Poetry.\nEpick Poetry and Tragedy are conversant about Hero's, Kings, and\nPrinces, therefore the Morals there, should be directed to Persons\nengaged in Affairs of State, and at the Helm, and be of such a Nature\nas these; _A Crown will not render a Person Happy, if he does not pursue\nhis Duty towards God and Man; the best Method of Securing a Government,\nis to occasion Unity in it_, and the like.\nAgain, Comedy's Subject is to expose the Ill Habits in low Life. It's\nmoral therefore should contain Instructions to the middle Sort of\nPeople: As, _What Ills attend on Covetousness_. Or, _On a Parent's being\ntoo Severe_, or the like.\nBut so easy and gentle a kind of Poetry is Pastoral, that 'tis not very\npleasant to the busy Part of the World. Men in the midst of Ambition,\ndelight to be rais'd and heated by their Images and Sentiments. Pastoral\ntherefore addresses it self to the Young, the Tender, and particularly\nthose of the _SOFT-SEX_. The Characters also in Pastoral are of the\nsame Nature; _An Innocent Swain_; or _Tender-Hearted Lass_. From such\nCharacters therefore we must draw our Morals, and to such Persons must\nwe direct them; and they should particularly aim at regulating the Lives\nof Virgins and all young Persons.\nWhat Nature I would have a Moral of, cannot so well be explain'd as by\nExamples; but I do not remember at present any such Pastoral. You are\nnot widely deficient, Cubbin, I think, in this particular. Your first\nshow's us, that the best Preservative a young Lass can have against Love\nand our deluding Sex, is, to be wholly unacquainted therewith. Little\nPaplet is eager of Listning to Soflin's Account of Men and Love; but\nthat first set's her _Heart_ on the Flutter; then she is taken with\nSoflin's _SWEET-HEART_; tho' all the while she is ignorant of the Cause\nof her Uneasiness.\nThe Moral to your second Pastoral, which contain's Instructions to\n_COQUETTS_, warning them not to take pleasure in giving Pain, is, I\nthink, not worst than this.\nBut the Moral to your Third (call'd the Bashful Swain), methinks, is not\nso good. It is also directed to the _COQUETTS_; and instruct's 'em not\nto give a Lover any Hopes, whom they do not intend to make happy. If the\nyoung Lass there, had jilted Cuddlett, she had mist of her good Fortune;\nand her Unwillingness to encrease the Number of her Admirers, is the\nCause of her Happiness. But, I know not how, this like's me not so well\nas the other Three; or, perhaps it is not produced so naturally by the\nFable, and that may prevent it's pleasing.\nSECT. 2.\n_How to form the most regular kind of Moral_.\nIf a Writer's only Aim was the preserving Poetical Justice in his Moral,\nhe would have nothing to do but to show a Person defective in some\nslight Particular, and from thence Unhappy; but as a Poet always reaches\nat Perfection, these following Rules are to be observ'd.\nThe Inadvertency or Fault which the Character commit's, must be such a\nFault as is the natural or probable Consequence of his Temper. And his\nMisfortune such an one as is the natural or probable Consequence of his\nFault. As in Othello: (For how can I instance in Pastoral.) I rather\nsuppose the Moor's Fault, to be a too rash and ungrounded Jealousy; than\nthat Fault, common to almost all our Tragedies, of marrying without the\nParent's Consent. A rash _Jealousy_ then, is the natural consequence of\nan open and impetuous Temper; and the Murder of his Wife is a probable\nConsequence of such a Jealousy, in such a Temper. So that the Hero's\nTemper naturally produces his Fault, and his Fault his Misfortunes.\nIf you allow that the fault should be the natural or probable\nConsequence of the Temper; let me ask you then, if those Tragedies or\nPastorals can be so perfect, where the original natural Temper of the\nHero or Heroine is not drawn into the Piece. I mean, where all that\nwe see of the Mind of the Chief Character, is his Mind or Temper, as\nalter'd entirely, by some foreign or accidental Means. As, Who will tell\nme what Hamlet's natural Temper was? Throughout that admirable Tragedy,\nwe see not his bare Temper once; but before he appear's, he's in wild\nDistraction, which proceed's from former Accidents. This Method Mr.\n_Row_ too has taken, especially in that ingenious Tragedy, call'd _JANE\nSHORE_. We do not see any thing of her Temper but Grief and Sorrow; but\nGrief cannot be natural to any Person's Mind, but must be accidental.\nHowever, I think, this Method may be, at least, very good; whether 'tis\nthe best, I leave others to determine.\nBut as to the Fault, whether 'tis in the Action, or out of it, is of no\nmoment to the Perfectness of a Pastoral. Tho' I must needs say, I am for\nwhat Aristotle call's the Peripatie, or change of Fortune in Pastoral;\nbut I think the Action that produces the Change may be either in the\nPoem, or have happen'd some time before, but so that it's Influence does\nnot reach the Persons till they have been a while engaged in the Actions\nof the Tragedy or Pastoral.\nSECT. _Last_.\nHere Sophy closed his Book; for the Heat of the Day came on, and an\nHouse or an Arbour began to be more agreeable than the open Fields.\nSophy told the Swain he would meet him there agen in the Evening, and\nread him some more of the Minutes he had put down for his Direction, and\nwithdrew; and the Shepherd drove his Lambs to the Covert of the Shades.\nAccordingly, as the day began to decline, the Critick again appear'd;\nand opening his Book, pursued the Argument he had made some Progress in.\n_The End of the first Part_.\nPART II.\nCHAP. I.\n_Of the Pastoral CHARACTERS or MANNERS, in general_.\nI should but tire the Reader, if I endeavour'd to prove that Pastoral\ndoes require the Manners, or Characters to be preserved. If our Method\nof ordering Pastoral be admitted, the Necessity thereof will be easily\nperceived. But If any one prefer's the ordinary Method, I must tell him,\nthat 'tis not proper to draw Characters in a Piece of an hundred Lines.\nIt is to be observ'd, that tho' a Fable and Moral are essential to every\nPoem; yet a Poem may subsist without the Manners. In Epick Poetry the\nMachinery, the sublime Descriptions, &c. are such strong and Poetical\nOrnaments, that a very fine Piece of the Heroick kind, might be form'd\nwithout the Ornament of Characters. But Pastoral is in it self, (if I\nmay so speak) less Poetical; and therefore more want's the additional\nOrnaments of Art. 'Tis naturally low and mean, and therefore should be\nas much rais'd as possible. Whereas Epick-Poetry is of a Nature so\nwarm and heated, that it's own proper Strength and Violence is able to\nsupport it. If this could want a Proof, I might say in short, That\nwe can bear with Epick-Poetry, even without any kind of Verse, and\n_Cambray_ has succeeded in such; but every one will judge that should\na Pastoral appear in Prose, nay even without the Feminine Ornament of\nJangle, 'twould not be born with; which show's that Epick Poetry can\nsupport it self with fewer foreign Assistances than Pastoral.\nAnother Observation I shall make, relating to the Manners or Characters\nin general, is this; and 'tis equally applicable to Epick Poetry,\nTragedy, and Pastoral: There are three different ways of drawing\nCharacters; which in Tragedy form the Poem, as 'twere, of three\ndifferent Kinds or Natures.\nThe first, and finest is, where the Natural Temper of the Hero's Mind is\ndrawn in the former Part of the Poem, but after the Peripatie alter's.\nAs Timon of Athens is drawn at first all free and well-natur'd to\na Fault; but after his change of Fortune, is described as a quite\ndifferent Man; morose, and in hatred with himself and all the World. And\nso in other Tragedies.\nThe second Sort is, where the Temper of Mind is the same in the former\nand latter Part of the Play; but all along forced from it's Natural\nBent. Every where inclin'd and leaning to a different Temper; yet is\nno where wholly carry'd off, or alter'd, as in _Venice-Preserv'd_;\n_Jaffeir's_ Temper is generous, faithful, and tender, but thro' Want and\nEnticement being drawn into a Conspiracy, this Temper is half effac'd\nin him: But the Strugglings which the Poet has so fine an Opportunity\nof describing, between his present Actions and his natural Temper, are\ncarry'd thro' the whole Piece; and he condemn's himself the same for\nungenerously betraying his Friend at the End, as for entring into the\nConspiracy against his Country, at the beginning of the Play.\nThe last kind of Character is, where the Natural Temper of the Mind is\nneither drawn in the latter Part of the Poem; nor retain'd thro' the\nwhole, but clouded and broken; but instead thereof some casual and\naccidental Humour, which from some Misfortune, or the like, has quite\nchanged the Natural Temper before the Person appear's on the Stage, or\nin the Poem. As in the Distress'd-Mother, the Character that give's name\nto the Tragedy, is all along in Tears and Grief for _Hector_; and what\nher Temper was before his Death, does not appear, that is, what her\nNatural Temper was.\nI need not detain you to apply what I have here observ'd to Pastoral in\nparticular; 'tis enough to affirm, that the Method which appears most\nbeautiful in Tragedy, will be equally finest in Pastoral Poetry.\nCHAP. II.\n_What Condition of Life our Shepherds should be supposed in. And whether\nthe_ Golden-Age, _or the present state of the Country should be drawn_.\nThere are three different Methods, (as we hinted in the first Chap. of\nthe first Book) of describing the Country. For it may be drawn, as 'tis\nsuppos'd to have been in the Golden-Age; or, as 'tis now, but only the\npleasant and delightful Images extracted, and touch'd upon; or,\nlastly, we may draw the Country in it's true and genuine Colours, the\nDeformities as well as the Beauties having admittance into our Poem.\nThis last sort run's upon the Labours and fatigues of the Rusticks; and\ngives us direct Clowns and Country-Folk. We alway see 'em sweating with\na Sicle in their Hands; beating their Cows from the Corn; or else at\nScolding. Yet doubtless a kind of Pastorals of this Nature might be made\nextreamly delightful, if the Writer would dare to write himself, and not\nbe lead so much by _Theocritus_ and _Virgil_.\nBut a Method preferable to this, I think, is a Description of the\nGolden-Age; and there is very little difference between this, and that\nwhich we hold the best. It draw's the Swains, all Innocent and tender.\nShow's us Shepherds, who are so, not for their Poverty, but their\nPleasure; or the Custom of those unrefin'd Ages, when the Sons and\nDaughters of Kings were of that Employ, as we read in the Scripture of\nthe Ladies of greatest Quality, drawing Water for their Flocks, and the\nlike. I am therefore nothing averse to this kind of Pastoral. It draw's\nsuch a Life as we could easily wish our selves in; and such, and only\nsuch, can bear a pleasurable Description.\nBut all the Opportunities that the supposition of the Golden-Age gives\nthe Reader of the Beautiful in his Descriptions, and being Entertaining\nin his Characters; In short, all the delightful Scenes, Arborets and\nShades, as well as all the gentleness and simplicity of that Age, may be\ndrawn into the other, namely the middle state, which we prefer; if the\nCharacters be proper.\nBesides, I should not be fond of describing the Golden-Age, because we\nare not so much interested and concern'd in what was only some thousand\nYears ago, and ne're will be again. If the Poet possesses us with\nagreeable Sentiments of our own Country (by describing it, but omitting\nall that is not delightful in it) we are doubly pleas'd with the\nConsideration that it may be in our own Power to enjoy the sweet\nAmusement: and we are apt to fancy while we are reading, that were\nwe among those Swains, we could solace our selves in their easy\nRetirements, and on their tender Banks in the same manner that they do.\nAnd since Poetry, the more naturally it deceives, the more fully it\npleases; I should be very desirous, methinks, of giving my Pieces as\ngreat an Appearance of Probability, as possible. And in our way, the\nPoet may, to add yet more to the Probability, mention several Places in\nthe Country, which actually are to be found there; and will have several\nOpportunities of giving his Stories an Air of Truth.\nSECT. 2.\n_The Method of_ Theocritus, _and all his followers, shown to be\ninferiour, from the Nature of the Human Mind_.\nBut further, to shew that we should not describe the Country in\nit's Fatigues, it's Roughness, or it's Meanest, take these Few\nConsiderations. For, as no Writer whom I have read (but that excellent\nFrenchman _FONTENEL_,) has raised his Shepherds and Shepherdesses above\nthe vulgar and common sort of Neat-herds and Ploughers, I am oblig'd to\ndwell a little the longer on this Head.\nIt may be observ'd, I think, that there are but two States of Life\nwhich are particularly pleasant to the Mind of Man; the busy, great,\nor pompous; and the retir'd, soft, or easy. More are delighted with the\nformer than with the latter kind, which affoard's a calm Pleasure, that\ndoes not strike so sensibly, but proceeds much from the Imagination.\nPerhaps this may be the reason why Epick and Tragick Poetry are more\nuniversally pleasing than Pastoral; for they describe the Actions of\nsuch Persons, as most Men are dazled and enamour'd with; and would\nwillingly quit their own Stations in Life for.\nBut tho' this State of Life may perhaps be more generally engaging than\nthe soft and retir'd; 'tis certain the soft is the next eligible, and\nconsequently will shine the most next in Poetry. As no one would much\ndesire to be one of Theocritus's Shepherds, so 'tis plain, no one can\nbe much delighted with being concern'd, as 'twere, with such; of having\ntheir Actions take up our Minds, and their Manner of Life set before us.\nAs a love of Grandeur, Show and Pageantry is implanted naturally in\nour Minds, so we cannot be pleas'd with any thing that is mean, low and\nbeggarly; and as we dislike what is mean and beggarly, How can we love\nto have our Minds conversant about, direct Ploughmen, _&c_? We love the\nCountry for it's soft Retirements, it's Silence, and it's Shades, and\ncan we love a Description of it that sets none of these before us? If I\nread a Pastoral, I would have it give me such a Prospect of the Country,\nand stop me upon those Objects, where I should myself stay, were\nI there; but would not that be (at least generally) upon the most\nbeautiful Images. If the Toils of the Country-Folk took my Observance,\n'twould only be for Variety, because those Images which a Poet can\nso plentifully raise out of his own Brain, can hardly be met with in\nReality. But methinks were I determin'd to describe the Labours and\nHardships of the Country, and not to collect the Beauties; I would e'en\nobserve the Manner of the Fellows and Wenches in the Country, and put\ndown every thing that I observ'd them act; as Mr. Gay has very well\ndone; and than we shall have at least this Pleasure, of seeing how\nexactly the Copy and the Original agree; which is the same that we\nreceive from such a Picture as show's us the face of a Man we know.\nAgain, 'tis natural to the Mind of Man to delight in the Happiness of\nit's Fellow-Creatures; and no Pleasure can be imbibed from the Prospect\nof another's Misery; unless it is so calculated as to excite Pity. The\nPleasure, that comes the nearest such of any, is a Comick one, which\ndelight's to see the human Form distorted and debased, and turn'd into\nthat of a Beast.\nAnd as for Pity, the most delightful Passion of all, it can't be excited\nby this Means. For those Swains are inured to Labour, and acquainted\nwith Fatigue; but we pity those who fall from Greatness to a State of\nHardships.\nCHAP. III.\n_What Personages are most proper for Pastoral. And what Passions we may\nallot our Shepherds; and what degree of Knowledge_.\nSince Simplicity and Tenderness are universally allow'd to constitute\nthe very Soul and Essence of Pastoral, there la nothing scarce in the\nProceedings of Pastoral-Writers more surprizing to me, than that no one\nhas allotted any Part of Characters in their Pieces to the _SOFT-SEX_:\nBut have, to a Writer, introduc'd only Men, and even the roughest of\nthat Sex.\nI can no otherways account for that their Conduct, but that _Theocritus_\nhappen'd not to make any true Female Characters, nor to introduce any\nsuch of the Fair-Sex, as would shine in Pastoral, and they pretend to\nnothing farther than the Copying after him.\nThis is the more strange, since even Epick-Poetry and Tragedy, whose\nNature is Violence and Warmth, cannot well subsist without the tender\nCharacters. 'Tis they that sprinkle so sweet a Variety thro' those\nPieces, and relax the Minds of the Readers, with the Beautiful and Soft,\nafter it is sated with the Sublime.\nNow if even the warmest Kinds of Poetry delight in Female Personages,\nHow much more Pastoral, which is all Tenderness and Simplicity? Whose\ndesign is to sooth and spread a Calm over the Mind, as the higher Poems\nare to elevate and strike It.\nBut 'tis not enough that we introduce some Characters drawn from the\n_SOFT-SEX_: our Male Characters must be also of the same Nature, far\nfrom rough or unmanner'd. Every Character must also be of such a Kind\nas will be entertaining to the Mind. For there are some more, some less\ndelightful, among those Female _Characters_, which at first sight seem\nequally proper to Pastoral. Of this kind is a Prudish _Character_, or\nexcessively reserv'd. For, besides that frankness and Openness of Heart,\nis what we imagine natural to Shepherds, a Poet can never raise Delight\nfrom such a Character. Her fault is too hateful to excite Pity in her\nPunishment; and too small to raise Joy in beholding bar Unfortunate.\nBesides that such a Joy were not proper for Pastoral. Of the same Nature\nis a Finical, or Squeamish Character, and many others, at first sight\nagreeable to Pastoral.\nSECT. 2\n_What Passions we may allot our Shepherds_.\nAlthough I am for raising the Characters in Pastoral somewhat above\nthe degree of Boors and Clowns; yet no one is more for retaining the\nPastoral Simplicity. Our Characters of young and tender Innocents,\ngive, I think, a better Opportunity of introducing the true Pastoral\nSimplicity, than those very mean and low Personages, which rather lead\nus to an unmanner'd Clownishness, than an agreeable Simplicity.\nTo preserve this Simplicity, we must avoid attributing to our Swains,\nany of those Passions or Desires, which engage busy and active part\nof Mankind; as Ambition, and the like. _Theocritus_ therefore, and\n_Virgil_, and the generality of his Followers, have rather made their\nShepherds sing alternately for a Leathern Pouch, or a Goat, than for\nthe Desire of Praise. And nothing, I believe, but his being unwilling\nto make his Swains sing for exactly the same Reward, that all since\n_Theocritus_, have done, could have made our excellent Phillips alter\nthe Pouch and the Kid, for Praise, in his sixth Pastoral.\n  _Let others meanly stake upon their Skill.\n  Or Kid, or Lamb, or Goat, or what they will;\n  for praise we sing, nor Wager ought beside;\n  And, whose the Praise, let_ Geron's, _Lips decide_.\nThere are few of even the most violent passions but may be introduc'd\ninto Pastoral, if artfully manag'd and qualify'd by the Poet: As Hatred,\nif it be not carried to it's height; which is an Excess in Pastoral.\nAnd I observe, _Cubbin_, you make your Shepherd _Colly_, inconstant; and\nhave an Aversion to his former Sweet-heart _Soflin_, on account of her\nFrankness, and too great Forwardness. But yet I think it is not faulty,\nbecause you make his Affections vary, against his Inclination, and he is\nangry with himself for his dislike to _Soflin_; but no Reason can stop\nunruly Love.\nSo Revenge, if admitted, must be very ingeniously manag'd, or 'twill be\nintolerable. There is a cunning Thought in _Tasso_, that may perhaps let\nthe Reader something into the Manner in which I would have it order'd.\nA Female Warriour, opposed to her Lover in Aims, for his Inconstancy\nshoot's a Dart at him, yet wishes it may not strike him.\nBut what comes nigher to the explaining the manner of introducing\nRevenge into Pastoral, is what we find in the sixth Idyll of\n_Theocritus_. _Polyphemus's_ Mistress had been unkind; and how do's\nhe propose to take Revenge: Why, he will not take notice of her as she\nwalk's before his Cave to be seen, and pelt's his flock. After which\nfollow's the most simple, and I had almost said, finest Thought in any\nPastoral-Writer. The whole Beauty of which no one will conceive, but who\nhas a Soul as tender as _Theocritus_ had, and could touch the _Soft_ as\nwell. Poliphemus threaten's several Punishments, after which, follows\nthis. 'Tis as fine in _Creech's_ Version as the Original.\n  _Besides, my Dog, he is at my Command,\n  Shall bark at her, and gently bite her Hand_.\nWhat I have said of this, might be said of the other Passions; but I\nshall insist no longer on this Head. As for the Passions most proper for\nPastoral, they are discuss'd elsewhere.\nSECT. 3.\n_What degree of Knowledge we may attribute to our Swains_.\nThe difference between the Knowledge of our Shepherds, and that of\npoliter Persons, must not proceed in the least from any difference\nin their Natural Endowments, but entirely from the manner of their\nEducations. The Poet therefore, has nothing to do in this Case, but to\nconsider what is most probable for Nature to effect, unassisted by Art.\nAs for a Shepherd's knowing what the ancient Poets have deliver'd,\nconcerning the different Ages, and other things, I shall not determine\nwhether 'tis natural or not: because not only _Theocritus_, whose\nShepherds are as well vers'd in History as other Men, and _Virgil_,\nwhose Shepherds are often Philosophers, have gone in this way, but our\nCountryman Mr. Phillips also, whose excellency is his Correctness.\n  (Lang.) _Thrice happy Shepherds now! for_ Dorset _loves\n  The Country Muse, and our delightful Groves.\n  While_ Anna _reigns. O ever may she reign!_\n  And bring on Earth a Golden-Age again.\nI shall leave the Reader also to determine concerning the following\npiece of Knowledge.\n  (Hob.) _Full fain, O blest_ Eliza! _would I praise\n  Thy Maiden Rule, and Albion's Golden Days_.\n  Then gentle _Sidney_ liv'd, the Shepherds Friend:\n  _Eternal Blessings on his Shade descend!_\nThe same is to be said of other the like Passages, but the most ordinary\nCapacity may judge what Knowledge is, or is not, consistent with the\nBanner of a Shepherd's Education.\nCHAP. IV.\n_How to form the Pastoral Characters, and the great Difficulty of doing\nit_.\nA Poet, who would write up to the Perfection of Pastoral, will find\nnothing more difficult (unless the Dialect) than the inventing a\nsufficient Number of Pastoral Characters; such as are both faultless and\nbeautiful. That difficulty proceeds from hence.\nIn Epick and Tragick Poetry we have the whole scope of all Men's Tempers\nand Passions to draw; which are widely various and different: As, the\nSavage and Wild; the Ambitious; the Simple and Tender-hearted; the\nSubtle, &c. Thus in the Epick and Tragick Poems, you draw the general\nQualities of all Men's Minds. But in Pastoral, you are pinn'd down to\none of these common qualities (which is Simplicity and Tenderness.)\nAnd laying that as a Foundation, from thence draw your particular\nCharacters. In every Character still supposing that at the bottom of\nit, and to accompany it. But Rules of this Nature, are like Mathematical\nAssertions, not easily explain'd, but by Examples. Tho' I think,\n_Cubbin_, I need not insist long on this to you; for your Characters are\nnot much faulty in this particular. If I remember aright; some of your\nCharacters are these:\nPaplet has Simplicity and Tenderness: But her distinguishing Character\nis, that she is a May, so young, as to be entirely ignorant of Love; but\nextreamly Curious to be let into the Nature of Men and Lovers.\nCollikin has Simplicity and Tenderness: But withal a Tincture of\nInconstancy in his Nature.\nSoflin, with her Simplicity and Tenderness, is excessive Easy, and\nComplying, to a Fault; open and too free-hearted.\nFlorey has Simplicity; and Tenderness for his Lass; but he is almost out\nof Humour with himself for being so soft. He is suppos'd to be brought\nup in the lonely Cave with Paplet; and his natural Tamper is wild and\nexcessive brisk; hating the House, and delighting in Hunting. But you\nshow, I see, only a Glimpse of his Natural Temper, which breaks out\nat times; but he is drawn as tender, being all the Time in Love with\nPoppit.\nThe rest of your Characters have the same Foundation; nor break in, I\nthink, upon Simplicity and Tenderness.\n'Tis true indeed, as to the Difficulty of forming Pastoral Characters,\nbeyond those of Epick Poetry; That even there, one general Character\nshould diffuse it self thro' all the rest, and that is Bravery.\n(For _Homer_ might, I think, as well have brought in a Baboon, or a\nHedge-hog, for Heroick Characters, as a _Vulcan_ and a _Thirsites_.) But\nBravery will coincide with greatly more Tempers than Pastoral Simplicity\nand Tenderness; nor does it lay the Poet under a Restraint comparably so\ngreat.\n'Tis farther observable, as to the Difficulty of forming the Pastoral\nCharacters, that if we wou'd write up to the Perfection of Pastoral,\n'tis necessary that whatever habit or temper of Mind distinguishes any\nCHARACTER in the first Pastoral, wherever that CHARACTER afterwards\nappears, thro' the whole set of Pastorals, it must appear with the\nsame Temper as before; that is, 'tis not enough to have the Characters\nuniform and just thro' one and the same Pastoral, but what is the\nCharacter of any Swain or Lass in the first and second Pastoral,\nthat must be their Character in all the rest, if they are nam'd or\nintroduc'd, tho' never so slightly. For by this means, not only\nevery single Pastoral will make a regular Piece, but the whole set of\nPastorals also constitute together one uniform and ample Poem; if the\nReader delights to fill his Mind with a large and ample Scheme.\nThe set of Pastorals would be still more perfect, if the Characters\nwere also all continued on from the first to the last Pastoral, and none\ndrop'd, as 'twere, in silence; but in the Pastorals which draw towards\nthe End, the Characters should be all disposed of in Pastoral, and after\nan entertaining Manner; so that the two or three last Pastorals will be\nlike the fifth Act in a Tragedy, where the Catastrophe is drawn up. The\nreasonableness of this appear's from hence. I suppose the Poet to form\nhis Story so, and so to draw his Characters, that the Reader's Mind may\nbe engag'd and concern'd for the Personages. Now the Mind is uneasy if\n'tis not let into the issue of the Affairs of the Person it has been\nlong Intent upon, and given to know whether he is finally Unfortunate,\nor Happy.\nSECT. _Last_.\nThus far proceeded Sophy, when Night drew on. He shut his Book; and\nCubbin told him, he had not pass'd many days with so much Delight as\nthat. If you have found my Discourse, said Sophy, entertaining, do not\nfail of being here again early to morrow Morning, and I will continue\nit to you. The Shepherd express'd his Satisfaction, and they hasted home\ntogether.\nThe following Morn was fair and inviting; they both appear'd when the\nLark began his Mattin Song; and Sophy thus proceeded.\n_The End of the Second Part_.\nP A R T III.\nCHAP. I.\n_Of the Sentiments in general_.\nI must crave leave to extend the Signification of the Word Sentiment, to\nthe including tooth IMAGE and THOUGHT. For I think the Criticks should\nby all means have, before now, made that Division, and the omission has\noccasion'd the greatest Obscurity and Confusion in the Writings of those\nwho have discours'd on any particular Kind of Sentiment. But that the\nReader may take the more Care to keep this Distinction in his Head, we\nwill give one Instance of the Confusion it occasion'd in the Mind of\n_Longinus_, who treated the Sublime, and certainly ought to have had a\nclear Notion of the Subject he wrote so largely, and so floridly upon.\nNow in his sixth _Section_, he make's it a Question, and discourses\nlargely, whether Passion can go along with a Sublime SENTIMENT. But any\none who has divided Sentiment into Image and Thought would laugh at this\nQuestion; it being so plain that passion is consistent with a Sublime\nThought, and is not with a Sublime Image.\nWould not any person who desired to acquire a true and thorough Notion\nof a sublime Sentiment, so as to know one, wherever met, be puzzled\nat _Longinus_'s telling him, _Homer_'s Sentiment is sublime, where\nhe make's the _Giant_'s heap Ossa on Olympus, and on Ossa Wood-top'd\nPelion; and a little after telling him that _Alexander_'s to _Parmeno_\nis a sublime Sentiment. _Parmeno_ say's, _Were I Alexander, I would\nembrace these Proposals of Peace_. _Alexander_ reply'd, _And I, by the\nGods, were I Parmeno_. These Sentiments of _Homer_ and _Alexander_ (tho'\nequally sublime) are as different as a Bright and a Tender Sentiment. If\nthen I have settled one in my Mind, as sublime, How shall I conceive the\nother as such?\nBut there is no other way of avoiding this Confusion, and of being\nequally certain of all sublime Sentiments, but by knowing that the\nfirst of these is a sublime Image, and the last a sublime Thought or\nSentiment. And you will find, if you consider the Nature of _Homer_'s\nImage, all sublime Images are like it; and the same of _Alexander_'s\nsublime Thought. Altho' the sublime Sentiments in general are so\ndifferent.\nBut since we are accidentally engag'd in considering the Sublime; I will\nendeavour to show you how to judge infallibly of a Sublime SENTIMENT.\nFor I think it cannot be gotten from _Longinus_; or at least, I could\nnever learn it from that most Florid and Ingenious author. And it may be\nshown in three Lines, as well as in so many Volumes.\nA Sublime Image always dilate's and widen's the Mind, and put's it upon\nthe Stretch. It comprehends somewhat almost too big for it's Reach;\nand where the Mind is most stretch'd, the Image is most Sublime; if we\nconsider no foreign Assistances. As _Homer_ say's, _The Horses of the\nGods, sprung as far at every Stride, as a Man can see who sit's upon the\nSea-shore_. But foreign Assistances, as a figurative Turn, &c. may raise\na passage to an equal degree of Sublimity, which yet does not so largely\ndilate the Mind; as this of _Shakespear_'s is more Sublime than that of\n_Homer_'s.\n            --_Heaven_'s  Cherubs, _hors'd\n  Upon the sightless_ Curriers _of the Air,\n  Shall blow the horrid Deed in every Eye_.\n  _Macbeth_. Act. 1. Scen. 7\nThe not having a perfect Idea of the Sentiment, make's us conceive\nsomething the greater of it.\nA Sublime Thought always gives us a greater and more noble Conception of\neither the Person speaking; the Person spoken of; or, the Thing spoken\nof. I need not instance; but if you apply this to any of the Thoughts of\n_Homer_, or _Shakespear_, generally call'd Sublime, you'll find it will\nalways square.\nHere let me make one Observation: That you may never be mistaken in\njudging of a Sublime Passage, _Cubbin_, take notice; that there are\nsome Thoughts so much imaged in the Turn that is given to 'em, by the\nfigurative Expression, that they lose the name of Thoughts, and commence\nImages. I will mention one out of _Shakespear_, (who uses this Method\nthe most of any Author, and 'tis almost the only thing that raises his\nLanguage) I will mention it, because, being in it self a low and common\nSentiment, he has made it the most Sublime, I think, of any he has.\n_Macbeth_'s Lady say's, before the Murther of the King.\n  And pall thee in the dunnest Smoak of Hell,\n  That my keen Knife see not the Wound it makes\n  Nor Heav'n peep thro' the Blanket of the Dark,\n  To cry, Hold! Hold!_\n  _Macbeth_ Act. 1. Scen. 5.\nBut I run the Digression too far.\nCHAP. II.\n_Of the Images. And which are proper for Pastoral, which not_.\nLet us proceed to consider what Images will shine most in PASTORAL. And\nhere I shall not consider all kinds of Images, both good and vicious,\nbut only those which are in their own nature good; and among those show\nwhich may, and which may not, be introduc'd into Pastoral.\nOf Images, in their own Nature good, only the BEAUTIFUL, and the\n[A]GLOOMY are, properly speaking, fit for Pastoral. The Uncommon, the\nTerrible, and the Sublime, being improper.\n[Footnote A: _The Division of the Images and Thoughts is made, and the\nnature of the_ GLOOMY _consider'd, in the Critical Preface to the Second\nPart of our Pastorals_.]\nIf any other kinds of Images are introduced, they must be artfully\nqualify'd, or else be faulty; the Methods to be used in so qualifying\nthem, are too numerous to recount. But give me leave to put down one,\nwhich relates to the Language.\nSuppose you was to describe some LOVELADS and LASSES roving a little\nby the Sea-shore in a guilded Boat; when, on a sudden, the Wind arises,\ndrives 'em into the middle of the Main at once, and dashes the _Gondola_\non a Rock. Might you not describe such a boistrous Circumstance in an\neasy and Pastoral manner.\n  _Sore raven the fell Sea (Oh sorry Sight!)\n  And strait (most wofull Word) the Boat doth split_.\nBut these are things which are better left to the Writer's own Genius,\nthan to Rule and Criticism.\nAs to the gloomy Images, I shall only caution the Pastoral Writer, that\nthey must be of a very different Nature from those in Epick Poetry or\nTragedy: That is, the gloomy must not be so strong; but the Images must\nrather contain a pleasing Amusement. And that they'll do, if they are\ndrawn from the Country: As _Fairies_; _Will-o'-Wisps_; _the Evening_;\n_falling Stars_; and the like, will all furnish Images exactly agreeable\nto Pastoral.\nHaving made this Observation on the _Gloomy Images_, let us now proceed\nto the Consideration of the Beautiful, which will detain us somewhat\nlonger.\nSECT. 2.\n_Of Beautiful Images. And of those; which are more, which less fine_.\nIn my usual way of considering Beautiful Images; for the greater\nClearness, I rank 'em into three several Classes. This division I do\nnot desire to impose on any one else; but the mentioning it, cannot be\namiss.\nOf the three sorts or kinds of Beautiful Images, the first, and least\ndelightful is, where only a simple Image is exhibited to the Reader's\nMind. As of a Fair Shepherdess.\nThe second Sort is, where there is the Addition of the Scene; as suppose\nwe give the Picture of the fair Shepherdess, sitting on the Banks of a\npleasant streamlet.\nThe third, and finest kind of Beautiful Images is, where the Picture\ncontain's a still further Addition of action. As, the Image of a fair\nShepherdess, on the Banks of a pleasant Stream asleep, and her innocent\nLover harmlessly smoothing her Cloaths as flutter'd by the Wind. And the\nmost beautiful Image in Phillips, or I think any Pastoral-Writer, is of\nthis Nature.\n  _Once_ Delia _lay, on easy Moss reclin'd;\n  Her lovely Limbs half bare, and rude the Wind.\n  I smooth'd her Coats, and stole a silent Kiss;\n  Condemn me, Shepherds, if I did amiss_.\nThe last Line contains a Pastoral Thought, of the best Sort; as the\nthree first a Pastoral Image.\nThe middle of this last Pastoral is full of beautiful Images, and has\ntherefore proved so Entertaining to all Readers, that I wonder Mr.\nPhillips would not give us the Beautiful in his four first Pieces also.\nOf all the Persons who have written in the English Language, no one ever\nhad a Mind so well form'd by Nature for Pleasurable Writing, as Spencer.\nYet as he wrote his Pastorals when very Young, this does not appear so\nmuch from them, as from his Fairy Queen; thro' which, (like Ovid, in his\nMetamorphoses) he has perpetually recourse to Pastoral. Especially in\nhis Second Book; in which there are more pleasurable Pastoral Images in\nevery eight Lines, than in all his Pastorals. We have Knights basking in\nthe Sun by a pleasant Stream, rambling among the Shepherdesses, entering\ndelightful Groves surrounded with Trees, or the like, almost in every\nStanza; but thro' all his Pastorals, we have not half a dozen beautiful\nImages. 'Tis therefore the Pastoral Language that support's 'em, which\nhe took excessive pains about.\nCHAP. III.\n_Of Pastoral Descriptions. And what Authors have the finest_.\nOf Images are form'd Descriptions, as by a Combination of Thoughts a\nSpeech is composed. And a Description is good or bad, chiefly as the\nImages or Circumstances are judiciously, or otherwise, chosen; and\nartfully put together.\nAs to the putting them together, I shall only observe, that in\nDescriptions of the Heat of Love, not in Pastoral, but in such Pieces\nas Sapho's, or the like, the Circumstances should be couch'd extreamly\nclose; in Epick Poetry the Circumstances should be somewhat less closely\nheap'd together; and that Pastoral requires 'em the most diffuse of any;\nbeing of a Nature extreamly calm and sedate.\nHence we may learn what Length Pastoral will admit of in it's\nDescriptions. And certain it is, that as we are easily wearied by a cold\nSpeech, so are we by a cold Description, unless very concise.\nBut as those Poets whose Minds have delighted in Pastoral Images have\nalways been Men of Pleasurable Fancies, and who never would bring their\nMinds under the Regulation of Art; all who have touch'd Pastoral the\nfinest have egregiously offended in this Particular. The only Writers, I\nthink, who have ever had Genius's form'd for Pastoral Images, are _Ovid_\nand _Spencer_; which appear's from the _Metamorphoses_ of the first, and\nthe _Fairy-Queen_ of the latter. As for _Theocritus_, he seem's to me\nto be better in the Pastoral Thought than Image; and as I rank together\n_Ovid_ and _Spencer_, so I put _Theocritus_ in the same Class with\n_Otway_. And I think any one of these Four, if he had form'd his Mind\naright by Art, (that is, had either thoroughly understood Criticism\nin all it's Branches, or else never vitiated his natural Genius by any\nLearning) was capable of giving the World a perfect Sett of Pastorals.\nThe former two would have run most upon beautiful Images, and the latter\ntwo upon Agreeable Thoughts.\nI need not instance in the tedious Descriptions of _Theocritus_, _Ovid_\nand _Spencer_. But certainly, if long Descriptions are faulty in Epick\nPoetry, as they prevent the Curiosity of the Reader, and leave him\nnothing to invent, or to imploy his own Mind upon, they are in\nPastoral much more disagreeable. Tho' if any thing would excuse a\nlong Description, there is in _Ovid_ and _Spencer_, that inimitable\nDelightfulness, which would make 'em pass. Virgil has no Descriptions in\nhis Pastorals so long as Spencer, and Heavens deliver us if he had; for\nas 'tis, I can better read the longest of _Spencer_'s, than the shortest\nof his, in his Pastorals.\nSECT. 2.\n_The proper Length for Descriptions adjusted, from several\nConsiderations_.\nWhat I have laid down seem's in its self plain and evident; but because\n_Rapin_, and some other Criticks, famous for the Niceness of their\nJudgments, have made it a considerable Question, and at last own'd\nthemselves unable to decide it, I shall further consider the Matter.\n'Tis best, I think, only just to exhibit the Picture of an Object to the\nReader's Mind; for if 'tis rightly set and well given, he will himself\nsupply the minute Particulars better to please himself than any Poet can\ndo; as no different Fancies are equally delighted with one and the same\nthing, the Poet in an extended Description must needs hit upon many\nCircumstances not pleasant to every Fancy; even tho' he touches all the\nbest Particulars. But if the Poet only set's the Image in the finest\nLight, by enumerating two or three Circumstances, the Reader's Mind\nin that very instant it sees the Image or Picture, fill's up all the\nOmissions with such Particulars, as are most suitable to it's own single\nFancy. Which farther conceives something beyond, and something out of\nthe way, if all is not told. Whereas descending to Particulars cool's\nthe Mind, which in those Cases ever finds less than it expected.\nTo instance in Painting, for that's the same. When I first cast my Eye\non a beauteous Landscape, and take in a View of the whole and all it's\nparts at once, I am in Rapture, not knowing distinctly what it is that\npleases me; but when I come to examine all the several Parts, they seem\nless delightful. Pleasure is greatest if we know not whence it proceeds.\nAnd such is the Nature of Man, that if he has all he desires he is no\nlonger delighted; but if ought is with-held, he is still in Eagerness,\nand full of Curiosity.\nBesides, Descriptions in Pastoral should be particularly short, because\nit draw's into Description nought but the most Common tho' the most\nBeautiful of Nature's Works: Whereas Epick Poetry, whose Business is\nto Astonish, represents Monsters and Things unheard of before, and a\n_Polyphemus_ or a _Cyclops_ will bear, nay require, a more particular\nDescription, than a beauteous Grott, or falling Water; because the\nOne is only calling up into our Mind what we knew before, the other is\nCreation. Besides that in Epick Poetry the Descriptions are generally\nmore necessary than in Pastoral. To describe the fair Bank where your\nLovers sate to talk does not help the _Fable_; but if _Homer_ had not\nprepared us, by a particular Description of _Polyphemus_'s hugeness, he\nwould not have been credited, when he afterwards said, _That he hurl'd\nsuch a Piece of a Rock after_ Ulysses'_s Ship, as drove it back, tho' it\ntouch'd it not, but only plung'd into the Waves, and made 'em roll with\nso great Violence_.\nI shall only add one Observation on this Head, and proceed. Pastoral\nadmits of _Narration_ and _Dialogue_, but in _Narration_ we may be\ngreatly more diffuse in our Descriptions than in the _Dialogue_ part of\nthe Piece. For nothing in Poetry is to be preserv'd with more care than\nprobability, especially in Pastoral. Now for a Shepherd to be relating\nan Accident of Concern, and to dwell on a Description of Place or Person\nfor four or five Lines in the midst, does it not look as if 'twere only\nVerses written, and not a Tale actually told by the Swain, since in\nsuch a Case 'tis natural to hast to the main Point, and not to dwell so\nparticularly on Matters of no Consideration.\nI might give several other Reasons for the shortness of Pastoral\nDescriptions, as that 'tis the manner of Shepherds not to dwell on one\nMatter so precisely, but to run from one thing to another; Also, that\nthe Reader's Mind is delighted when it has scope to employ it self; and\nthe like. But the clearness of the Question prevents me.\nSECT. 3.\n_What Pastoral Images will shine most in a Description_.\nWe have just shown which Images are the finest; and 'tis evident that by\nan accumulation of the best Images is form'd the best Description. 'Tis\nnot here my business particularly to show which Circumstances, in any\nDescription, are best, which worst; 'tis enough, that in general We\naffirm the most Beautiful to be finest in Pastoral, and the most Sublime\nin Epick Poetry; which are most Beautiful, and which are most Sublime I\nhave elsewhere shown.\nYet there are several foreign Assistances or Adjuncts, which do greatly\nadd to a beautiful Circumstance; as for Instance; if along with\na beautiful Image, we by any means show at once the Happiness and\nInnocence of the rural Inhabiters, it renders the Circumstance greatly\nmore delightful. This can't so well be explain'd as by an Instance.\n_Ovid_ describes _PROSERPINA_, as she is gathering Flowers in a Meadow\namong her Play-Fellows, hurried away by _PLUTO_, in order to her\nRavishment. Among the Misfortunes, which that Violence brought upon the\nInnocent young Creature, this is one;\n  _And oh, out Lap the pretty florets fell_.\nThere is no Circumstance in any Author, nor any one will be ever\ninvented, more proper for Pastoral than this Line: As it contains not\nonly a most beautiful Image, but show's us at once the Simplicity,\nand Happiness of the Country, where even such Accidents are accounted\nMisfortunes.\nBut this is a Circumstance that would but just bear the touching upon;\nand _Ovid_ by his two next Lines, has, I think, spoil'd it. In Mr.\n_SEWEL_'s Translation they run thus.\n  _Oft on her_ Mates, _oft on her Mother call's,\n  And from her Lap her fragrant Treasure fall's;\n  And she (such Innocence in Youth remains)\n  Of that small Loss, among the rest, complains_.\nIf he had stopt with the second Line he had put himself, as 'twere, in\nthe place of a Shepherd, and spoke of the Misfortune as if it came from\nhis Heart, and he was interested for the Beauteous Innocent. But in the\ntwo last Lines he takes upon him the Author, is grave and reflecting;\nbut nothing is so Beautiful in these kind of Descriptions, as for a\nWriter to put himself as 'twere in the Place of the Person he speaks\nof; and unless a Writer delights to do this, and takes Pleasure in his\nCharacters, and has, as 'twere, a Love and Kindness for 'em, he'll\nnever excell in Pastoral. And I have been told, Cubbin, by some of your\nAcquaintance, that they can easily tell what sort of Characters you were\nfondest of when your wrote your Pastorals; for there is one you never\nmention but with an unusual Pleasure and Alacrity; and it appear's from\nyour Description of her that your Heart was on the flutter when you drew\nit. And if you read it over now, so long after, you'll observe it. But\nit has made you excell your self.\nSECT. 4.\n_Cautions for the avoiding some Faults which_ Theocritus, Ovid, Spencer,\nTasso, &c. have fallen into in their Descriptions_.\nThe generality of our narrative Poets under their general Descriptions,\nbring in the Descriptions of particular and lesser Things. This is very\nfaulty. I might Instance In _OVID_, _SPENCER_, _CHAUCER_, &c, but there\nis an Example of this so very flagrant in _TASSO_, that I can't forbear\nmentioning it, as I think 'tis the most monstrous one I ever saw, and\nthese Observations relate alike to Epick Poetry and Pastoral. This\nAuthor has occasion in the Thirteenth Book of his Hierusalem to describe\na Drought, which he does In Six and Fifty Lines, and then least we might\nmistake what he's describing tell's us in Eight Lines more, how the\nSoldiers panted and languished thro' excessive Heat, then in Eight more\ndescribes the Horses panting and languishing; then in Eight more gives\nus a Description of the Dogs, who lay before the Tents also panting and\nlanguishing, and so on.\nThis is what I mean by bringing one Description within another; and 'tis\nthe greatest of Faults. We lose all thoughts of the general Description,\nand are so engaged in Under-ones, that we have forgot what he at first\npropos'd to describe.\nAnother Observation I would make, is, that a Pastoral Writer should be\nparticularly careful not to proceed too far, or dwell too minutely on\nCircumstances, in his most pleasurable Descriptions, which we may term\nthe Luscious. Such as _Spencer_'s, where he makes his Knight lye loll'd\nin Pleasures, and Damsels stripping themselves and dancing around for\nhis Diversion. This, _SPENCER_ methinks carries to an excess; for he\ndescribes 'em catching his Breath as it steam'd forth; distilling the\nSugar'd Liquor between his Lips, and the like. Such Descriptions will\ngrow fulsome if more than just touch'd, as the most delicious things the\nsoonest cloy.\nCHAP. IV.\n_That Pastoral should Image almost every thing_.\nThere is nothing more recommends the Tragedys of Mr. _Row_, than his\nLanguage, which I think is (in it's own Nature) particularly Beautiful.\nAs I cannot forbear looking into the Springs and Means by which our best\nPoets attain their Excellence in the several Dialects they touch the\nfinest, what 'tis that constitutes the Difference between the Language\nof one and that of another; and also what Rank or Class each Dialect\nbelongs to; I have done the same as to the Writings of Mr. _Row_. And\nI observe that the chiefest Means he makes use of to render his Tragick\nLanguage at once Uncommon and Delightful, is the Figurative Way of\nconsidering Things as Persons. What I mean is this.\n  Dispels the sullen Shades with her sweet Influence_.\nAnd again:\n         ----_My wrongs will tear their Way,\n  And rush at once upon thee_.\n         Jane Shore: _Act_ 1.\nAnd this is extreamly frequent, especially in Jane Shore. And nothing\ncan be more Beautiful in Heroick Language; and this Author has some\nSentiments dress'd, by this Figurative Way, as finely as most of\n_Shakespear_'s; As this\n  _Care only wakes, and moping Pensiveness;\n  With Meagre, discontented Looks they sit,\n  And watch the wasting of the Mid-night Taper_.\nNow what is this but imaging almost every thing, or turning as many\nThoughts as possible into Images?\nNow if the Thoughts in strong Lines, (as they call 'em) appear best in\nImagery, how much more will Pastoral Thoughts. The former have Passion\nand Heat to support 'em, the latter are entirely Simple. And If Heroick\nWriters are fond of Images, how much more should Pastoral Writers avoid\na long Series of bare Thoughts, and endeavour to Address the Mind of the\nReader with a constant Variety of Pictures.\nWhat I have here delivered may seem trifling to the Reader. But if he\nlooks into the modern Pastoral-Writers he'll observe that the Scarcity\nof Images goes a great way towards making their Pieces flat and insipid.\nAnd 'tis impossible indeed to have a sufficient Variety of Images in a\nPastoral that is compos'd by nought but a mournful Speech or Complaint.\nTherefore a Writer who would not only write regular, but also delightful\nPastorals, should doubtless run very much upon Description.\nI need not make the Distinction between an Epick and a Pastoral Writer's\nmanner of Imaging. They are widely different; nor can a Pastoral Image\nso many Things as an Epick Writer. For he cannot consider Things as\nPersons, nor use the other Methods that Heroick Poetry takes to effect\nit.\nCHAP. V.\n_Of the Thoughts. And which are proper for Pastoral, which not_.\nI Shall not consider those Thoughts which are, in their own Nature,\nVicious; as the Ambiguous, the Pointed, the Insipid, the Refined,\nthe Bombast, and the rest. But of those Kind of Thoughts which are\nin themselves good, only these three do properly belong to Pastoral;\nnamely, The Agreeable, or Joyous; The Mournful, or Piteous; And the Soft\nor Tender.\nYet the rest of those Thoughts which are in their own Nature good,\nmay be so order'd as to bear a part in Pastoral. For as We may make a\nShepherd false to his Mistress, if he be offended with the Levity of his\nNature; so We may make a Lass Ill-natured and Satyrical, for Instance,\nif 'tis not in her Temper, but assumed only for a good Purpose.\nSECT. 2.\n_Of those Thoughts which are proper for Pastoral, how to Judge which are\nfinest_.\nI need only observe, that where is the greatest Combination of those\nthings which make the best Figure in Pastoral, that is always the best\nThought. As a Thought that is not only agreeable or Beautiful, but has\nalso Simplicity. The two finest Passages that I remember in _THEOCRITUS_\nfor their Simplicity, are these. Which are exceeding well Translated\nby _CREECH_; whose Language (next to some of _Spencer's_) is vastly the\nbest we have, for pastoral. I will quote the whole Passage.\n  Daph.) _And as I drove my Herd, a lovely Maid\n         Stood peeping from a Cave; she smil'd, and said,\n         Daphnis is lovely, ah! a lovely Youth;\n         What Smiles, what Graces sit upon his Mouth!\n         I made no sharp Returns, but hung my Head\n         And went my Way, yet pleas'd with what she said_.\nOf the same Nature is what _COMATAS_ says in another Place.\n  Com.) _I milk two Goats; a Maid in yonder Plain\n        Lookt on, and Sigh'd_, Dost milk thy self poor Swain!\nAnd what follows soon after.\n  Com.) _The fair Calistria, as my Goats I drove,\n        With Apples pelts me, and still murmurs Love_.\nTho' these Thoughts are so exceeding Beautiful thro' their Simplicity,\nI rather take 'em to be Agreeable Thoughts; and Simplicity to be only an\nAdjunct or Addition to 'em; as Passion is an Addition and Embellishment\nto the Sublime Thoughts.\nThe Mournful Thought, with the Addition of Simplicity, is as pleasing, I\nthink, as the Agreeable with Simplicity. The finest of this kind that I\nremember in _THEOCRITUS_, are in his 22 _Idyll_. A Shepherd resolves to\nHang himself, being scorn'd by the Fair he ador'd. For the more he was\nfrown'd upon the more he loved.\n  _But when o'recome, he could endure no more,\n  He came and wept before the hated Dora;\n  He wept and pin'd, he hung the sickly Head,\n  The Threshold kist, and thus at last he said_.\nMany Thoughts In the Complaint are as fine as this. As, of the following\nLines, the 3d and 4th.\n  _Unworthy of my Love, this Rope receive.\n  The last, most welcome Present I can give.\n  I'll never vex thee more. I'll cease to woe.\n  And whether you condemned, freely go;\n  Where dismal Shades and dark_ Oblivion _dwell_.\nOf the same Nature also is what soon after follows.\n  _Yet grant one Kindness and I ask no more;\n  When you shall see me hanging at the Door.\n  Do not go proudly by, forbear to smile.\n  But stay,_ Sweet Fair, _and gaze, and weep a while;\n  Then take me down, and whilst some Tears are shed,\n  Thine own soft Garment o're my Body spread.\n  And grant One Kiss,--One Kiss when I am dead.\n  Then dig a Grave, there let my Love be laid;\n  And when you part, say thrice,_ My friend is Dead.\nAll these Thoughts contain Simplicity as an Addition to the Mournful.\nAnd 'tis impossible for any Thoughts to be more Natural.\n'Twere endless to enumerate all the several kinds of Beautiful Pastoral\nThoughts, but from these any one may discover the rest; and the general\nRule we gave at the beginning of the Chapter will be a Direction for his\nranging them into distinct Classes.\nYet give me leave to mention one Kind, which I think we may term the\nfinest. 'Tis where the Agreeable Thought, and the Tender, meet together,\nand have besides, the Addition of Simplicity. I would explain my Meaning\nby a Quotation out of some Pastoral Writer, but I am at a loss how to\ndo it; give me leave therefore to bring a Passage out of the Orphan. A\nThought may contain the Tender, either with regard to some Person spoken\nof, or the Person speaking. The first is common, this Play is full\nof it. I will therefore Instance in the latter. And first where 'tis\nchiefly occasion'd by the turn that is given to it in the Expression.\nChamont presses his Sister to tell him who has abused her.\n  Mon.)   _But when I've told you, will you keep your Fury\n          Within it's bound? Will you not do some rash\n          And horrid Mischief? for indeed_, Shamont,\n          _You would not think how hardly I've been used\n          From a near Friend_.\n  Cham.)  _I will be calm; but has_ Castalio _wrong'd thee?_\n  Mon.)   _Oh! could you think it!_  (Cham.)  _What?_\n  Mon.)   _I fear he'll kill me_.    (Cham.)  _Hah!_\n  Mon.)   _Indeed I do; he's strangely cruel too me.\n          Which if it lasts, I'm sure must break my Heart_.\nIn the other passage the Tender lyes more in the Thought.\n  Mon.)  _Alas my Brother!\n         What have I done? And why do you abuse me?\n         My Heart quakes in me; in your settled Face\n         And clouded Brow methink's I see my Fate;\n         You will not kill me!_\n  Cham.) _Prithee, why dost talk so?_\n  Mon.)  _Look kindly on me then, I cannot bear\n         Severity; it daunts and does amaze me.\n         My Heart's so tender, should you charge me rough.\n         I should but Weep, and Answer you with Sobing.\n         But use me gently, like a loving Brother,\n         And search thro' all the Secrets of my Soul_.\nCHAP. VI.\n_Of three Kind of Thoughts which seem to be false, yet are admitted and\nvalued by Pastoral Writers_.\nTho' I proposed not to consider those Thoughts which are false, either\nin their own Nature, or with Respect to Pastoral; yet there are some\nsuch, that yet are thought good, by the generality of Writers, which I\nshall therefore Just mention; since Pastoral-Writers are especially fond\nof 'em, and seem to look upon 'em as Beautys. Of these false Thoughts\nthere are, I think, three sorts. The EMBLEMATICAL, the ALLEGORICAL, and\nthe REFINED.\nOf the first Sort, or the EMBLEMATICAL, _SPENCER_ was so fond, that he\nmakes it run all thro' his first and last Pastoral; which two come\nthe nearest of any he has to true Pastorals; and contain Thoughts more\npleasant than those in his other (especially his Allegorical) Pieces.\nBut these pleasant Thoughts are mostly Emblematical, as this, which I\nthink, is in SPENCER.\n  _My Leaf is dry'd, my Summer Season's done,\n  And Winter, blasting Blossoms, hieth on_.\nMeaning that his happy time of Life was past, and Old Age drew on. I\nneed not prove these Thoughts to be improper for Pastoral.\nThe Second Sort, or the ALLEGORICAL, is also what _SPENCER_ delighted\nequally in. His every Pastoral almost has under the plain Meaning a\nhidden one. Let all judge of Allegorical Pastorals as they please, but\nin my Opinion, they are not consistent with the Simplicity of that Poem.\nThe Third Sort I mention'd was the _REFINED_. And of this our Modern\nSwains are as fond, as _SPENCER_ was of the two first. But all the\nDifficulty is to show that their Thoughts are refin'd; for all allow a\nRefin'd Thought to be faulty. But those I am going to mention are not\nat present look't upon as such. As that Apostrophe, where the Shepherd\ncalls upon the Works of Nature to assist him in his Grief. This Thought\nbeing us'd by all Pastoral-Writers show's how Beautiful they thought it:\nAnd the generality of them, 'tis plain, took delight in the Affectation\nof it, because they have put it as affected as they could.\nIf 'tis possible for any, the finest Turn, that can be given it, to\nprevent the Affectation, I think the Ingenious Mr. _ROW_ has done it, in\nhis excellent Tragedy, call'd _JANE SHORE_.\n  _Give me your Drops, Ye soft-descending Rains,\n  Give me your Streams, Ye never-ceasing Springs, &c_.\nBut the very best Turn, methinks, that can possibly be given to this\nThought, Mr. _PHILIPS_, in his Pastorals, has hit upon.\n  _Teach me to grieve, with bleating Moan, my Sheep,\n  Teach me, thou ever-flowing Stream, to weep;\n  Teach me, ye faint, ye hollow Winds, to sigh,\n  And let my Sorrows teach me how to dye_.\nThe Thought likewise of the Heavens and the Works of Nature wailing\nalong with the Swain, is what Pastoral-Writers all aim at. I need not\nquote different Authors, for the different Turns that are given to this\nThought; I remember Mr. _CONGREVE_ has it in four several Places. The\nbest express'd, I think, is this.\n  _The Rocks can Melt, and Air in Mists can mourn,\n  And Floods can weep, and winds to Sighs can turn, &c_.\nIt seem's to be turn'd the best next in these Lines.\n  _And now the Winds, which had so long been still,\n  Began the swelling Air, with Sighs to fill, &c_.\nThe Affectation of the Thought show's it self rather more, I think, in\nthe following Lines.\n  _And see, the Heav'ns to weep in Dew prepare.\n  And heavy Mists obscure the burd'ned Air\n  On ev'ry Tree the Blossoms turn to Tears,\n  And every Bough a weeping Moisture bears_.\nBut give me leave to quote the Thought once more and I have done.\n  _The Marble Weep's, and with a silent Pace,\n  It's trickling Tears distil upon her Face.\n  Falsely ye weep, ye Rocks, and falsely Mourn!\n  For never will ye let the Nymph return!_\nIf any should have a Curiosity to see these Thoughts at large, for\nwe have not quoted the whole of 'em, he may find 'em in _Congreve_'s\nPastoral, call'd _The Mourning Muse of_ ALEXIS.\nI shall trouble you with but one Thought more of those which we reduce\nunder the Denomination of Refin'd, and that is the ANTITHESIS. I do not\njust now remember a Line of this Nature in any Author but Mr. _PHILIPS_;\notherwise, I avoid hinting at particular Faults in a Writer who is\ngenerally regular and correct, in his Sentiments.\n  _In vain thou seek'st the Cov'rings of the Grove,\n  In the cool Shades to sing the Heats of Love_.\nSECT. 2.\n_Of_ SIMPLE THOUGHTS. _And the finest quoted out of_ SHAKESPEAR _and_\nPHILIPS.\n'Twould be well if Pastoral-Writers would leave aiming at such Thoughts\nas these, and endeavour to introduce the Simple Ones in their stead.\nBut what is most surprizing, is, that their false Thoughts are as seldom\ntheir own, as their true ones, and they steal all indifferently from\n_THEOCRITUS_ and _VIRGIL_. Which shows how necessary it is to be a\nthorough Critick, if you would be a good Poet.\nPastoral-Writers are sufficiently for Simplicity; nay so much, that\nthey form their Storys or Fables so little and triffling as to afford\nno Pleasure; is it not strange then that they should be so averse to\nSimplicity in their Thoughts; where Simplicity would be the greatest\nBeauty in their Poetry? Pastoral-Writers have all sorts of false\nThoughts but those which we may call the Too Simple. I do not indeed\nknow any Author who has such a Thought unless it be our wide-thoughted\n_SHAKESPEAR_. And indeed 'tis scarce possible to rise to Simplicity\nenough, in Pastoral, much less to have a Thought too Simple.\n_SHAKESPEAR_'s is this.\n  Des.) _Mine Eyes do itch, doth that boad Weeping?_\n  Emil.) _'Tis neither here nor there_.\n  Des.) _I have heard it said so: O these Men, these Men!\n        Dost thou in Conscience think, tell me_ Emilia,\n        _That there be Women do abuse their Husbands,\n        In such gross kind_? &c.\n        Othello. Act. 4. Sc. last.\nBut if this passage is too Simple, 'tis for Tragedy so, not for\nPastoral; and because _DESDEMONA_ was a Senators Daughter, and Educated\nin so polite a place as _VENICE_; but in Pastoral, I think, we may\nIntroduce a Character so Young, Simple and Innocent, that there is no\nThought so Simple but will square with it; at least, we have no Instance\nof any such one as yet. The Simplicity of this Scene would be inimitable\nfor Pastoral; and I think, it shows as great if not a greater Genius,\nin the Writing it, than any one in _SHAKESPEAR_. But a Scene so truly\nSimple and Innocent cannot well be represented. Besides, what is best\nwrit is most open to the Ridicule of little Genius's; And more, I doubt,\nlook upon this Scene in _OTHELLO_ as Comedy, than have a taste of that\nsweet Simplicity, that is in it, if we consider the Sentiments only in\nthemselves.\nYet must we not carry the Reflection too far, of Pastoral-Writers having\nno such thing as the Simple in any of their Thoughts, for there\nare passages in Mr. _PHILIPS Pieces_ truly Simple. And 'tis worthy\nObservation how beautiful a figure they make, tho' we don't consider\n'em as being in a Pastoral. Such is the celebrated one, contain'd in the\nlast of these Lines.\n  _I smooth'd her Coats, and stole a silent Kiss:\n  Condemn me Shepherds if I did amiss_.\n  _Phllips Past_. 6.\nBut we have greatly more Simple Thoughts in other Pieces than in\nPastorals. The finest of all which, is this famous one in _OTHELLO_.\n  _Why I should fear I know not,\n  Since Guiltiness I know not: But yet I feel I fear_.\nYet need we not much wonder at the scarcity of these Simple Thoughts;\nsince there is nothing requires so great a Genius as finely to touch\nthe SIMPLE; and the greatest Genius's never attempt Pastoral; it being\na Form so mean, little and trifling, without the Ornaments of Poetry,\nFABLE, MANNERS, MORAL, &c. and of a confused Imperfect Nature.\nCHAP. VII.\n_Of COMPARISONS in Pastoral. And how much our modern Pastoral-Writers\nhave fail'd therein_.\nSIMILIES in Pastoral must be managed with an exceeding deal of Care, or\nthey will be faulty. As a Poet may range Nature for Comparisons; this\ngives a Pastoral-Writer a very easy Opportunity of introducing rural\nThoughts. _VIRGIL_ therefore, and those Swains who have written\nPastorals more by Art and Imitation than Genius, generally heap three\nor four SIMILIES together for the same thing; and which is of no Moment;\nnor wanted any Comparison.\nAs I have hinted that _Theocritus_ had a Genius capable of writing a\nperfect Set of Pastorals, his Similies are infinitely the best of any\nSwain's. The chief Rule, I think, to be observ'd is (if Rules can be\ngiven for such Things as these) that SIMILIES be contain'd in three or\nfour Words. As this of _PHILIPS_'s.\n  _Whilon did I, all as this_ Pop'lar _fair,\n  Up-raise my heedless Head devoid of Care_, &c.\nOr at most they ahould not exceed a Line. As this is a very Beautiful\none In the same Author. And also in his 1st Pastoral.\n  _A Girland, deck't with all the Pride of_ May,\n  _Sweet as her Breath, and as her Beauty gay_, &c.\nI shall not give my Opinion of the following Similies; yet I might say\nthat I think 'em not altogether so fine as the foregoing two. Altho'\nthey contain delightful Images\n  _As Milk-white Swans on Silver Streams do show,\n  And Silver Streams to grace the Meadows flow;\n  As Corn the Vales and Trees the Hills adorn,\n  So thou to thine an Ornament was't born_.\nThe next relates to the Sweetness of _Colinet_'s Voice.\n  _Not half so sweet are Midnight Winds, that move\n  In drowsy Murmurs o're the waving Grove;\n  Nor dropping Waters, that in Grotts distil,\n  And with a tinkling Sound their Caverns fill_.\nMethinks thus dressing a Thought so pompous in SIMILIES, raises so our\nExpectation, that we are fit to smile when the last Line comes.\nThere are also another kind of Similies, which being heapt in the same\nmanner, seem to be design'd by _VIRGIL_, and those who have taken their\nThoughts from him, rather to fill up Space with somthing Pastoral, than\nto be the natural Talk of Shepherds. For Swains are not suppos'd to\nretard their Storys by many or long SIMILIES; their Talk comes from the\nHeart, Unornamental; but Similies, in Pastoral, are for Ornament. But I\nmust show what kind of Thoughts I mean, which I also account SIMILIES,\nbut they have a peculiar Turn given to 'em. I remember but two in Mr.\n_PHILIPS_ Pastorals.\n  _First then shall lightsome Birds forget to fly,\n  The briny Ocean turn to pastures dry,\n  And every rapid River cease to flow,\n  'Ere I unmindful of_ Menalcas _grow_.\nThe other is this.\n  _While Mallow Kids; and Endive Lambs pursue;\n  While Bees love Thyme; and Locusts sip the Dew;_\n  _While Birds delight in Woods their Notes to strain,\n  Thy Name and sweet Memorial shall remain_.\nBut now I have given Examples of those Similies which seem faulty; and\nquoted at the beginning of the Section, some that are good; I will bring\nan Instance of a SIMILIE, which is more delightful to the Fancy than all\nthese put together; and which show's that _Theocritus_ thought 'twas a\nsmall thing to put down Pastoral Thoughts or Images, if he did not cull\nthe most pleasurable in Nature. _CREECH_ has translated it very well.\n_DAPHNIS_ had conquer'd _MENALCAS_ in Singing.\n  _The Boy rejoyc'd, he leap'd with youthful Heat,\n  As sucking Colts leap when they swig the Teat;\n  The other griev'd, he hung his bashful Head,\n  As marry'd Virgins when first laid in Bed_.\nCHAP. VIII.\n_Of imitation; or Stealing Sentiments from the_ ANTIENTS.\nIf a direct Imitation of the Thoughts of the _Greeks_ and _Romans_,\nshows no great Richness of Genius, in any kind of Poetry, in Pastoral\n'tis much more to be avoided. If a Hero does sometimes talk out _HOMER_\nand _VIRGIL_, 'tis not so shocking, because tis not dissonant to Reason\nto suppose such a Person acquainted with Letters and Authors; nor is an\nHeroick Poems Essence Simplicity; But if a Modern gives me the Talk of a\nShepherd, and I have seen it almost all before in _THEOCRITUS_, _VIRGIL_\nand _SPENCER_, it cannot delight me. For that Poetry pleases the most,\nthat deceives the most naturally. But how can I, while I am reading a\npastoral, impose upon my self that I am among Swains and in the Country,\nif I remember all they say is in _Greek_ and _Roman_ Authors. And few\nread _Modern-Writers_ but have read the _Antients_ first. A Shepherd\nshould speak from his Heart, as if he had no design of Pleasing, but\nis prompted to utter all he says: But if in all he says we see an\nImitation, or a Thought stole from other Authors, it destroys all\nSimplicity, shows Design and Labour.\nBesides, Epick Poetry warms and elevates the Mind, hurries it on with\nfury and Violence, which prevents our noting any slight Inacuracy, so as\nto be offended by it; but in so cool a Poem as Pastoral, whose design\nis to sooth and soften the Mind, we have leasure to consider every\nUnnaturalness and every Improbability.\nSECT. 2.\n_Of_ Soloman'_s Allegorical pastorals; Entitled_ The CANTICLES.\nYet I know not how, tho' 'tis so unnatural to find Thoughts in the\nMouths of Shepherds, which we have observ'd in _THEOCRITUS_ and\n_VIRGIL_, yet I am never better pleased than with those Thoughts which\nare taken out of the Scripture. Methinks the Thoughts in the CANTICLES\nare so exceeding fine for Pastoral that 'tis pity to give 'em any other\nTurn than what they have there; and if I did take any of those Pastoral\nSentiments, I would translate the whole Passage as we there find it.\n_MILTON_ in his soft Passages has often imitated the Thoughts in the\nCANTICLES; and Mr. _PHILIPS_ has taken from thence the hint of the\nfinest Image but one he has in his Pastorals.\n  _Breath soft ye Winds, ye Waters gently flow,\n  Shield her ye Trees, ye Flow'rs around her grow,\n  Ye Swains, I beg ye pass in silence by,\n  My Love in yonder Vale asleep doth lye_.\nMy not disliking Thoughts taken from the CANTICLES, makes me think that\n'tis not so much the Thoughts being stolen from _THEOCRITUS_ or _VIRGIL_\nthat makes me dislike 'em, as the poor and mean Figure they make in\nPoetry. Could Poets take as fine Pastoral Images from the Antients, as\nthis of _Philips_, I believe no one but would be pleased by 'em, come\nfrom whence they would. But the Thoughts which our Writers take from\nthe Antients are such, that would they trust their own Genius's, I am\nsatisfied they would, at least, not have worse, nor more false ones.\nI was a little surprized when I first read Mr. _Philips_'s _5th_\nPastoral, (which has the most of a story or Fable of any) how he came\nto take the very story which _STRADA_ tell's to show what a Genius\n_CLAUDIAN_ had. _OVID_'s _Metamorphoses_ is full of such Fairy and\nRomantick Tales, and he might well enough have given a Description of a\nBird's contending with a Man for the Prize in Singing, but methinks 'tis\nnot wholly probable enough for a Fable in Pastoral.\nNow the Cause of my mentioning this in Mr. _PHILIPS_, is to persuade, if\npossible, those who shall hereafter engage in Pastoral-Writing to trust\nto their own Genius's. By that means we may hope Pastoral will, one\nDay, arrive at it's utmost Perfection, which if Writers pretend to go no\nfarther than the first who undertook it (I mean _THEOCRITUS_) it never\ncan do. For 'tis no one Genius that can bring any Kind of Poetry to it's\ngreatest Compleatness. And all know by what slow Steps Epick Poetry,\nTragedy, and Comedy arrived at the Perfection they now bear.\nSECT. _Last_.\nBut now the time of Day drew on, when Cubbin must drive his Heifers to\nWater. Sophy therefore withdrew, but promised to be there in the Evening\nagen.\nWhen the Heat of the Day was over, and the Evening Air began to breath\nin a delightful manner, Sophy accordingly appear'd, and setting him on\nthe Rushes, that esprouted up by the River side, open'd his Book, and\nproceeded in the following Manner.\n_The End of the Third part_.\nPART IV.\nCHAP. 1.\n_Of the Pastoral Language in general_.\nI must here premise, that I intend not here a full and compleat\nDiscourse on the Pastoral Language; for that would take up a Volume. But\nI would recommend it to some other Hand; for I know nothing that would\nbe more acceptable to the Letter'd World than an Enquiry into the Nature\nof the _English_ Language.\nBut there is no Dialect or Part of our Language so little understood,\nas that which relates to Pastoral; nor none (not even the Sublime) so\ndifficult to write. Of all who have attempted Pastoral in our Tongue, no\none (but _SPENCER_) has gone so far as even the weakening and enervating\ntheir Dialect; yet after that is perform'd, a Pastoral-Writer has gone\nbut half way; for after the Strength is taken away, a Tenderness and\nSimplicity of Expression must supply its Place, or else 'tis only bald\nand low, instead of Soft and Sweet.\n_Spencer_'s Language is what supports his Pastorals; for I can maintain,\nthat he has not above one Sentiment in fifteen but is either false, or\ntaken from the Antients, throughout his Pastorals. The greatest\nDefect in his Language is it's want of Softness. He has introduced a\nsufficient, or perhaps too great a Number, of Old-Words. But they are\npromiscuously used. He took not the Pains to form his Dialect before\nhe wrote his Pastorals, by which means he has used more rough and harsh\nOld-Words, than Smooth and Agreeable Ones. They are used where our\ncommon Words were infinitely more Soft and Musical. As _What gar's thee\nGreet?_ For, _What makes thee Grieve?_ How Harsh and Grating is the\nSound of _SPENCER_'s two Words, But Instances were endless. He is the\nmore blamable, because there are full enough Old-Words to render a\nDialect Rustick and Uncommon of the most sweet and delightful Sound\nimaginable. As _ween_ or _weet_, for _think_; _yclepen_, for _call'd_,\nand the like. These being so tender and soft, render the Language of\nPastoral infinitely more tender also, than any common Words, now in use,\ncan do.\nCHAP. II.\n_How to attain to the_ Soft _in Writing_.\nThat a Shepherd should talk in a different Dialect from other People, is\nallow'd by all. That the Pastoral Language should be soft and agreeable\nis equally past dispute. The only remaining Question then is, what it is\nthat composes such a Dialect, and how to attain it.\nIn order to compose a Pastoral Dialect entirely perfect; the first\nthing, I think, a Writer has to do, is, as we said before, to enervate\nit and deprive it of all strength.\nAs for the manner of enervating a Language, it must be perform'd by the\nGenius of the Poet, and not shown by a Critick. However when the Thing\nis done, 'tis not difficult to see what chiefly effected it. There are,\nI think, _Cubbin_, two Things that principally enervate your Language.\n_First_, 'Tis perform'd by throwing out all Words that are _Sonorous_\nand raise a _Verse_. Mr. _PHILIPS_ comes the nearest to a Pastoral\nLanguage of any English Swain but _Spencer_. And he has truly enervated\nhis Language in four several Lines. One of which is the last of these\ntwo.\n  _Ye Swains, I beg ye pass in silence by;\n  My Love in yonder Vale asleep doth lye_.\nThe Word Doth, is what enervates the last Line. But 'twould be still\nbetter enervated if Mr. _Philips_ had used only such Words as have very\nfew Consonants in them. For by Consonants, joyn'd with the Vowel O, a\nWriter may render his Language, in Epick Poetry, just as Sonorous as he\nwill; and by the want of Consonants and by delighting in the other soft\nVowels he may render it weak. I cannot see that Mr. _PHILIPS_ has any\nLine where the Language is wholly enervated. But see how _Spencer_ has\ndone this. Especially in the second of these Lines.\n  _The gentle Shepherd sate beside a Spring.\n  All in the Shadow of a Bushy Breer. &c_.\nIn this last Line, there is but one Word end's with a Consonant, where\nthe following Word begin's with one. But a Writer, who is perfectly\nMaster of his Language, will be able to have every Line like this; and\nno Word more strong than Evening, Rivulet, and the like, will he be\nforc'd to use.\n_Secondly_, The Language is by nothing more weaken'd, than by the use of\nMonisyllables. This no one ever had the least Notion of but _Spencer_.\nWhich I wonder has not been observed, 'tis so very palpable in him. What\nmakes the finess of these Lines else?\n  _All as the Sheep such was the Shepherd's look,\n  For pale and wan he was (alas the while!)\n  May seem he lov'd, or also some Care he took,\n  Well could he tune his Pipe and form his Stile_.\n  Past. 1.\nHere is but two Words for four Lines, except Monosyllables.\nThe best Lines in _PHILIPS_, for the Language, are these, where\nMonosyllables reign.\n       ..._Fine gain at length, I trow,\n  To hoard up to my self such deal of Woe!_\nAnd the last of these; for the first is rough thro' too many Consonants.\n  _A lewd Desire strange Lands and Swains to know:\n  Ah Gad! that ever I should covet Woe!_  Past. 2.\nThere are other Methods, I see, Cubbin, you have taken to enervate your\nLanguage; too minute and too numerous to recite, but they are easily, I\nthink, observ'd, if a Person peruses the Pastoral Writers with Care.\nWhen our Dialect is thus render'd weak and low, we must then add to\nit, (in order to render it as pleasant as a Dialect that is not low and\nmean) Simplicity, Softness and Rusticity. This is perform'd principally\nby these three things. By Old-Terms; by Turns of Words, and Phrazes; and\nby Compound Words. Of all which I shall crave leave to treat distinctly.\nAnd first of Ancient Terms.\nSECT. 2.\n_Of Old-Words_.\nWhen first I look'd into _Chaucer_. I thought him the most dry insipid\nWriter I ever saw. And there is indeed nothing very valuable in either\nhis Images or Thoughts; but after a Person is accustom'd to his manner\nof Writing and his Stile, there is something of Simplicity in his Old\nLanguage, inimitably sweet and pleasing. If 'tis thus in _Chaucer_,\nin Pastoral such a Language is vastly more delightful. For we expect\nsomething very much out of the Way, when we come among Shepherds; and\nhow can the Language of Shepherds be made to differ from that of other\nPersons, if they use not Old-Words?\n'Tis very remarkable that all our greatest Poets whose Works will\nlive to Eternity, have introduced into their Language Old-Words; as\n_Shakespear_, _Spencer_, _Milton_. _Dryden_ also, whose Genius was much\ninferiour to those Writers; has used some few. And _Ben. Johnson_ (tho'\nhe lived at the same time with _Shakespear, Spencer, &c_.) whose Genius\nwas yet meaner than _Dryden_, has not one Old-Word.\nAncient Terms were doubtless a great disadvantage, especially to\n_Spencer_, when his Works appear'd first in the World; but he had a Soul\nlarge enough to write rather for Posterity, than present Applause.\nHe took so excessive a delight in the Old Language of his admired\n_Chaucer_, that he could not help, in some measure, imitating it.\nOur greatest Writers having all given into an Ancient Dialect, would\nalmost encline us of the present Age, to think of making their\nLanguage a standing Language; for Queen _Elizabeth_'s Age is to us what\n_Augustus_'s was to the _Latins_; we must never hope to have so many\nnoble Genius's adorn any one Age for the future; I might have said, any\ntwenty Ages. Therefore if any _English_ Dialect survives to the\nWorld's End, 'twill certainly be theirs; and 'twill be prudence in any\nAfter-writer to draw his Language as near to theirs as possible; that if\ntheirs are understood a thousand Years hence, his may too.\nBut to leave the Consideration of Old-Words in Epick Poetry and Tragedy,\nlet us proceed to Pastoral. There are several Advantages flow from the\nUse of Old-Words, but I have time to mention but two or three.\nThere is a Spirit and a Liveliness of Expression to be preserv'd in\nPastoral as well as other Poetry; now I affirm that 'tis impossible\nto perform this without Old-Words; unless a Writer make Shepherds talk\nSublimely, and with Passion, as in Tragedies.\nAgain, if a Writer has a Genius for Pastoral he will have some Thoughts\noccur so inimitably Simple, that they would appear ridiculous in the\nCommon Language; and 'tis necessary that the Language should answer to\nthe Thought. These are the finest Thoughts of all for pastoral.\nThere are also several Thoughts which, tho' extreamly agreeable to\nthe simple Innocence of young Country Girls, will appear too luscious,\nunless the Simplicity and Rusticity of the Speaker appear's, by the\nOld Language spoken. But we smile at a Thought in such simple Language,\nwhich perhaps we shall nauseate in a polite Dialect.\nBut one of the greatest Advantages of Old-Words, is, that they afford\nthe Writer so fine an Opportunity of rendring his Language most\ninimitably soft and smooth. This cannot be done by any other Means; and\nhow proper soft and simple Language is to Pastoral (at least where\nthe Characters are Young, Tender, and Innocent) I need not say. As for\nVIRGIL and those Pastoral Writers who seem not to aim at Simplicity\nin either their Characters or Sentiments, the using of Old-Words is\nentirely different with regard to them. To see a Sentiment, which would\nas well become any other Person as a Shepherd, dress'd in the Simplicity\nof an Ancient Dialect, would appear nothing but Affectation. We are\nused to see such Sentiments in another Dress. Nay, were their Thoughts\nSimple, 'twould not be agreeable for them to use Old-Words, unless the\nwhole Turn of their Language was answerable to it; to have a common,\nordinary Language, with Old-Words scatter'd through it, is a mixt\nconfused Language, and what is very expressively named by our Word\nHodge-podge. 'Tis not enough therefore, for the forming a pastoral\nLanguage to use Old-Words; a Writer must set down, and by true Pains and\nIndustry constitute a Language entirely of a piece and consistant;\nin performing which the choicest Old-Words will be of some little\nAssistance.\nIf I might advise you, Cubbin, I would have you always write Pastorals\nin either such a Language as this, entirely uniform and of a piece, or\nelse to write in a strong polite Language. Never write any single thing\nin a low and mean Language. Polite Language is only faulty with respect\nto it's being in Pastoral; but low Language is in it's own Nature\nfaulty. The first is only unnatural; the latter is stupid and dull.\nTherefore unless you resolve to go quite thro', never weaken or enervate\nyour Pastoral Language at all. Unless you resolve to add Simplicity\nand Softness, to supply the place of Strength, never rob it of it's\nStrength. It had better have strength and Sprightliness and Politeness\nthan Nothing.\nThe best Way is that which Sir _Philip Sidney_ has taken, to suppose\nyour Swains to live in the _Golden-Age_, and to be above the ordinary\nDegree of Shepherds, for Kings Sons and Daughters, were then of\nthat Employ. And upon this Supposition to make 'em talk in a polite,\ndelightful and refined Dialect. By this Means you will disable the\nCriticks at once.\nBut perhaps some may expect that I should vindicate the Use of\nOld-Words, on my own Account. But for that Reason I am the more careless\nin touching the Subject; because I would leave the World to a free and\nunbias'd Judgment of what I have done. Nor is this an Age, indeed, to\nbegin to vindicate Old-Words in. The Method has been approv'd of in all\nAges even in Epick Poetry and Tragedy, and should we go now to defend it\nin Pastoral? A Friend indeed of _SPENCER_'s wrote a Vindication of his\nOld-Words, but had _SPENCER_ been living be would doubtless have been\nashamed of it's appearing in the World. 'Tis the Opinion of the best\nJudges that the Old-Words used by Mr. _Row_, even In the Tragedy of\n_JANE SHORE_ are a great Beauty to that Piece. And those who have\nobjected against _SALLUST_ for affecting Old-Words, have made nothing\nout. Tho' History is to deliver plainly Matters of Fact, and not to\nflourish, and beautify it's self with foreign Ornaments, as Poetry is.\nThere are not so many disapprove of _SALLUST_'s Old-Words, as commend\nhim for adding a Majesty and Solemness to his Writings thereby.\nI might add (were there occasion for vindicating Old-Words) that we\nhave render'd our _English_ Language unexpressive and bare of Words, by\nthrowing out several useful Old-Words; as _Freundina_ a _She-Friend_;\n_Theowin_ a _She-Servant_, &c. But as no one has shewn Old-Words to\nbe faulty, for so many hundred Years, 'twould be folly to trouble the\nReader with a Vindication of 'em, at this Day. The only Question is,\nwhether an Author has chose the Softest and Finest; or has shown by his\nChoice the weakness of his Judgment.\nSECT. 3.\n_Of Compound Words_.\nAnother thing which occasions Softness in the Pastoral Language, if\nrightly managed, is the use of Compound Words. But there is nothing\nrequires a greater Genius than to form Beautiful Compound Words in Epick\nPoetry, or more Exactness and Labour in Pastoral. In Epick Poetry 'tis\nabsurd to make a Compound Word, unless it helps forward the Sence; and\nin Pastory, it must add to the Softness of the Dialect, and in some\nmeasure assist the Thought, yet it need not do it so much as in Epick\nPoetry; where a Writer of Genius will form such Compound Words as will\neach contain as much as a whole Line. As may be seen in _Homer_, and\nthe _Greek_ Poets, especially. Among the _English_, _Milton_'s are often\nvery fine.\n  _Brandish'd aloft the horrid Edge came down,\n  Wide-wasting_.\nThe Compound Words, in Pastory, must be so easy and natural, as scarce\nto be observ'd from the other Language. They must run easy and smooth,\nand glide off the Tongue, and that will occasion their not being\nobserv'd in the reading.\nA Pastoral Writer will often be able, if he gives an Image in one\nLine, by a Compound Word in that Line to give another Image, or\nanother Thought as full and as fine an one as that which the whole\nLine contains. But as this and the like Observations cannot be\nwell understood without Instances quoted, I shall leave 'em to the\nObservation of those who intend to engage in Pastoral Writing; for that\nand nothing else, will put 'em upon a thorough Search into the Springs\nand Rules by which all former Pastoral Writers have excell'd.\nSECT. 4.\n_Of Turns of Words and Phrazes_.\nAnother help to Softness, and the very greatest Beauty of all in the\nPastoral Language, is, a handsome use of Phrazes. This must depend\nentirely on the Genius of the Writers, for there is no one Rule can be\ngiven for the attaining thereto. A Person who writes now may imitate\n_Ovid_ and _Spencer_ in this particular (if he can submit his Fancy\nto Imitation) and that is all the Assistance he can have. As for\nrural Phrazes, there are not above half a dozen in all the Counties or\nDialects that I am acquainted with.\nAll that we can do on this Head, is to leave the Reader to Observation.\nFor I confess that I do not so much as know how I came by those few\nI myself have, farther than that by use and practising in an Uncommon\nDialect, I happen'd on 'em at Unawares.\nHowever I may quote those which are the very finest of any in _Spencer_.\nWho is the only Writer in our Language that ever attempted tender\nPhrazes or Turns of Words. Yet there are two such Passages in _Creech_'s\n_Theocritus_, which I will also quote.\n  _All as the Sheep, such was the Shepherd's Look;\n  For pale and wan he was (alas the while!)_ &c.\nAnd again.\n  _Ye Gods of Love, who pity Lover's Pain.\n  (If any Gods the Pain of Lovers pity)_ &c.\nAnd again.\n  _A simple Shepherd Born in_ Arcady,\n  _Of gentlest Blood that ever Shepherd bore_, &c.\nSuch beautiful Turns of Words as these are extremely scarce in\n_Spencer_; but he has not one but what is inimitably fine and natural.\nLet us now see the two Phrazes which _Creech_ has happen'd upon.\nWhose Language I have observ'd to be infinitely the best of any of our\nPastoral writers, next to Spencer. This is one of them. A Shepherdess\nsays to a persuading Swain.\n  _You will deceive, you Men are all Deceit;\n  And we so willing to believe the Cheat_.\nThe other is this, to Diana; when she consents.\n  _I liv'd your Vot'ry, but no more can live_.\nCHAP. III.\n_The Tender in Pastory distinguish'd from that in Epick poetry or\nTragedy_.\n'Tis strange to me that our Pastoral Writers should make no Distinction\nbetween their SOFT when they write Pastories, and when they write Epick\nPoetry. This in _Philips_ is the Epick Softness, or what we call the\nBeautiful sometimes in Epick Poetry in Opposition to the Sublime.\n  _Breath soft ye Winds, ye Waters gently flow;\n  Shield her ye Trees, ye Flow'rs around her grow_, &c.\nAnd this which also is the Sixth Pastory.\n  _Once_ Delia _lay, on easy Moss reclin'd,\n  Her lovely Limbs half bare, and rude the Wind_, &c.\nThis also is of the same kind of SOFT.\n  _A Girland deckt in all the Pride of May,\n  Sweet as her Breath, and as her Beauty Gay_, &c.\nBut Instances were endless. In Opposition to this kind of Soft, I shall\nquote out of _Spencer_ some Passages which have the truest Softness.\nFor such that Author has, beyond any in the World, tho' perhaps not very\noften. He begins his last Pastory thus.\n  _A gentle Shepherd sate besides a Spring,\n  All in the shadow of a bushy Breer_, &c.\nAnd his first he begins thus.\n  _A Shepherd's Boy (no better do him call)_ &c.\nHis Pastoral named _Colin Clout's come home_, begins thus.\n  _The Shepherd-boy (best known by that Name)\n  Who after TITYRUS first sang his Lay,\n  Lays of sweet Love, without Rebuke or Blow,\n  Sate, as his manner was, upon a Day_, &c.\nThese Lines of _Spencer_ and those of _Philips_, both contain agreeable\nImages and Thoughts, yet are they as different as _Milton_ and\n_D'Urfey_.\nI shall only make one Observation on this difference. Namely, that in\nthe soft and beautiful Lines of _Philips_, each Word, only signifies a\nsoft and beautiful Idea; As _Breath, Waters, Flow, Gently, Soft_, &c.\nbut in _Spencer_ the sound also is soft. Had such an Author dress'd this\ninimitable Thought of _Philips_, the Line would have glided as smooth\nand easy off the Tongue, as the Waters he mentions, do along the\nMeadows.\nSECT. II.\n_That no Language is so fit for Pastoral as the English_.\nI have before observed, that this softness is effected, among other\nthings by little Words; yet I cannot help observing here, that our\nLanguage is infinitely the finest of any in the World for Pastoral, and\nit's abounding so much in little Words is one Reason of it. The Pomps\nand Stateliness of the Latin Lines could not have been made proper for\nPastoral, unless entirely alter'd, and 'tis not likely that a Genius\ndaring enough to do that would engage in Pastoral.\nThe _Romans_ had not a Particle, as we have, before their\n_Substantives_; As _A_ and _The Tree_. Seldom used a Word before the\nVerbs; as _He goes_, _They go_. Nor had they our _Doth_ and _Does_;\nwithout which no _Englishman_ could form a Pastoral Language. As the\nsweet Simplicity of that Line, I have just quoted, is occasion'd by\nnothing else.\n  _A Shepherd-boy (no better do him call_.)\nThe _Greek_ Language was greatly more fit for Pastoral than the _Latin_.\nAmong other Reasons, because the former had so many Particles; and could\nrender their Language uncommon, by their different Dialects, and by\ntheir various Methods of changing, and of compounding Words. Which no\nLanguage will admit of in an equal degree, besides the _English_. But\nthen the _Greek_ Language is too sonorous for Pastoral. Give me leave to\nshow the inimitable softness and sweetness of the _English_ Tongue, only\nby instancing in one Word. Which will also show how copious a Language\nours is. I know but three Words the _Greeks_ had to express the Word Lad\nor Swain by: [Greek: Agrik\u00f4s, Poimruos; and B\u00f4kolos]; and how sonorous\nare they all. We have six; Swain, Boy, Shepherd, Youth, Stripling, Lad;\nand how inimitably soft is the sound of 'em all.\n_Theocritus_ has more Turns of Words or Phrazes than _Spencer_; yet he\ncould in none of 'em come up to _Spencer_'s smoothness and simplicity\nin his Numbers. As I quoted only the Phrazes of my Country-men In the\nChapter on that Head; I will here put down the finest in Theocritus,\ntho' I cannot say indeed that he has any but in his first Pastoral.\n[Greek: Archete boukolikas Moisai philai harchet haoithas. Thursis hod\nh\u00f4x Ahitnas, kai Thursidos adea ph\u00f4na. Pa pok had \u00easth, oka Daphnis\netaketo, pa poka Numphai;]\nThe finest of these Lines (and the softest but one that I remember thro'\nall his Pieces) is the middle one; it is most incorrigibly translated\nby _Creech_: tho' I blame him not for it, because of the difficulty of\ninventing fine Phrazes, much more of translating those of other Men,\ninto Rhime; for which Reason _Creech_ has not attempted to give us any\nof _Theocritus_'s Turns of Words.\nCHAP. IV.\n_That there may be several sorts of Pastorals_.\nTo conclude this Essay, as there are Tempers and Genius's of all sorts,\nso perhaps it may not be amiss to allow Writings of all sorts too. I\nthink every Person's Aim should be to be subserving as much as possible,\nto the Delight and Amusement of his Fellow-Creatures. And if any can\ntake pleasure in what is really not pleasant, 'tis pity, methinks, to\nrob 'em of it. Yet if there is in nature a Method which pursued will be\nstill more delightful, the Critick is to be observed who points out the\nWay thereto.\nIf any of my Countrymen therefore can take delight from reading the\nPastorals of _Theocritus_ and _Virgil_, or any of those who have\nimitated those two Ancients, I shall be ready to allow that there may\nbe several sorts of Pastorals. 'Tis certain that _Milton_ and _Homer_,\n(thro' the Scene of the Former lying about the Sphere of Men) are as\ndifferent as _East_ from _West_, yet both excellent. Tragedy has\nas different sorts as Epick-Poetry; Nor are _Julius Caesar_ and the\n_Orphan_ of the same Nature. The same difference in Tragedy, is between\nall those, whose Chief CHARACTER is a Hero, and those that draw a\nFemale, as _Jane Shore_, the Lady _Jane Gray_, _and the like_, are to me\nentirely different from _Shakespear's_, not respecting the Excellency of\n'em. _Shakespear_ having a Genius made for the Sublime, and perhaps Mr.\n_Row_ rather for the Soft and Tender; as appears in two Passages at the\nEnd of _JANE SHORE_. Which in my Judgment are not much excell'd by even\n_Otway_ himself.\nSince I have mention'd that Author, I can't help remarking how difficult\na thing it is for any Person to know what his own Genius is fittest for;\nand how great a Chance it is whether ever a Writer comes to know it.\nTho' _Otway_ had so fine a Genius for the TENDER, it never appear'd till\na little before he dyed. Thro' all his Plays we cannot trace even\nthe least Glimpse of it, till his two last, _The Orphan_ and _Venice\nPreserv'd_. But we run the Digression too far.\nSECT. 2.\n_What Kind of Pastorals would please most Universally; and delight the\ngreatest Number of Readers_.\nFor my own Part, as I said, I could be delighted with any Kind of\nPastoral, if the Writer would but be at the Pains of selecting the\nmost beautiful Images, and tenderest Thoughts. This is the first and\nprincipal Matter. Yet this might be perform'd by a moderate Capacity,\nwithout a Genius born for Tragedy.\nWould a Person but form a delightful Story, invent new and uncommon and\npleasing Characters, and furnish his Mind with a small Number of fine\nImages from the Country, before he sate down to write his Pieces, He\nwould not fail of Success. But if Writers will only put down a parcel\nof common triffling Thoughts from _Theocritus_ and _Virgil_, nor will so\nmuch as aim at any thing themselves, can you blame me Cubbin, if I throw\n'em aside. Let 'em have a thousand Faults, I can be pleas'd by 'em,\nif they have but Beauties with 'em; nor will you ever hear me blame\n_Shakespear_ for his Irregularity. And Pastoral is delightful to me in\nit's own Nature, that were these Authors to employ but my Mind in any\nmanner, I should have Patience to peruse 'em.\nBut if these Authors were unwilling to be at the Pains of forming a\npleasant Story themselves, they might go upon little Tales already\nknown, such as, _The Two Children in the Wood_, and a thousand others\ninimitably pretty and delightful.\nAnd had we a Set of such Pastorals as these, I am satisfied they would\ntake extreamly. More Cubbin, perhaps than yours ever will; because\nperfect Pastories are directed only to Persons of Reading and Judgment.\nBut you cannot I suppose satisfie your own Mind, unless you write up to\nwhat you judge the Standard of Perfection in every sort of Writing.\n_FINIS_.\n_Notes on the Text_.\nIt was impractical to issue Purney's _Enquiry_ in facsimile because\nof the blurred condition of the photostats. This reprint follows the\noriginal text faithfully, with the following exceptions: the long\n\"s\" and the double \"v\" are modernized; small capitals, which appear\nfrequently in the 1717 version, are reduced to lower-case letters; a few\nvery slight typographical errors have been silently corrected. On page\n40, line 1, _thoroughly_ reads _throughly_ in the original; and the\nthree lines of Greek on p. 70, somewhat garbled in the original, are\ngiven in corrected form.\n    ANNOUNCING\n   Publications\n   THE AUGUSTAN\n  REPRINT SOCIETY\n  _General Editors_\n  RICHARD C. BOYS\n  EDWARD NILES HOOKER\n  H.T. SWEDENBERG, JR.\n_THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY_ MAKES AVAILABLE _Inexpensive Reprints\nof Rare Materials_ FROM ENGLISH LITERATURE OF THE SEVENTEENTH AND\nEIGHTEENTH CENTURIES\n    Students, scholars, and bibliographers of literature, history,\n    and philology will find the publications valuable. _The\n    Johnsonian News Letter_ has said of them: \"Excellent facsimiles,\n    and cheap in price, these represent the triumph of modern\n    scientific reproduction. Be sure to become a subscriber; and\n    take it upon yourself to see that your college library is on the\n    mailing list.\"\n    The Augustan Reprint Society is a non-profit, scholarly\n    organization, run without overhead expense. By careful\n    management it is able to offer at least six publications each\n    year at the unusually low membership fee of $2.50 per year in\n    the United States and Canada, and $2.75 in Great Britain and the\n    continent.\n    Libraries as well as individuals are eligible for membership.\n    Since the publications are issued without profit, however, no\n    discount can be allowed to libraries, agents, or booksellers.\n    New members may still obtain a complete run of the first year's\n    publications for $2.50, the annual membership fee.\n    During the first two years the publications are issued in three\n    series: I. Essays on Wit; II. Essays on Poetry and Language; and\n    III. Essays on the Stage.\n_PUBLICATIONS FOR THE FIRST YEAR (1946-1947)_\n  MAY, 1946: Series I, No. 1--Richard, Blackmore's _Essay upon Wit_\n             (1716), and Addison's _Freeholder_ No. 45\n  JULY, 1946: Series II, No. 1--Samuel Cobb's _Of Poetry_ and\n              _Discourse on Criticism_ (1707).\n  SEPT., 1946: Series III, No. 1--Anon., _Letter to A. H. Esq.;\n               concerning the Stage_ (1698), and Richard Willis'\n  Nov., 1946: Series I, No. 2--Anon., _Essay on Wit_ (1748),\n              together with Characters by Flecknoe, and Joseph\n              Warton's _Adventurer_ Nos. 127 and 133.\n  JAN., 1947: Series II, No. 2--Samuel Wesley's _Epistle to a\n              Friend Concerning Poetry_ (1700) and _Essay on\n  MARCH, 1947: Series III, No. 2--Anon., _Representation of the\n               Impiety and Immorality of the Stage_ (1704) and\n               anon., Some _Thoughts Concerning the Stage_\n  _PUBLICATIONS FOR THE SECOND YEAR (1947-1948)_\n  MAY, 1947: Series I, No. 3--John Gay's _The Present State of\n             Wit_; and a section on Wit from _The English\n             Theophrastus_. With an Introduction by Donald Bond.\n  JULY, 1947: Series II, No. 3--Rapin's _De Carmine Pastorali_,\n              translated by Creech. With an Introduction by J.E.\n  SEPT., 1947: Series III, No. 3--T. Hanmer's (?) _Some Remarks on\n               the Tragedy of Hamlet_. With an Introduction by\n               Clarence D. Thorpe.\n  Nov., 1947: Series I, No. 4--Corbyn Morris' _Essay towards\n              Fixing the True Standards of Wit, etc_. With an\n              Introduction by James L. Clifford.\n  JAN., 1948: Series II, No. 4--Thomas Purney's _Discourse on the\n              Pastoral_. With an Introduction by Earl Wasserman.\n  MARCH, 1948: Series III, No. 4--Essays on the Stage, selected,\n               with an Introduction by Joseph Wood Krutch.\n    The list of publications is subject to modification in response\n    to requests by members. From time to time Bibliographical\n    Notes will be included in the issues. Each issue contains an\n    Introduction by a scholar of special competence in the field\n    represented.\n    The Augustan Reprints are available only to members. They will\n    never be offered at \"remainder\" prices.\n  _GENERAL EDITORS_\n  RICHARD C. BOYS, _University of Michigan_\n  EDWARD NILES HOOKER, _University of California, Los Angeles_\n  H.T. SWEDENBERG, JR., _University of California, Los Angeles_\n  _ADVISORY EDITORS_\n  EMMET L. AVERY, _State College of Washington_\n  LOUIS I. BREDVOLD, _University of Michigan_\n  BENJAMIN BOYCE, _University of Nebraska_\n  CLEANTH BROOKS, _Louisiana State University_\n  JAMES L. CLIFFORD, _Columbia University_\n  ARTHUR FRIEDMAN, _University of Chicago_\n  SAMUEL L. MONK, _University of Minnesota_\n  JAMES SUTHERLAND, _Queen Mary College, London_\nAddress communications to any of the General Editors. British and\nContinental subscriptions should be sent to\n  B.H. Blackwell\n  Broad Street\n  Oxford, England\n_Please enroll me as a member of the Augustan Reprint Society_.\n  _I enclose the membership fee for the second year_ (1947-1948).\n  Address....", "source_dataset": "gutenberg", "source_dataset_detailed": "gutenberg -  A Full Enquiry into the Nature of the Pastoral (1717)\n"},
{"created_timestamp": "06-02-1725", "downloaded_timestamp": "10-18-2021", "url": "https://founders.archives.gov/API/docdata/Franklin/01-01-02-0027", "content": "Title: From Benjamin Franklin to Sir Hans Sloane, 2 June 1725\nFrom: Franklin, Benjamin\nTo: Sloane, Sir Hans\nSir\nHaving lately been in the Nothern Parts of America, I have brought from thence a Purse made of the Stone Asbestus, a Piece of the Stone, and a Piece of Wood, the Pithy Part of which is of the same Nature, and call\u2019d by the Inhabitants, Salamander Cotton. As you are noted to be a Lover of Curiosities, I have inform\u2019d you of these; and if you have any Inclination to purchase them, or see \u2019em, let me know your Pleasure by a Line directed for me at the Golden Fan in Little Britain, and I will wait upon you with them. I am, Sir Your most humble Servant\nBenjamin Franklin\nP.S. I expect to be out of Town in 2 or 3 Days, and therefore beg an immediate Answer.\n Addressed: For Sir Hans Sloane, in Kingstreet. Bloomsbury", "culture": "English", "source_dataset": "Pile_of_Law", "source_dataset_detailed": "Pile_of_Law_founding_docs", "source_dataset_detailed_explanation": "Letters from U.S. founders.", "creation_year": 1725},
{"created_timestamp": "01-01-1725", "downloaded_timestamp": "10-18-2021", "url": "https://founders.archives.gov/API/docdata/Franklin/01-01-02-0028", "content": "Title: A Dissertation on Liberty and Necessity, 1725\nFrom: Franklin, Benjamin\nTo: \nAs a journeyman in Samuel Palmer\u2019s printing house in Bartholomew\u2019s Close Franklin worked on the third edition of William Wollaston\u2019s The Religion of Nature Delineated. Some of the author\u2019s arguments \u201cnot appearing ... well-founded,\u201d he composed \u201ca little metaphysical Piece\u201d to refute them. This was the Dissertation on Liberty and Necessity, which at once increased Palmer\u2019s respect for his workman, though he abominated its views. Franklin\u2019s essay opened in the same manner as Wollaston\u2019s, and its tail-piece was the same vignette Palmer had used on Wollaston\u2019s title-page. Only one hundred copies were struck off. Franklin gave a few to friends, but, \u201cconceiving it might have an ill Tendency,\u201d destroyed the rest of the edition. The only two copies known to survive are in the Library of Congress and Yale University Library. The pamphlet, apparently pirated, was reprinted at Dublin in 1733, but it is doubtful that it had much influence.\nHis purpose, Franklin explained in brief summary to Benjamin Vaughan, November 9, 1779, was \u201cto prove the Doctrine of Fate, from the supposed Attributes of God; in some such Manner as this, That in creating and governing the World, as he was infinitely wise, he knew what would be best; infinitely good, he must be dispos\u2019d; and infinitely powerful, he must be able to execute it. Consequently all is right.\u201d This doctrine he subsequently refuted in an essay never published and now lost; and he came to regard the writing of the Dissertation as one of the \u201cerrata\u201d of his life.\nIn its general syllogistic form the Dissertation is indebted to Franklin\u2019s study of Ozell\u2019s translation of Logic, or, the Art of Thinking by the learned doctors of Port Royal, Arnauld and Nicole. (A copy of this book, with Franklin\u2019s signature on the title-page, is in the Library Company of Philadelphia.) The content of the essay is a distillation of Franklin\u2019s reading of Locke, Shaftesbury, and Anthony Collins.\nA Dissertation on Liberty and Necessity, &c.To Mr. J. R.\nSir,\nI have here, according to your Request, given you my present Thoughts of the general State of Things in the Universe. Such as they are, you have them, and are welcome to \u2019em; and if they yield you any Pleasure or Satisfaction, I shall think my Trouble sufficiently compensated. I know my Scheme will be liable to many Objections from a less discerning Reader than your self; but it is not design\u2019d for those who can\u2019t understand it. I need not give you any Caution to distinguish the hypothetical Parts of the Argument from the conclusive: You will easily perceive what I design for Demonstration, and what for Probability only. The whole I leave entirely to you, and shall value my self more or less on this account, in proportion to your Esteem and Approbation.\nSect. I. Of Liberty and Necessity.\nI. There is said to be a First Mover, who is called GOD, Maker of the Universe.\nII. He is said to be all-wise, all-good, all powerful.\nThese two Propositions being allow\u2019d and asserted by People of almost every Sect and Opinion; I have here suppos\u2019d them granted, and laid them down as the Foundation of my Argument; What follows then, being a Chain of Consequences truly drawn from them, will stand or fall as they are true or false.\nIII. If He is all-good, whatsoever He doth must be good.\nIV. If He is all-wise, whatsoever He doth must be wise.\nThe Truth of these Propositions, with relation to the two first, I think may be justly call\u2019d evident; since, either that infinite Goodness will act what is ill, or infinite Wisdom what is not wise, is too glaring a Contradiction not to be perceiv\u2019d by any Man of common Sense, and deny\u2019d as soon as understood.\nV. If He is all-powerful, there can be nothing either existing or acting in the Universe against or without his Consent; and what He consents to must be good, because He is good; therefore Evil doth not exist.\nUnde Malum? has been long a Question, and many of the Learned have perplex\u2019d themselves and Readers to little Purpose in Answer to it. That there are both Things and Actions to which we give the Name of Evil, is not here deny\u2019d, as Pain, Sickness, Want, Theft, Murder, &c. but that these and the like are not in reality Evils, Ills, or Defects in the Order of the Universe, is demonstrated in the next Section, as well as by this and the following Proposition. Indeed, to suppose any Thing to exist or be done, contrary to the Will of the Almighty, is to suppose him not almighty; or that Something (the Cause of Evil) is more mighty than the Almighty; an Inconsistence that I think no One will defend: And to deny any Thing or Action, which he consents to the existence of, to be good, is entirely to destroy his two Attributes of Wisdom and Goodness.\nThere is nothing done in the Universe, say the Philosophers, but what God either does, or permits to be done. This, as He is Almighty, is certainly true: But what need of this Distinction between doing and permitting? Why, first they take it for granted that many Things in the Universe exist in such a Manner as is not for the best, and that many Actions are done which ought not to be done, or would be better undone; these Things or Actions they cannot ascribe to God as His, because they have already attributed to Him infinite Wisdom and Goodness; Here then is the Use of the Word Permit; He permits them to be done, say they. But we will reason thus: If God permits an Action to be done, it is because he wants either Power or Inclination to hinder it; in saying he wants Power, we deny Him to be almighty; and if we say He wants Inclination or Will, it must be, either because He is not Good, or the Action is not evil, (for all Evil is contrary to the Essence of infinite Goodness.) The former is inconsistent with his before-given Attribute of Goodness, therefore the latter must be true.\nIt will be said, perhaps, that God permits evil Actions to be done, for wise Ends and Purposes. But this Objection destroys itself; for whatever an infinitely good God hath wise Ends in suffering to be, must be good, is thereby made good, and cannot be otherwise.\nVI. If a Creature is made by God, it must depend upon God, and receive all its Power from Him; with which Power the Creature can do nothing contrary to the Will of God, because God is Almighty; what is not contrary to His Will, must be agreeable to it; what is agreeable to it, must be good, because He is Good; therefore a Creature can do nothing but what is good.\nThis Proposition is much to the same Purpose with the former, but more particular; and its Conclusion is as just and evident. Tho\u2019 a Creature may do many Actions which by his Fellow Creatures will be nam\u2019d Evil, and which will naturally and necessarily cause or bring upon the Doer, certain Pains (which will likewise be call\u2019d Punishments;) yet this Proposition proves, that he cannot act what will be in itself really Ill, or displeasing to God. And that the painful Consequences of his evil Actions (so call\u2019d) are not, as indeed they ought not to be, Punishments or Unhappinesses, will be shewn hereafter.\nNevertheless, the late learned Author of The Religion of Nature, (which I send you herewith) has given us a Rule or Scheme, whereby to discover which of our Actions ought to be esteem\u2019d and denominated good, and which evil: It is in short this, \u201cEvery Action which is done according to Truth, is good; and every Action contrary to Truth, is evil: To act according to Truth is to use and esteem every Thing as what it is, &c. Thus if A steals a Horse from B, and rides away upon him, he uses him not as what he is in Truth, viz. the Property of another, but as his own, which is contrary to Truth, and therefore evil. \u201d But, as this Gentleman himself says, (Sect. I. Prop. VI.) \u201cIn order to judge rightly what any Thing is, it must be consider\u2019d, not only what it is in one Respect, but also what it may be in any other Respect; and the whole Description of the Thing ought to be taken in:\u201d So in this Case it ought to be consider\u2019d, that A is naturally a covetous Being, feeling an Uneasiness in the want of B\u2019s Horse, which produces an Inclination for stealing him, stronger than his Fear of Punishment for so doing. This is Truth likewise, and A acts according to it when he steals the Horse. Besides, if it is prov\u2019d to be a Truth, that A has not Power over his own Actions, it will be indisputable that he acts according to Truth, and impossible he should do otherwise.\nI would not be understood by this to encourage or defend Theft; \u2019tis only for the sake of the Argument, and will certainly have no ill Effect. The Order and Course of Things will not be affected by Reasoning of this Kind; and \u2019tis as just and necessary, and as much according to Truth, for B to dislike and punish the Theft of his Horse, as it is for A to steal him.\nVII. If the Creature is thus limited in his Actions, being able to do only such Things as God would have him to do, and not being able to  refuse doing what God would have done; then he can have no such Thing as Liberty, Free-will or Power to do or refrain an Action.\nBy Liberty is sometimes understood the Absence of Opposition; and in this Sense, indeed, all our Actions may be said to be the Effects of our Liberty: But it is a Liberty of the same Nature with the Fall of a heavy Body to the Ground; it has Liberty to fall, that is, it meets with nothing to hinder its Fall, but at the same Time it is necessitated to fall, and has no Power or Liberty to remain suspended.\nBut let us take the Argument in another View, and suppose ourselves to be, in the common sense of the Word, Free Agents. As Man is a Part of this great Machine, the Universe, his regular Acting is requisite to the regular moving of the whole. Among the many Things which lie before him to be done, he may, as he is at Liberty and his Choice influenc\u2019d by nothing, (for so it must be, or he is not at Liberty) chuse any one, and refuse the rest. Now there is every Moment something best to be done, which is alone then good, and with respect to which, every Thing else is at that Time evil. In order to know which is best to be done, and which not, it is requisite that we should have at one View all the intricate Consequences of every Action with respect to the general Order and Scheme of the Universe, both present and future; but they are innumerable and incomprehensible by any Thing but Omniscience. As we cannot know these, we have but as one Chance to ten thousand, to hit on the right Action; we should then be perpetually blundering about in the Dark, and putting the Scheme in Disorder; for every wrong Action of a Part, is a Defect or Blemish in the Order of the Whole. Is it not necessary then, that our Actions should be over-rul\u2019d and govern\u2019d by an all-wise Providence? How exact and regular is every Thing in the natural World! How wisely in every Part contriv\u2019d! We cannot here find the least Defect! Those who have study\u2019d the mere animal and vegetable Creation, demonstrate that nothing can be more harmonious and beautiful! All the heavenly Bodies, the Stars and Planets, are regulated with the utmost Wisdom! And can we suppose less Care to be taken in the Order of the moral than in the natural System? It is as if an ingenious Artificer, having fram\u2019d a curious Machine or Clock, and put its many intricate Wheels and Powers in such a Dependance on one another, that the whole might move in the most exact Order and Regularity, had nevertheless plac\u2019d in it several other Wheels endu\u2019d with an independent Self-Motion, but ignorant of the general Interest of the Clock; and these would every now and then be moving wrong, disordering the true Movement, and making continual Work for the Mender; which might better be prevented, by depriving them of that Power of Self-Motion, and placing them in a Dependance on the regular Part of the Clock.\nVIII. If there is no such Thing as Free-Will in Creatures, there can be neither Merit nor Demerit in Creatures.\nIX. And therefore every Creature must be equally esteem\u2019d by the Creator.\nThese Propositions appear to be the necessary Consequences of the former. And certainly no Reason can be given, why the Creator should prefer in his Esteem one Part of His Works to another, if with equal Wisdom and Goodness he design\u2019d and created them all, since all Ill or Defect, as contrary to his Nature, is excluded by his Power. We will sum up the Argument thus, When the Creator first design\u2019d the Universe, either it was His Will and Intention that all Things should exist and be in the Manner they are at this Time; or it was his Will they should be otherwise i.e. in a different Manner: To say it was His Will Things should be otherwise than they are, is to say Somewhat hath contradicted His Will, and broken His Measures, which is impossible because inconsistent with his Power; therefore we must allow that all Things exist now in a Manner agreeable to His Will, and in consequence of that are all equally Good, and therefore equally esteemed by Him.\nI proceed now to shew, that as all the Works of the Creator are equally esteem\u2019d by Him, so they are, as in Justice they ought to be, equally us\u2019d.\nSect. II. Of Pleasure and Pain.\n  I. When a Creature is form\u2019d and endu\u2019d with Life, \u2019tis suppos\u2019d to receive a Capacity of the Sensation of Uneasiness or Pain.\nIt is this distinguishes Life and Consciousness from unactive unconscious Matter. To know or be sensible of Suffering or being acted upon is to live; and whatsoever is not so, among created Things, is properly and truly dead.\nAll Pain and Uneasiness proceeds at first from and is caus\u2019d by Somewhat without and distinct from the Mind itself. The Soul must first be acted upon before it can re-act. In the Beginning of Infancy it is as if it were not; it is not conscious of its own Existence, till it has receiv\u2019d the first Sensation of Pain; then, and not before, it begins to feel itself, is rous\u2019d, and put into Action; then it discovers its Powers and Faculties, and exerts them to expel the Uneasiness. Thus is the Machine set on work; this is Life. We are first mov\u2019d by Pain, and the whole succeeding Course of our Lives is but one continu\u2019d Series of Action with a View to be freed from it. As fast as we have excluded one Uneasiness another appears, otherwise the Motion would cease. If a continual Weight is not apply\u2019d, the Clock will stop. And as soon as the Avenues of Uneasiness to the Soul are choak\u2019d up or cut off, we are dead, we think and act no more.\nII. This Uneasiness, whenever felt, produces Desire to be freed from it, great in exact proportion to the Uneasiness.\nThus is Uneasiness the first Spring and Cause of all Action; for till we are uneasy in Rest, we can have no Desire to move, and without Desire of moving there can be no voluntary Motion. The Experience of every Man who has observ\u2019d his own Actions will evince the Truth of this; and I think nothing need be said to prove that the Desire will be equal to the Uneasiness, for the very Thing implies as much: It is not Uneasiness unless we desire to be freed from it, nor a great Uneasiness unless the consequent Desire is great.\nI might here observe, how necessary a Thing in the Order and Design of the Universe this Pain or Uneasiness is, and how beautiful in its Place! Let us but suppose it just now banish\u2019d the World entirely, and consider the Consequence of it: All the Animal Creation would immediately stand stock still, exactly in the Posture they were in the Moment Uneasiness departed; not a Limb, not a Finger would henceforth move; we should all be reduc\u2019d to the Condition of Statues, dull and unactive: Here I should continue to sit motionless with the Pen in my Hand thus\u2014and neither leave my Seat nor write one Letter more. This may appear odd at first View, but a little Consideration will make it evident; for \u2019tis impossible to assign any other Cause for the voluntary Motion of an Animal than its uneasiness in Rest. What a different Appearance then would the Face of Nature make, without it! How necessary is it! And how unlikely that the Inhabitants of the World ever were, or that the Creator ever design\u2019d they should be, exempt from it!\nI would likewise observe here, that the VIIIth Proposition in the preceding Section, viz. That there is neither Merit nor Demerit, &c. is here again demonstrated, as infallibly, tho\u2019 in another manner: For since Freedom from Uneasiness is the End of all our Actions, how is it possible for us to do any Thing disinterested? How can any Action be meritorious of Praise or Dispraise, Reward or Punishment, when the natural Principle of Self-Love is the only and the irresistible Motive to it?\nIII. This Desire is always fulfill\u2019d or satisfy\u2019d.\nIn the Design or End of it, tho\u2019 not in the Manner: The first is requisite, the latter not. To exemplify this, let us make a Supposition; A Person is confin\u2019d in a House which appears to be in imminent Danger of Falling, this, as soon as perceiv\u2019d, creates a violent Uneasiness, and that instantly produces an equal strong Desire, the End of which is freedom from the Uneasiness, and the Manner or Way propos\u2019d to gain this End, is to get out of the House. Now if he is convinc\u2019d by any Means, that he is mistaken, and the House is not likely to fall, he is immediately freed from his Uneasiness, and the End of his Desire is attain\u2019d as well as if it had been in the Manner desir\u2019d, viz. leaving the House.\nAll our different Desires and Passions proceed from and are reducible to this one Point, Uneasiness, tho\u2019 the Means we propose to ourselves for expelling of it are infinite. One proposes Fame, another Wealth, a third Power, &c. as the Means to gain this End; but tho\u2019 these are never attain\u2019d, if the Uneasiness be remov\u2019d by some other Means, the Desire is satisfy\u2019d. Now during the Course of Life we are ourselves continually removing successive Uneasinesses as they arise, and the last we suffer is remov\u2019d by the sweet Sleep of Death.\nIV. The fulfilling or Satisfaction of this Desire, produces the Sensation of Pleasure, great or small in exact proportion to the Desire.\nPleasure is that Satisfaction which arises in the Mind upon, and is caus\u2019d by, the accomplishment of our Desires, and by no other Means at all; and those Desires being above shewn to be caus\u2019d by our Pains or Uneasinesses, it follows that Pleasure is wholly caus\u2019d by Pain, and by no other Thing at all.\nV. Therefore the Sensation of Pleasure is equal, or in exact proportion to the Sensation of Pain.\nAs the Desire of being freed from Uneasiness is equal to the Uneasiness, and the Pleasure of satisfying that Desire equal to the Desire, the Pleasure thereby produc\u2019d must necessarily be equal to the Uneasiness or Pain which produces it: Of three Lines, A, B, and C, if A is equal to B, and B to C, C must be equal to A. And as our Uneasinesses are always remov\u2019d by some Means or other, it follows that Pleasure and Pain are in their Nature inseparable: So many Degrees as one Scale of the Ballance descends, so many exactly the other ascends; and one cannot rise or fall without the Fall or Rise of the other: \u2019Tis impossible to taste of Pleasure, without feeling its preceding proportionate Pain; or to be sensible of Pain, without having its necessary Consequent Pleasure: The highest Pleasure is only Consciousness of Freedom from the deepest Pain, and Pain is not Pain to us unless we ourselves are sensible of it. They go Hand in Hand; they cannot be divided.\nYou have a View of the whole Argument in a few familiar Examples: The Pain of Abstinence from Food, as it is greater or less, produces a greater or less Desire of Eating, the Accomplishment of this Desire produces a greater or less Pleasure proportionate to it. The Pain of Confinement causes the Desire of Liberty, which accomplish\u2019d, yields a Pleasure equal to that Pain of Confinement. The Pain of Labour and Fatigue causes the Pleasure of Rest, equal to that Pain. The Pain of Absence from Friends, produces the Pleasure of Meeting in exact proportion. &c.\nThis is the fixt Nature of Pleasure and Pain, and will always be found to be so by those who examine it.\nOne of the most common Arguments for the future Existence of the Soul, is taken from the generally suppos\u2019d Inequality of Pain and Pleasure in the present; and this, notwithstanding the Difficulty by outward Appearances to make a Judgment of another\u2019s Happiness, has been look\u2019d upon as almost unanswerable: but since Pain naturally and infallibly produces a Pleasure in proportion to it, every individual Creature must, in any State of Life, have an equal Quantity of each, so that there is not, on that Account, any Occasion for a future Adjustment.\nThus are all the Works of the Creator equally us\u2019d by him; And no Condition of Life or Being is in itself better or preferable to another: The Monarch is not more happy than the Slave, nor the Beggar more miserable than Croesus. Suppose A, B, and C, three distinct Beings; A and B, animate, capable of Pleasure and Pain, C an inanimate Piece of Matter, insensible of either. A receives ten Degrees of Pain, which are necessarily succeeded by ten Degrees of Pleasure: B receives fifteen of Pain, and the consequent equal Number of Pleasure: C all the while lies unconcern\u2019d, and as he has not suffer\u2019d the former, has no right to the latter. What can be more equal and just than this? When the Accounts come to be adjusted, A has no Reason to complain that his Portion of Pleasure was five Degrees less than that of B, for his Portion of Pain was five Degrees less likewise: Nor has B any Reason to boast that his Pleasure was five Degrees greater than that of A, for his Pain was proportionate: They are then both on the same Foot with C, that is, they are neither Gainers nor Losers.\nIt will possibly be objected here, that even common Experience shews us, there is not in Fact this Equality: \u201cSome we see hearty, brisk and chearful perpetually, while others are constantly burden\u2019d with a heavy Load of Maladies and Misfortunes, remaining for Years perhaps in Poverty, Disgrace, or Pain, and die at last without any Appearance of Recompence.\u201d Now tho\u2019 \u2019tis not necessary, when a Proposition is demonstrated to be a general Truth, to shew in what manner it agrees with the particular Circumstances of Persons, and indeed ought not to be requir\u2019d; yet, as this is a common Objection, some Notice may be taken of it: And here let it be observ\u2019d, that we cannot be proper Judges of the good or bad Fortune of Others; we are apt to imagine, that what would give us a great Uneasiness or a great Satisfaction, has the same Effect upon others: we think, for Instance, those unhappy, who must depend upon Charity for a mean Subsistence, who go in Rags, fare hardly, and are despis\u2019d and scorn\u2019d by all; not considering that Custom renders all these Things easy, familiar, and even pleasant. When we see Riches, Grandeur and a chearful Countenance, we easily imagine Happiness accompanies them, when oftentimes \u2019tis quite otherwise: Nor is a constantly sorrowful Look, attended with continual Complaints, an infallible Indication of Unhappiness. In short, we can judge by nothing but Appearances, and they are very apt to deceive us. Some put on a gay chearful Outside, and appear to the World perfectly at Ease, tho\u2019 even then, some inward Sting, some secret Pain imbitters all their Joys, and makes the Ballance even: Others appear continually dejected and full of Sorrow; but even Grief itself is sometimes pleasant, and Tears are not always without their Sweetness: Besides, Some take a Satisfaction in being thought unhappy, (as others take a Pride in being thought humble,) these will paint their Misfortunes to others in the strongest Colours, and leave no Means unus\u2019d to make you think them thoroughly miserable; so great a Pleasure it is to them to be pitied; Others retain the Form and outside Shew of Sorrow, long after the Thing itself, with its Cause, is remov\u2019d from the Mind; it is a Habit they have acquir\u2019d and cannot leave. These, with many others that might be given, are Reasons why we cannot make a true Estimate of the Equality of the Happiness and Unhappiness of others; and unless we could, Matter of Fact cannot be opposed to this Hypothesis. Indeed, we are sometimes apt to think, that the Uneasinesses we ourselves have had, outweigh our Pleasures; but the Reason is this, the Mind takes no Account of the latter, they slip away unremark\u2019d, when the former leave more lasting Impressions on the Memory. But suppose we pass the greatest part of Life in Pain and Sorrow, suppose we die by Torments and think no more, \u2019tis no Diminution to the Truth of what is here advanc\u2019d; for the Pain, tho\u2019 exquisite, is not so to the last Moments of Life, the Senses are soon benumm\u2019d, and render\u2019d incapable of transmitting it so sharply to the Soul as at first; She perceives it cannot hold long, and \u2019tis an exquisite Pleasure to behold the immediate Approaches of Rest. This makes an Equivalent tho\u2019 Annihilation should follow: For the Quantity of Pleasure and Pain is not to be measur\u2019d by its Duration, any more than the Quantity of Matter by its Extension; and as one cubic Inch may be made to contain, by Condensation, as much Matter as would fill ten thousand cubic Feet, being more expanded, so one single Moment of Pleasure may outweigh and compensate an Age of Pain.\nIt was owing to their Ignorance of the Nature of Pleasure and Pain that the Antient Heathens believ\u2019d the idle Fable of their Elizium, that State of uninterrupted Ease and Happiness! The Thing is intirely impossible in Nature! Are not the Pleasures of the Spring made such by the Disagreeableness of the Winter? Is not the Pleasure of fair Weather owing to the Unpleasantness of foul? Certainly. Were it then always Spring, were the Fields always green and flourishing, and the Weather constantly serene and fair, the Pleasure would pall and die upon our Hands; it would cease to be Pleasure to us, when it is not usher\u2019d in by Uneasiness. Could the Philosopher visit, in reality, every Star and Planet with as much Ease and Swiftness as he can now visit their Ideas, and pass from one to another of them in the Imagination; it would be a Pleasure I grant; but it would be only in proportion to the Desire of accomplishing it, and that would be no greater than the Uneasiness suffer\u2019d in the Want of it. The Accomplishment of a long and difficult Journey yields a great Pleasure; but if we could take a Trip to the Moon and back again, as frequently and with as much Ease as we can go and come from Market, the Satisfaction would be just the same.\nThe Immateriality of the Soul has been frequently made use of as an Argument for its Immortality; but let us consider, that tho\u2019 it should be allow\u2019d to be immaterial, and consequently its Parts incapable of Separation or Destruction by any Thing material, yet by Experience we find, that it is not incapable of Cessation of Thought, which is its Action. When the Body is but a little indispos\u2019d it has an evident Effect upon the Mind; and a right Disposition of the Organs is requisite to a right Manner of Thinking. In a sound Sleep sometimes, or in a Swoon, we cease to think at all; tho\u2019 the Soul is not therefore then annihilated, but exists all the while tho\u2019 it does not act; and may not this probably be the Case after Death? All our Ideas are first admitted by the Senses and imprinted on the Brain, increasing in Number by Observation and Experience; there they become the Subjects of the Soul\u2019s Action. The Soul is a mere Power or Faculty of contemplating on, and comparing those Ideas when it has them; hence springs Reason: But as it can think on nothing but Ideas, it must have them before it can think at all. Therefore as it may exist before it has receiv\u2019d any Ideas, it may exist before it thinks. To remember a Thing, is to have the Idea of it still plainly imprinted on the Brain, which the Soul can turn to and contemplate on Occasion. To forget a Thing, is to have the Idea of it defac\u2019d and destroy\u2019d by some Accident, or the crouding in and imprinting of great variety of other Ideas upon it, so that the Soul cannot find out its Traces and distinguish it. When we have thus lost the Idea of any one Thing, we can think no more, or cease to think, on that Thing; and as we can lose the Idea of one Thing, so we may of ten, twenty, a hundred, &c. and even of all Things, because they are not in their Nature permanent; and often during Life we see that some Men, (by an Accident or Distemper affecting the Brain,) lose the greatest Part of their Ideas, and remember very little of their past Actions and Circumstances. Now upon Death, and the Destruction of the Body, the Ideas contain\u2019d in the Brain, (which are alone the Subjects of the Soul\u2019s Action) being then likewise necessarily destroy\u2019d, the Soul, tho\u2019 incapable of Destruction itself, must then necessarily cease to think or act, having nothing left to think or act upon. It is reduc\u2019d to its first inconscious State before it receiv\u2019d any Ideas. And to cease to think is but little different from ceasing to be.\nNevertheless, \u2019tis not impossible that this same Faculty of contemplating Ideas may be hereafter united to a new Body, and receive a new Set of Ideas; but that will no way concern us who are now living; for the Identity will be lost, it is no longer that same Self but a new Being.\nI shall here subjoin a short Recapitulation of the Whole, that it may with all its Parts be comprehended at one View.\n1. It is suppos\u2019d that God the Maker and Governour of the Universe, is infinitely wise, good, and powerful.\n2. In consequence of His infinite Wisdom and Goodness, it is asserted, that whatever He doth must be infinitely wise and good;\n3. Unless He be interrupted, and His Measures broken by some other Being, which is impossible because He is Almighty.\n4. In consequence of His infinite Power, it is asserted, that nothing can exist or be done in the Universe which is not agreeable to His Will, and therefore good.\n5. Evil is hereby excluded, with all Merit and Demerit; and likewise all preference in the Esteem of God, of one Part of the Creation to another. This is the Summary of the first Part.\nNow our common Notions of Justice will tell us, that if all created Things are equally esteem\u2019d by the Creator, they ought to be equally us\u2019d by Him; and that they are therefore equally us\u2019d, we might embrace for Truth upon the Credit, and as the true Consequence of the foregoing Argument. Nevertheless we proceed to confirm it, by shewing how they are equally us\u2019d, and that in the following Manner.\n1. A Creature when endu\u2019 d with Life or Consciousness, is made capable of Uneasiness or Pain.\n2. This Pain produces Desire to be freed from it, in exact proportion to itself.\n3. The Accomplishment of this Desire produces an equal Pleasure.\n4. Pleasure is consequently equal to Pain.\nFrom these Propositions it is observ\u2019d,\n1. That every Creature hath as much Pleasure as Pain.\n2. That Life is not preferable to Insensibility; for Pleasure and Pain destroy one another: That Being which has ten Degrees of Pain subtracted from ten of Pleasure, has nothing remaining, and is upon an equality with that Being which is insensible of both.\n3. As the first Part proves that all Things must be equally us\u2019d by the Creator because equally esteem\u2019d; so this second Part demonstrates that they are equally esteem\u2019d because equally us\u2019d.\n4. Since every Action is the Effect of Self-Uneasiness, the Distinction of Virtue and Vice is excluded; and Prop. VIII. in Sect. I. again demonstrated.\n5. No State of Life can be happier than the present, because Pleasure and Pain are inseparable.\nThus both Parts of this Argument agree with and confirm one another, and the Demonstration is reciprocal.\nI am sensible that the Doctrine here advanc\u2019d, if it were to be publish\u2019d, would meet with but an indifferent Reception. Mankind naturally and generally love to be flatter\u2019d: Whatever sooths our Pride, and tends to exalt our Species above the rest of the Creation, we are pleas\u2019d with and easily believe, when ungrateful Truths shall be with the utmost Indignation rejected. \u201cWhat! bring ourselves down to an Equality with the Beasts of the Field! with the meanest part of the Creation! \u2019Tis insufferable!\u201d But, (to use a Piece of common Sense) our Geese are but Geese tho\u2019 we may think \u2019em Swans; and Truth will be Truth tho\u2019 it sometimes prove mortifying and distasteful.", "culture": "English", "source_dataset": "Pile_of_Law", "source_dataset_detailed": "Pile_of_Law_founding_docs", "source_dataset_detailed_explanation": "Letters from U.S. founders.", "creation_year": 1725}
]