PREFACE.

IT

T has been fo ufual among modern authors to write prefaces, that a man is thought rude to his reader, who does not give him fome account before-hand of what he is to expect in the book.

The greatest part of this collection confifts of amorous verfes. Thofe who are converfant with the writings of the ancients, will observe a great difference between what they and the moderns have published upon this fubject. The occafions upon which the poems of the former are written, are fuch as happen to every man almost that is in love; and the thoughts fuch, as are natural for every man in love to think. The moderns, on the other hand, have fought out for occafions that none meet with but themfelves; and fill their verfes with thoughts that are furprizing and glittering, but not tender, paffionate, or natural to a man in love.

To judge which of thefe two are in the right; we ought to confider the end that people propofe in writing love verfes: and that I take not to be the getting fame or admiration from the world, but the obtaining the love of their miftrefs; and the beft way I conceive to make her love you, is to convince her that you love her. Now this certainly, is not to be done by forced conceits, far-fetched fimilies, and fhining points; but by a true and lively reprefentation of the pains and thoughts attending fuch a paffion.

Si

Si vis me flere, dolendum eft

"Primum ipfi tibi, tunc tua me infortunia lædent.”

I would as foon believe a widow in great grief for her husband, becaufe I faw her dance a corant about his coffin, as believe a man in love with his miftrefs for his writing fuch verfes as fome great modern wits have done upon theirs.

I am fatisfied that Catullus, Tibullus, Propertius, and Ovid, were in love with their mistresses while they upbraid them, quarrel with them, threaten them, and forfwear them; but I confefs I cannot believe Petrarch in love with his, when he writes conceits upon her name, her gloves, and the place of her birth. I know it is natural for a lover, in tranfports of jealoufy, to treat his miftrefs with all the violence imaginable; but I cannot think it natural for a man, who is much in love, to amufe himself with fuch trifles as the other. I am pleafed with Tibullus, when he fays, he could live in a defart with his miftrefs where never any human footfteps appeared, because I doubt not but he really thinks what he fays: but I confefs I can hardly forbear laughing when Petrarch tells us, he could live without any other fuftenance than his miftrefs's looks. I can very cafily believe a man may love a woman fo well as to defire no company but hers; but I can never believe a man can love a woman fo well as to have no need of meat and drink if he her. The first is a thought fo natural for a lover, that there is no man really in love, but thinks the fame thing; the other is

look upon may

not the thought of a man in love, but of a man who would impofe upon us with a pretended love (and that indeed very grossly too) while he had really none at all.

It would be endless to pursue this point; and any man who will but give himself the trouble to compare what the antients and moderns have faid upon the fame occafions, will foon perceive the advantage the former have over the others. I have chofen to mention Petrarch only, as being by much the most famous of all the moderns who have written love-verfes and it is, indeed, the great reputation which he has gotten, that has given encouragement to this false fort of wit in the world: for people, seeing the great credit he had, and has indeed to this day, not only in Italy, but over all Europe, have satisfied themselves with the imitation of him, never enquiring whether the way he took was the right or not.

There are no modern writers, perhaps, who have fucceeded better in love-verses than the English; and it. is indeed juft that the fairest ladies fhould infpire the best poets. Never was there a more copious fancy or greater reach of wit than what appears in Dr. Donne; nothing can be more gallant or genteel than the poems of Mr. Waller; nothing more gay or fprightly than thofe of Sir John Suckling; and nothing fuller of variety and learning than Mr. Cowley's. However, it may be obferved, that among all thefe, that foftnefs, tenderness, and violence of paffion, which the ancients thought moft proper for love-verfes, is wanting; and at the fame

time

time that we must allow Dr. Donne to have been a very great wit; Mr. Waller a very gallant writer; Sir John Suckling a very gay one; and Mr. Cowley a great genius; yet methinks I can hardly fancy any one of them to have been a very great lover. And it grieves me that the ancients, who could never have handfomer women than we have, fhould nevertheless be fo much more in love than we are. But it is probable the great reason of this may be the cruelty of our ladies; for a man must be imprudent indeed to let his paffion take very deep root, when he has no reason to expect any fort of return to it. And if it be fo, there ought to be a petition made to the fair, that they would be pleased fometimes to abate a little of their rigour for the propagation of good verfe. I do not mean that they fhould confer their favours upon none but men of wit, that would be too great a confinement indeed; but that they would admit them upon the fame foot with other people: and if they please now and then to make the experiment, I fancy they will find entertainment enough from the very variety of it.

There are three forts of poems that are proper for love: paftorals, elegies, and lyric verfes; under which laft, I comprehend all fongs, odes, fonnets, madrigals, and ftanzas. Of all these, paftoral is the lowest, and, upon that account, perhaps most proper for love; fince it is the nature of that paffion, to render the foul foft and humble. These three forts of poems ought to differ, not only in their numbers, in every thought of them.

but in the defigns, and Though we have no dif

ference between the verfes of paftoral and elegy in the modern languages, yet the numbers of the first ought to be loofer and not fofonorous as the other; the thoughts more fimple, more eafy, and more humble. The defign ought to be the representing the life of a shepherd, not only by talking of sheep and fields, but by showing us the truth, fincerity, and innocence, that accompanies that fort of life: for though I know our masters, Theocritus and Virgil, have not always conformed in this point of innocence; Theocritus, in his Daphnis, having made his love too wanton, and Virgil, in his Alexis, placed his paffion upon a boy; yet (if we may be allowed to cenfure thofe whom we must always reverence) I take both those things to be faults in their poems, and should have been better pleased with the Alexis if it had been made to a woman; and with the Daphnis, if he had made his fhepherds more modest. When I give humility and modefty as the character of paftoral, it is not, however, but that a fhepherd may be allowed to boast of his pipe, his fongs, his flocks, and to fhew a contempt of his rival, as we see both Theocritus and Virgil do. But this must be still in fuch a manner as if the occafion offered itself, and was not fought, and proceeded rather from the violence of the fhepherd's paffion, than any natural pride or malice in him.

There ought to be the fame difference obferved between pastorals and elegies as between the life of the country and the court. In the firft, love ought to be represented as among fhepherds, in the other as among gentlemen.

X