former poets, and of which he has fet an example, which will be an example or a reproach to his fucceffors. His profe ftyle is as perfect in its kind as his poetic, and has all the beauties proper for it, joined to an uncommon force and perfpicuity.

Under the profeffion of the Roman Catholic religion, to which he adhered to the laft, he maintained all the moderation and charity becoming the most thorough and confiftent Proteftant. His converfation was natural, eafy, and agreeable, without any affectation of difplaying his wit, or obtruding his own judgment, even upon fubjects of which he was fo eminently a mafter.

The moral character of our Author, as it did not efcape the lafh of his calumniators in his life, fo have there been attempts fince his death to diminish his reputation. Lord Bolingbroke, whom Mr. Pope efteemed to almoft an enthufiaftic degree of admiration, was the first to make this attack. Not many years ago the public were entertained with this controversy, immediately upon the publication of his Lordship's Letters on the Spirit of Patriotifm, and the Idea of a Patriot King. Different opinions have been offered; fome to extenuate the fault of Mr. Pope for printing and mutilating these letters without his Lordship's knowlege; others to blame him for it as the highest breach of friendship, and the greatest mark of dishonour: but it would exceed our propofed bounds to enter into the merits of this controversy.

This great man is allowed to have been one of the first rank amongst the poets of our nation, and to acknowledge the fuperiority of none but Shakespeare, Milton, and Dryden. With the two former it is unnatural to compare him, as their province in writing is fo very different. Pope has never attempted the drama, nor published an epic poem, in which thefe two diftinguished geniufes have fo wonderfully fucceeded. Though Pope's genius was great, it was yet

of

of fo different a cast from Shakespeare's and Milton's, that no comparison can be juftly formed. But if this may be faid of the former two, it will by no means hold with respect to the latter; for between him and Dryden there is a great fimilarity of writing, and a very striking coincidence of genius. It will not, perhaps, be unpleafing to our readers if we pursue this comparison, and endeavour to difcover to whom the fuperiority is juftly to be attributed, and to which of them poetry owes the highest obligations.

When Dryden came into the world he found poetry in a very imperfect state; its numbers were unpolished, its cadences rough, and there was nothing of harmony or mellifluence to give it a graceful flow. In this harsh, unmufical fituation Dryden found it, (for the refinements of Waller were but puerile and unfubftantial:) he polished the rough diamond, he taught it to fhine, and connected beauty, elegance, and ftrength, in all his poetical compofitions. I hough Dryden thus polished our English numbers, and thus harmonized verfification, it cannot be faid that he carried his art to perfection. Much was yet left undone; his lines, with all their smoothneis,

were

often rambling, and expletives were frequently introduced to complete his meatures. It is apparent, therefore, that an additional harmony might still be given to our numbers, and that cadences were yet capable of a more musical modulation. To effect this purpofe Mr. Pope arofe, who with an ear elegantly delicate, and the advantage of the finest genius, fo harmonized the English numbers, as to make them completely musical. His numbers are likewife fo minutely correct, that it would be difficult to conceive how any of his lines can be altered to advantage. He has created a kind of mechanical verfification; every line is alike; and though they are fweetly mufical, they want diverfity; for he has not ftudied fo great a variety of paufes, and where the accents may

be

be laid gracefully. The ftructure of his verfe is the beft, and a line of his is more mufical than any other line can be made by placing the accents elfewhere; but we are not quite certain whether the ear is not apt to be foon cloyed with this uniformity of elegance, this fameness of harmony. It must be acknowledged, however, that he has much improved upon Dryden in the article of verfification, and in that part of poetry is greatly his fuperior. But though this must be acknowledged, perhaps it will not neceffarily follow that his genius was, therefore, fuperior.

The grand characteristic of a poet is his invention, the fureft diftinction of a great genius. In Mr. Pope nothing is fo truly original as his Rape of the Lock, nor difcovers fo much invention. In this kind of mock-heroic he is without a rival in our language, for Dryden has written nothing of the kind. His other work which difcovers invention, fine defigning, and admirable execution, is his Dunciad: which, though built on Dryden's Mac Flecknoe, is yet fo much fuperior, that, in fatiric writing, the palm muft justly be yielded to him. In Mr. Dryden's Abfalom and Ahithopel there are, indeed, the moft poignant ftrokes of fatire, and characters drawn with the moft mafterly touches; but this poem, with all its excellencies, is much inferior to the Dunciad, though Dryden had advantages which Mr. Pope had not; for Dryden's characters are men of great eminence and figure in the ftate, while Pope has to expose men of obscure birth and unimportant lives, only diftinguished from the herd of mankind by a glimmering of genius, which rendered the greatest part of them more em phatically contemptible. Pope's was the hardest task, and he has executed it with the greateft fuccefs. As Mr. Dryden muft undoubtedly have yielded to Pope in fatiric writing, it is incumbent on the partizans of Dryden to name another species, of compofition in which the former excels fo as to throw the balance

again upon the fide of Dryden. This fpecies is the Lyric, in which the warmest votaries of Pope must certainly acknowledge that he is much inferior: as an irrefiftible proof of this we need only compare Mr. Dryden's Ode on St. Cecilia's Day with Mr. Pope's, in which the disparity is very apparent.

It hath been generally acknowledged that the Lyric is a more excellent kind of writing than the Satiric, and, confequently, he who excels in the most excellent fpecies muft undoubtedly be esteemed the greatest poet. Mr. Pope has very happily fucceeded in many of his occafional pieces, fuch as Eloita to Abelard, his Elegy on an unfortunate young Lady, and a variety of other performances defervedly celebrated. To thefe may be oppofed Mr. Dryden's Fables, which, though written in a very advanced age, are yet the most perfect of his works. In thefe Fables there is, perhaps, a greater variety than in Mr. Pope's occafional pieces: many of them, indeed, are translations, but fuch as are original fhow a great extent of invention, and a large compaís of genius.

There are not in Pope's works fuch poignant difcoveries of wit, or fuch a general knowledge of the humours and characters of men, as in the Prologues and Epilogues of Dryden, which are the beft records of the whims and capricious oddities of the times in which they are written.

When these two great geniufes are confidered in the light of tranflators, it will, indeed, be difficult to determine into whofe fcale the balance fhould be thrown. That Mr. Pope had a more arduous province in doing juftice to Homer, than Dryden with regard to Virgil, is certainly true; as Homer is a more various and diffuse poet than Virgil; and it is likewise true, that Pope has even exceeded Dryden in the execution, and none will deny that Pope's Homer's Iliad is a finer poem than Dryden's neid of Virgil, making a proper allowance for the difproportion of

the

the original authors. But then a candid critic fhould reflect, that as Dryden was prior in the great attempt of rendering Virgil into English, fo did he perform the task under many difadvantages which Pope, by a happier fituation in life, was enabled to avoid; and could not but improve upon Dryden's errors, though the authors tranflated were not the fame and it is much to be doubted if Dryden were to tranflate the Æneid now, with that attention which the correctnefs of the prefent age would force upon him, whether the preference would be due to Pope's Homer.

But fuppofing it to be yielded (as it certainly must) that the latter bard was the greatest tranflator, we are now to throw into Mr. Dryden's fcale all his dramatic works; which, though not the most excellent of his writings, yet, as nothing of Mr. Pope's can be opposed to them, they have an undoubted right to turn the balance greatly in favour of Mr. Dryden.

When the two poets are confidered as critics, the comparison will very imperfectly hold. Dryden's Dedications and Prefaces, befides that they are more numerous, and are the best models for courtly panęgyric, fhow that he understood poetry as an art beyond any man that ever lived; and he explained this art fo well, that he taught his antagonists to turn the tables against himfelf: for he fo illuminated the mind by his clear and perfpicuous reasoning, that dulness itfelf became capable of difcerning; and when at any time his performances fell fhort of his own ideas of excellence, his enemies tried him by rules of his own establishing; and though they owed to him the ability of judging, they feldom had candour enough to spare him.

Perhaps it may be true, that Pope's works are read with more appetite, as there is a greater evenness and correctness in them; but in perufing the works of Dryden, the mind will take a wider range, and be more fraught with poetical ideas. We adinire Dryden as the greater genius, and Pope as the most pleafing verfifier. Cibber's Lives.