tleman in Love has hardly a just claim to the title of a Tale. I know not whether he be the original author of any Tale which he has given us. The Adventure of Hans Carvel has paffed through many fucceffions of

merry wits; for it is to be found in Ariofto's Satires, and is perhaps yet older. But the merit of fuch ftories is the art of telling them.

In his Amorous Effufions he is less happy; for they are not dictated by nature or by paffion, and have neither gallantry nor tenderness. They have the coldness of Cowley, without his wit, the dull exercises of a fkilful verfifyer, refolved at all adventures to write fomething about Chloe, and trying to be amorous by dint of ftudy. His fictions therefore are mythological. Venus, after the example of the Greek Epigram, afks when she was feen naked and bathing. Then Cupid is mistaken; then Cupid is difarmed; then he lofes his darts to Ganymede; then Jupiter fends him a fummons by Mercury. Then Chloe goes a-hunting, with an ivory quiver graceful at her fide; Diana mistakes her for one of her nymphs, and Cupid laughs at the blunder. All this is furely defpicable; and even when

he

he tries to act the lover, without the help of gods or goddeffes, his thoughts are unaffecting or remote. 'He talks not like a man of this world.

The greatest of all his amorous effaysis Henry and Emma; a dull and tedious dialogue, which excites neither efteem for the man nor tendernefs for the woman. The example of Emma,

who refolves to follow an outlawed murderer wherever fear and guilt fhall drive him, deserves no imitation; and the experiment by which Henry tries the lady's conftancy, is fuch as muft end either in infamy to her, or in difappointment to himself.

His occafional Poems neceffarily loft part of their value, as their occafions, being lefs remembered, raised lefs emotion. Some of them, however, are preferved by their inherént excellence. The burlefque of Boileau's Ode on Namur has, in fome parts, fuch airinefs and levity as will always procure it readers, even among thofe who cannot compare it with the original. The Epiftle to Boileau is not fo happy. The Poems to the King are

now perused only by young ftudents, who read merely that they may learn to write; and of the Carmen Seculare, I cannot but fufpect that I might praise or cenfure it by caprice, without danger of detection; for who can be fuppofed to have laboured through it? Yet the time has been when this neglected work was so popular, that it was tranflated into Latin by no common master. ·

His Poem on the battle of Ramillies is neceffarily tedious by the form of the stanza : an uniform mafs of ten lines, thirty-five times repeated, inconfequential and flightly connected, muft weary both the ear and the understanding. His imitation of Spenfer, which confifts principally in I ween and I weet, without exclufion of later modes of fpeech, makes his poem neither ancient nor modern. His mention of Mars and Bellona, and his comparison of Marlborough to the Eagle that bears the thunder of Jupiter, are all puerile and unaffecting; and yet more despicable is the long tale told by Lewis in his despair, of Brute and Troynovante, and the teeth of Cadmus, with his fimilies of the raven and eagle, and wolf

and

and lion. By the help of such easy fictions, and vulgar topicks, without acquaintance with life, and without knowledge of art or nature, a poem of any length, cold and lifelefs like this, may be easily written on any subject.

In his Epilogues to Phædra and to Lucius, he is very happily facetious; but into the Prologue before the Queen, the pedant has found his way, with Minerva, Perfeus, and Andromeda.

His Epigrams and lighter pieces are, like those of others, fometimes elegant, fometimes trifling, and fometimes dull; among the best are the Camelion, and the epitaph on John and Joan.

Scarcely any one of our poets has written fo much, and tranflated fo little the verfion of Callimachus is fufficiently licentious; the paraphrafe on St. Paul's Exhortation to Charity is eminently beautiful.

Alma is written in profeffed imitation of Hudibras, and has at least one accidental refemblance: Hudibras wants a plan, because it VOL. III.

D

is

is left imperfect; Alma is imperfect, because it-feems never to have had a plan. Prior appears not to have propofed to himself any drift or defign, but to have written the casual dictates of the prefent moment.

What Horace faid when he imitated Lucilius, might be faid of Butler by Prior, his numbers were not smooth or neat: Prior excelled him in verfification, but he was, like Horace, inventore minor; he had not Butler's exuberance of matter and variety of illuftration. The spangles of wit which he could afford, he knew how to polish; but he wanted the bullion of his mafter. Butler pours out a negligent profufion, certain of the weight, but careless of the ftamp. Prior has comparatively little, but with that little he makes a fine fhew. Alma has many admirers, and was the only piece among Prior's works of which Pope faid that he fhould wish to be the author.

Solomon is the work to which he entrusted the protection of his name, and which he expected fucceeding ages to regard with veneration. His affection was natural; it had undoubtedly been written with great labour, and

who