"that peculiarly belong to the language of

66 poetry?"

SECT. II.

Natural language is improved in poetry by the ufe of Poetical words.

ONE

NE mode of improvement peculiar to poetical diction refults from the use of those words, and phrafes, which, because they rarely occur in profe, and frequently in verse, are by the grammarian and lexicographer termed Poetical. In thefe fome languages abound more than others: but no language I am acquainted with is altogether without them; and perhaps no language can be fo, in which any number of good poems have been written. For poetry is better remembered than profe, efpecially by poetical authors; who will always be apt to imitate the phrafeology of thofe they have been accustomed to read and admire and thus, in the works of poets, down through fucceffive generations, certain phrafes may have been conveyed, which, though originally perhaps in common ufe, are now confined to poetical compofition. Profe-writers are not fo apt to imitate one another, at leaft in words and phrases; both because they do not

fa

fo well remember one another's phraseology, and alfo because their language is lefs artificial, and must not, if they would make it eafy and flowing, (without which it cannot be elegant), depart effentially from the style of correct converfation. Poets too, on account of the greater difficulty of their numbers, have, both in the choice and in the arrangement of words, a better claim to indulgence, and stand more in need of a difcretionary power.

The language of Homer differs materially from what was written and spoken in Greece in the days of Socrates. It differs in the mode of inflection, it differs in the fyntax, it dif fers even in the words; fo that one might read Homer with eafe, who could not read Xenophon; or Xenophon, without being able to read Homer. Yet I cannot believe, that Homer, or the first Greek poet who wrote in his ftyle, would make choice of a dialect quite different from what was intelligible in his own time; for poets have in all ages written with a view to be read, and to be read with pleafure; which they could not be, if their diction were hard to be understood. It is more reasonable to fuppofe, that the language of Homer is according to fome ancient dialect, which, though not perhaps in familiar ufe among the Greeks at the time he wrote, was however intelligible. From the Homeric to the Socratic age, a period had elapfed of no lefs than four hun

dred

dred years; during which the style both of discourse and of writing must have undergone great alterations. Yet the Iliad continued the ftandard of heroic poetry, and was confidered as the very perfection of poetical language; notwithstanding that fome words in it were become fo antiquated, or fo ambiguous, that Ariftotle himself feems to have been fomewhat doubtful in regard to their meaning *. And if Chaucer's merit as a poet had been as great as Homer's, and the English tongue under Edward the Third, as perfect as the Greek was in the fecond century after the Trojan war, the style of Chaucer would probably have been our model for poetical diction at this day; even as Petrarcha, his contemporary, is ftill imitated by the best poets of Italy.

I have fomewhere read, that the rudeness of the style of Ennius was imputed by the old critics to his having copied too closely the dialect of common life. But this, I prefume, must be a mistake. For, if we compare the fragments of that author with the comedies of Plautus, who flourished in the fame age, and whofe language was certainly copied from that of common life, we fhall be ftruck with an air of antiquity in the former, that is not in the latter. Ennius, no doubt, like most other sublime poets, affected fomething of the antique in his expreffion and many

* Ariftot. Poet. cap. 25.

:

of

of his words and phrases, not adopted by any profe-writer now extant, are to be found in Lucretius and Virgil, and were by them tranfmitted to fucceeding poets. These form part of the Roman poetical dialect; which appears from the writings of Virgil, where we have it in perfection, to have been very copious. The style of this charming poet is indeed fo different from profe, and is altogether fo peculiar, that it is perhaps impoffible to analyse it on the common principles of Latin grammar. And yet no author can be more perfpicuous or more expreffive; notwithstanding the frequency of Grecifi in his fyntax, and his love of old words, which he, in the judgement of Quintilian, knew better than any other man how to improve into decoration *.

The poetical dialect of modern Italy is fo different from the profaic, that I have known perfons who read the hiftorians, and even fpoke with tolerable fluency the language of that country, but could not easily construe a page of Petrarcha or Taffo. Yet it is not probable, that Petrarcha, whofe works are a standard of the Italian poetical diction †, made any material innovations in his native tongue. I rather believe, that he wrote it nearly as it was fpoken in his time, that is,

* Quintil. Inftit. viii. 3. § 3.

+ Vicende della literatura del Denina, cap. 4.

in the fourteenth century; omitting only harsh combinations, and taking that liberty which Homer probably, and Virgil certainly, took before him, of reviving fuch old, but not obfolete expreffions, as feemed peculiarly fignificant and melodious; and polishing his style to that degree of elegance which human speech, without becoming unnatural, may admit of, and which the genius of poetry, as an art fubfervient to pleasure, may be thought to require.

The French poetry in general is diftinguished from profe rather by the rhime and the measure, than by any old or uncommon phrafeology. Yet the French, on certain fubjects, imitate the style of their old poets, of Marot in particular; and may therefore be faid to have fomething of a poetical dialect, tho' far lefs extenfive than the Italian, or even than the English. And it may, I think, be prefumed, that in future ages they will have more of this dialect than they have at prefent. This I would infer from the very uncommon merit of some of their late poets, particularly Boileau and La Fontaine, who, in their refpective departments, will continue to be imitated, when the prefent modes of French profe are greatly changed an event that, for all the pains they take to preserve their language, muft inevitably happen, and whereof there are not wanting fome prefages already.

The English poetical dialect is not chaVOL. II. racterised

G g