mighty mafter of picturesque embellifhment feverely cenfured by fome of his own conntrymen, who, indulging too much in the vifions of theory, have denied him the merit of practical excellence. Because Brown could execute better than he could defcribe, and worked by felf-taught rules, he has been attacked with afperity; and fome of his moft capital performances have been afcribed to chance, or to a dereliction of his own principles. But who can reduce the infinite variety of fituations that are to be improved to any fyftematic principles? The powerful genius of a place will imperiously fet rules at defiance; and, in fact, Art can only be the handmaid of Nature, whose beauties, prefenting a boundless variety, are alike indignant of confinement and control.

The attempt at fyftem is only an effort to bring us back to what has justly been explored. I have no magical fkill in planting rofes,' fays Gray. Nature difdains the fetters of art. The best principles can never be univerfally applicable to all fituations in an equal degree. The painter may invent or reject at pleasure, and adhere to the rules of his art: the embellisher of landscape is more confined in his operations; he cannot always reject he can only improve. His invention may cover fome defects; but it cannot always command the excel lencies he might wish. Befides, a flat furface and an extended natural fcene are very different materials to work on, and will have very different effeats when viewed by the eye of natural tafte*, the only just criterion of rural embellishment.

The chef dœuvre of Brown was the improvements at Blenheim. He had the nobleft field to difplay his

talents on, and he did not labour in vain. But though he traced the outline with effect, the correct taste of the noble poffeffor of this magnificent place has enabled him to give it many additional touches, and to improve its drapery. He has, however, preferved the unity of the defign, and only heightened the colouring. Who that now vifits thefe picturefque fcenes can deny, but that plantations have been applied to all the principal purpofes which M. De Girardin, perhaps copying from his beloved Ermenonville, conceives ought to be their grand objects:

To form the perfpective or fide 'fcenes of the fore ground that may beft connect the diftances with the principal points of view.

To raise fuch elevations or fcenes as may give relief even to an abfo⚫lute flat.

To hide all difagreeable objects.

To give more extent to those that are pleafing, by concealing their terminations behind a mass of wood; by which means the imagination continues them beyond the point where they are feen.

To give an agreeable outline to 'all furfaces, whether of land or ' water.'

These are the ideas of a mafter; and we here fee them realized. They who think justly, in matters not under the influence of paffion, will generally think the fame: hence often coincidence without intention.

But while Brown has been too indifcriminately condemned, he has also been too lavishly praifed, where he is leaft defenfible. His clumps muft in many cafes be given up by his molt zealous partifans, or receive a degree of connexion by intermediate planting, as has been done at Blenheim,

to

to preferve the uniformity of the fcene. His unvarying circular belts too, where they are not broken into maffes, as we fee them here, and when they serve to exclude the prof, pect of the furrounding country, are real defects in picturefque beauty. No kind of property is lefs the object of envy, or more grateful to the eye, than to take poffeffion of a country

in an extenfive view: it contributes to the general beauty, and is equally enjoyed by all, without offence to any. That difplay of nature is cer tainly moft magnificent, which is bounded only by the horizon: where fcenes under the immediate view prefent the moft captivating charms, and where distance harmonizes with the foreground,

RE

HYME, we have often been told, is a modern invention; though, if that was a crime, it might perhaps be proved to be not fo very modern neither. It is reckoned a barbarous one by fome pedants; who finding, I fuppofe, by the opinion of better judges than themselves, that it is abominable in Greek and Latin, conclude it must not be lefs fo in French and English. The contrary is evident to every one that has ears, and dares think for himself; for, in Englih, rhyme is capable of much harmony and the French can have no verfification without it. But fome people, who ought to know better, feem to make no allowance for the original difference between one lan guage and another; and are ready to quarrel with the English as a barbarous language, because it is not Latin or Greek. They do not confider, that every language has powers and graces peculiar to itfelf; and that what is becoming in one would be quite ridiculous in another. Of this it is fufficient to produce one obvious example: The tranfpofition of words, which gives fuch a grace and spirit to the Greek and Latin languages, and without which they would be come deteftably flat and infipid, does not at all fuit the genius of the Eng lih; except fometimes in poetry; and, by the way, I am afraid there are too many ungraceful tranfpofitions current among our English poets.

Sir

It is

But it is not only a few obfcure pedants, who are thus diffatisfied with their mother tongue; and would be glad for its improvement to torture it from its native fhape, fome into Latin and others into French; for attempts of this kind have actually been made by men of fuperior note. Philip Sidney, who, notwithstanding his affected manner, must be allowed to have poffeffed a great share of genius, would every now and then spur up his gallant English into a most unbecoming ridiculous trot after the Greek and Latin Hexameters. certainly impoffible to introduce the Greek and Latin measures into Eng. lifh poetry with any fuccefs; yet Sir Philip was fond of this project, and purfued it with a strange obftinacy, He recommended it to Spenfer; but Spenfer had too true an ear to relish fuch awkward unnatural verfification, or countenance it by his example. At least there is nothing remaining of him to fhow that he ever practifed it. There have attempts been made fince to the fame purpose by Milton, and fome later authors. But there never was any thing feen fo ungraceful or fo defpicably pedantic, as all effays of that kind which have hitherto appeared. I do not know that it has ever yet been tried, except by Milton in fome parts of his Sampfon; but of all the Greek or Latin meafures, the Iambic feems the most capable of being adopted into the Englifh poetry.

I have either heard or read, that a poet of the last century, whom I fhall not name, because I am not perfectly fure of the fact, pretended to fome fecrets, in verlification, which he did not choose to communicate. If it was fo, it fhowed a jealoufy unworthy of fo great a master of numbers: he might fafely enough, for his own fuperiority, have published those fecrets, whatever they were; for it is impoffible they could ever be of much ufe. He could easily advise you to vary your paufes, and tell you which are the moft graceful: but thefe, and all fuch precepts, are nothing to the purpofe; a good ear will naturally produce harmony without the leaft regard or attention to rules; and there is no cure for a bad one. The only way to improve the ear, whether good or bad, is to accuftom it to the most harmonious writing.

Blank verfe admits of a greater variety of paufes than rhyme, and is partly for that reafon the fittelt for werks of any confiderable length. But in English poetry, I queftion whether it is poffible, with any fuccels, to write odes, epiftles, elegies, paftorals, or fatires, without rhyme. And it happens luckily, that in thefe fhort pieces the ear has not time to be tired with the return of the chimes: which, in my humble opinion, had better fometimes play a little falfe to one another, than to be for ever fcrupulously exact, provided fuch licences never fhock the ear.

It does not require a very exquifite ear to write too smooth, or even har monious lines running ; yet in rhyme, a poet, who is always very careful to polish his couplet, may pafs with the multitude for a great matter in verfification. But as long as his harmony is confined within fuch narrow bounds, he writes but like a fchool boy, who keeps in the line only with the help of ruled paper.

Dr Swift and Mr Pope took of fence, one does not know why, at

the triplet, and very rarely condefcended to admit it into their verfe. It is true, it had been ufed to a naufeous excefs by fome taftelefs writers; and Mr Pope's own imitation of Rochefter, might juftly enough give him a difguft to the triplet for his whole life. Yet it contributes not a little to the grace of Dryden's verfification; and I can fee no reafon why it fhould be prohibited now; as it gives a variety to the numbers, which in rhyme is fufficiently limited to require fuch a help.

It does not feem quite foreign to the prefent fubject to take fome notice of Voltaire, who after having given it as his opinion, that Mr Pope is the moft harmonious of all the English poets, adds, with a very plaufible affurance, that he has reduced the harp hiflings of the English trumpet to the fweet founds of the flute. It is no great wonder, that one who is apt to write much at random, fhould prefume to talk fo contemptuously of a manly, and elegant and harmonious language, with which he plainly appears to have but a very fuperficial acquaintance. But who ever talked before of the hifings of a trumpet, or offharp hiflings? We have all heard of the hoarfe trumpet, but the hifing trumpet is an inftrument we are not yet acquainted with. However, to pafs thefe little improprieties, this compliment to Pope thews how well our critic is qualified to pronounce fentence upon the Englih poets. No one is more fenfible than I am of Mr Pope's merit; but his blindeft admirer might fartle at the preference beftowed upon him here. For, not to mention the great names of Spenfer, Shakespeare, and Milton, upon fuch an occafion, let us only compare Pope in this point of view, with a writer upon whom, as they fay, he formed himfeif, and whom not only in his own opinion, but in that of many others, he is thought to have excelled in the art of verfifying.