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 Messiah their friend, and the Almighty their protector. In short, every thing 5 that is great in the whole circle of being, whether within the verge of nature or out of it, has a proper part assigned it in this noble poem.

In poetry, as in architecture, not only the whole, but the principal members, and every part of them, should be 10 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 simile of the top, and many other of the same kind1 in the Iliad, as liable to any censure in this particular; but I think we may say, without 15 derogating from those wonderful performances, that there is an unquestionable magnificence in every part of Paradise Lost, and indeed a much greater than could have been formed upon any pagan system.

But Aristotle by the greatness of the action does not 20 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 similitude: An animal, no bigger than 25 a mite, cannot appear perfect to the eye, because the sight takes it in at once, and has only a confused 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 30 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

1 First edition, 'nature.'

2 For derogating from' the first edition has 'offense to.'

very short or a very long action would be to the memory. The first would be, as it were, lost and swallowed up by it, and the other difficult to be contained in it. Homer and Virgil have shown their principal art in this particu5 lar: the action of the Iliad and that of the Æneid were in themselves exceeding short, but are so beautifully extended and diversed by the invention1 of episodes and the machinery of gods, with the like poetical ornaments, that they make up an agreeable story, sufficient to employ 10 the memory without overcharging it. Milton's action is enriched with such 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. It is possible that the traditions on which the Iliad and 15 Æneid were built had more circumstances in them than the history of the Fall of Man, as it is related in Scripture. Besides, 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 20 had not only a very few circumstances upon which to raise his poem, but was also obliged to proceed with the greatest caution in everything that he added out of his own invention. And indeed, notwithstanding all the restraints he was under, he has filled his story with so many 25 surprising incidents, which bear so close an 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., u

The modern critics have collected, from several hints 30 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 sun and the sphere of day, it is

1 First edition, 'intervention.'

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 with any determined number of years, days, or hours.

This piece of criticism on Milton's Paradise Lost shall be carried on in the following Saturdays' papers.

1

1 First edition omits 'the' and 'Saturdays.'

5

ΙΟ

2.1

THE CHARACTERS.

Notandi sunt tibi mores. — HOR. Ars Poet. 156.

Note well the manners.

HAVING examined the action of Paradise Lost, let us

in the next place consider the actors. This is Aristotle's method of considering first the fable, and secondly the manners; or, as we generally call them in 5 English, the fable and the characters.

2

Homer has excelled all the heroic poets that ever wrote in the multitude and variety of his characters. Every god that is admitted into this poem acts a part which would have been suitable to no other deity. His princes are as much distinguished 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 15 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 outshine all other poets in the variety, but also in the novelty of his characters. He 20 has introduced among his Grecian princes a person who had lived thrice the age of man, and conversed with The

1 Spectator, No. 273, Jan. 12, 1712.

2 For This . . . secondly' the first edition has 'These are what Aristotle means by the fable and.' 3 First edition, 'his' (Arber).

5

seus, Hercules, Polyphemus, and the first race of heroes. His principal actor is the son of a goddess, not to mention the offspring of other deities who have2 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 as novelty, which adapts them in a more peculiar manner to the nature of an heroic poem; though, at the same time, to give them the greater variety, he has described a Vulcan that is a buffoon among his gods, and 10 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, though he is styled the hero's friend, he does nothing in the 15 whole poem which may deserve that title. Gyas, Mnestheus, Sergestus, and Cloanthus, are all of them men of the same stamp and character:

Fortemque Gyan, fortemque Cloanthum.

20

There are, indeed, several natural incidents in the part of Ascanius, as that of Dido cannot be sufficiently admired. I do not see anything new or particular in Turnus. Pallas and Evander are remote3 copies of Hector and Priam, as Lausus and Mezentius are almost parallels to Pallas and Evander. The characters of Nisus 25 and Euryalus are beautiful, but common. We must not forget the parts of Sinon, Camilla, and some few others, which are fine improvements on the Greek poet.* In short, there is neither that variety nor novelty in the per

1 First edition, 'offspring.'

2 First edition for offspring... have' has 'son of Aurora who has.'

3 Remote' added in second edition.

46 'We... poet' added in second edition.