in imitation of these two great poets, opens his Paradise Loft with an infernal council plotting the fall of Man, which is the action he proposed to celebrate; and as for those great actions, the battle of the Angels, and the creation of the world, (which preceded in point of time, and which, in my opinion, would have entirely destroyed the unity of his principal action, had he related them in the same order that they happened) he caft them into the fifth, fixth and seventh books, by way of episode to this noble poem. Aristotle himself allows, that Homer has nothing to boast of as to the unity of his fable, tho' at the fame time that great critic and philosopher endevors to palliate this imperfection in the Greek poet by imputing it in some measure to the very nature of an epic poem. Some have been of opinion, that the Æneid also labors in this particular, and has episodes which may be looked upon as excrefcencies rather than as parts of the action. On the contrary, the poem, which we have now under our confideration, hath no other episodes than such as naturally arife from the subject, and yet is filled with fuch a multitude of astonishing incidents, that it gives us at the fame time a pleasure of the greatest variety, and of the greatest fimplicity; uniform in its nature, tho' diverfified in the execution. I must observe also, that, as Virgil in the poem which was designed to celebrate the original of the Roman empire, has described the birth of its great rival, the Carthaginian common-wealth: Milton, with the like art in his poem on the fall of Man, has related the fall of those Angels who are his professed enemies. Beside the many other beauties in such an episode, its running parallel with the great action of the poem, hinders it from breaking the unity so much as another episode would have done, that had not so great an affinity with the principal subject. In short, this is the same kind of beauty which the critics admire in the Spanish Fryar, or the Double Discovery, where the two different plots look like counterparts and copies of one another. The second qualification required in the action of an epic poem is, that it should be an entire action: An action is entire when it is complete in all its parts; or as Ariftotle describes it, when it confifts of a beginning, a middle, and an end. Nothing should go before it, be intermix'd with it, or follow after it, that is not related to it. As on the contrary, no single step should be omitted in that just and regular progress which it must be supposed to take from its original to its consummation. Thus we fee the anger of Achilles in its birth, its continuance, and effects; and Æneas's fettlement in Italy, carried on through all the oppofitions in his way to it both by fea and land. The action in Milton excels (I think) both the former in this particular; we see it contrived in Hell, executed upon Earth, and punished by Heaven. The parts of it are told in the most distinct manner, and grow out of one another in the most natural order. The third qualification of an a much greater than could have epic poem is its greatness. The been formed upon any Pagan anger of Achilles was of such con- system. sequence, that it embroiled the kings of Greece, destroyed the heroes of Afia, and engaged all the Gods in factions. Æneas's fettlement in Italy produced the Cæfars, and gave birth to the Roman empire. Milton's subject was still greater than either of the former; it does not determin the fate of fingle persons or nations, but of a whole species. The united Powers of Hell are joined together for the destruction of mankind, which they effected in part, and would have completed, had not Omnipotence itself interposed. The principal actors are Man in his greatest perfection, and Woman in her highest beauty. Their enemies are the fallen Angels: The Meffiah their friend, and the Almighty their protector. In short, every thing that is great in the whole circle of be ing, whether within the verge of nature, or out of it, has a proper part assigned it in this admirable poem. In poetry, as in architecture, not only the whole, but the principal members, and every part of them, should be great. I will not presume to say, that the book of games in the Æneid, or that in the Iliad, are not of this nature, nor to reprehend Virgil's fimile of the top, and many other of the fame kind in the Iliad, as liable to any cenfure in this particular; but I think we may say, without derogating from those wonderful performances, that there is an indisputable and unquestioned magnificence in every part of Paradife Loft, and indeed But Aristotle, by the greatness of the action, does not only mean that it should be great in its nature, but also in its duration; or in other words, that it should have a due length in it, as well as what we properly call greatness. The just measure of this kind of magnitude, he explains by the following fimilitude. An animal, no bigger than a mite, cannot appear perfect to the eye, because the fight takes it in at once, and has only a confufed idea of the whole, and not a distinct idea of all its parts; If on the contrary you should suppose an animal of ten thousand furlongs in length, the eye would be so filled with a single part of it, that it could not give the mind an idea of the whole. What these animals are to the eye, a very short or a very long action would be to the memory. The first would be, as it were, loft and swallowed up by it, and the other difficult to be contained in it. Homer and Virgil have shown their principal art in this particular; the action of the Iliad, and that of the Æneid, were in themselves exceeding short, but are so beautifully extended and diverfified by the invention of episodes, and the machinery of Gods, with the like poetical ornaments, that they make up an agreeable story sufficient to employ the memory without overcharging it. Milton's action is enriched with fuch a variety of circumstances, that I have taken as much pleasure in reading the contents of his books, as in the best invented story I ever met with. i It is possible, that the traditions, on which the Iliad and Æneid were built, had more circumstances in them than the history of the fall of Man, as it is related in Scripture. Befides it was easier for Homer and Virgil to dash the truth with fiction, as they were in no danger of offending the religion of their country by it. But as for Milton, he had not only a very few circumstances upon which to raise his poem, but was also obliged to proceed with the greatest caution in every thing that he added out of his own invention. And, indeed, notwithstanding all the reftraints he was under, he has filled his story with fo many furprising incidents, which bear so close analogy with what is delivered in holy Writ, that it is capable of pleasing the most delicate reader, without giving offense to the most scrupulous. The modern critics have collected from several hints in the Iliad and Æneid the space of time, which is taken up by the action of each of those poems; but as a great part of Milton's story was transacted in regions that lie out of the reach of the fun and the sphere of day, it is impossible to gratify the reader with such a calculation, which indeed would be more curious than instructive; none of the critics, either ancient or modern, having laid down rules to circumscribe the action of an epic poem within any determined number of years, days, or hours. HAVING examined the action of Paradife Loft, let us in the next place confider the actors. This is Ariftotle's method of confidering; first the fable, and secondly the manners, or as we generally call them in English, the fable and the characters. Homer has excelled all the heroic poets that ever wrote, in the multitude and variety of his characters. Every God that is admitted into his poem, acts a part which would have been fuitable to no other Deity. His princes are as much diftinguished by their manners as by their dominions; and even those among them, whose characters seem wholly made up of courage, differ from one another as to the particular kinds of courage in which they excel. In short, there is scarce a speech or action in the Iliad, which the reader may not ascribe to the person that speaks or acts, without seeing his name at the head of it. Homer does not only out-shine all other poets in the variety, but also in the novelty of his characters. He has introduced among his Grecian princes a person, who had lived in three ages of men, and conversed with Theseus, Hercules, Polyphemus, and the first race of heroes. His principal actor is the son of a Goddess, not to mention the ofspring of other Deities, who have likewise a place in his poem, and the venerable Trojan prince who was the father of so many kings and heroes. There is in these several characters of Homer, a certain dignity as well But of this more particularly as novelty, which adapts them in hereafter. a more peculiar manner to the H4 nature 4 nature of an heroic poem. Tho' at the same time, to give them the greater variety, he has described a Vulcan, that is, a buffoon among his Gods, and a Thersites among his mortals. Virgil falls infinitely short of Homer in the characters of his poem, both as to their variety and novelty. Æneas is indeed a perfect character, but as for Achates, tho' he is ftiled the heroe's friend, he does nothing in the whole poem which may deserve that title. Gyas, Mnestheus, Sergeftus, and Cloanthus, are all of them men of the same stamp and character, characters in these two persons. We see Man and Woman in the highest innocence and perfection, and in the most abject state of guilt and infirmity. The two last characters vious, but the two first are not only are, indeed, very common and obmore magnificent, but more new than any characters either in Virgil or Homer, or indeed in the whole circle of nature. Milton was so sensible of this defect in the subject of his poem, and of the few characters it would afford him, that he has brought into it two actors of a shadowy and fictitious nature, in the persons of Sin and Death, by which means he ---- fortemque Gyan, fortemque has wrought into the body of his Cloanthum. Virg. There are indeed several very natural incidents in the part of Ascanius; as that of Dido cannot be sufficiently admired. I do not see any thing new or particular in Turnus. Pallas and Evander are remote copies of Hector and Priam, as Lausus and Mezentius are almost parallels to Pallas and Evander. The characters of Nisus and Eurialus are beautiful, but common. We must not forget the parts of Sinon, Camilla, and fome few others, which are fine improvements on the Greek poet. In short, there is neither that variety nor novelty in the persons of the Æneid, which we meet with in those of the Iliad. invented allegory. But notwithfable a very beautiful and wellstanding the fineness of this allegory may atone for it in some measure; I cannot think that persons of such a chimerical existence are proper actors in an epic poem; because there is not that measure of probability annexed to them, which is requifite in writings of this kind, as I shall show more at large hereafter. Fame as an actress in the Æneid, Virgil has, indeed, admitted but the part she acts is very short, and none of the most admired circumstances in that divine work. We find in mock-heroic poems, If we look into the characters the Lutrin, several allegorical perparticularly in the Dispensary and of Milton, we shall find that he has fons of this nature, which are very. introduced all the variety his fable beautiful in those compofitions, and was capable of receiving. The may, perhaps, be used as an arguwhole species of mankind was in ment, that the authors of them two persons at the time to which were of opinion, such characters the fubject of his poem is confined. might have a place in an epic work. We have, however, four diftinct For my own part, I should be glad the the reader would think so, for the fake of the poem I am now examining, and muft further add, that if such empty unsubstantial beings may be ever made use of on this occafion, never were any more nicely imagined, and employed in more proper actions, than those of which I am now speaking. Another principal actor in this poem is the great enemy of mankind. The part of Ulyffes in Homer's Odyssey is very much admired by Ariftotle, as perplexing that fable with very agreeable plots and intricacies, not only by the many adventures in his voyage, and the fubtlety of his behaviour, but by the various concealments and discoveries of his person in several parts of that poem. But the crafty being I have now mentioned, makes a much longer voyage than Ulysses, puts in practice many more wiles and ftratagems, and hides himself under a greater variety of shapes and appearances, all of which are severally detected, to the great delight and surprise of the reader. We may likewise observe with how much art the poet has varied several characters of the persons that speak in his infernal affembly. On the contrary, how has he represented the whole Godhead exerting itself towards Man in its full benevolence under the three-fold distinction of a Creator, a Redeemer, and a Comforter! Nor must we omit the person of Raphael, who, amidst his tendernefs and friendship for Man, shows such a dignity and condescension in all his speech and behaviour, as are suitable to a superior nature. The Angels are indeed as much diver-fified in Milton, and diftinguished by their proper parts, as the Gods are in Homer or Virgil. The reader will find nothing ascribed to Uriel, Gabriel, Michael, or Raphael, which is not in a particular manner fuitable to their respective cha racters. There is another circumstance in the principal actors of the Iliad and Eneid, which gives a peculiar beauty to those two poems, and was therefore contrived with very great judgment. I mean the authors having chosen for their heroes persons who were so nearly related to the people for whom they wrote. Achilles was a Greek, and Æneas the remote founder of Rome. By this means their countrymen (whom they principally proposed to themselves for their readers) were particularly attentive to all the parts of their story, and sympathized with their heroes in all their adventures. A Roman could not but rejoice in the escapes, fuccesses, and victories of Æneas, and be grieved at any defeats, misfortunes, or disappointments that befel him; as a Greek must have had the fame regard for Achilles. And it is plain, that each of those poems have lost this great advantage, among those readers to whom their heroes are as strangers, or indifferent persons. Milton's poem is admirable in this refpect, fince it is impossible for any of its readers, whatever nation, country or people he may belong to, not to be related to the persons who are the principal actors in it, but what is still infinitely more to its advantage, the principal actors : |