judge by principles rather than perception; and who would even themfelves have lefs pleasure in his works, if he had tried to relieve attention by ftudied difcords, or affected to break his lines and vary his pauses.

But though he was thus careful of his verfification, he did not opprefs his powers with fuperfluous rigour. He feems to have thought with Boileau, that the practice of writing might be refined till the difficulty fhould overbalance the advantage. The conflruction of his language is not always ftri&tly grammatical; with thofe rhymes which prefcription had conjoined he contented himfelf, without regard to Swift's remonftranccs, though there was

no ftriking confonance; nor was he very careful to vary his terminations, or to refufe admiffion at a final diftance to. the fame rhymes.

To Swift's edit for the exclufion of Alexandrines and Triplets he paid little regard; he admitted them, but, in the

opinion of Fenton, too rarely; he ufes

them more liberally in his tranflation than his poems.

He has a few double rhymes; but al ways, I think, unfuccefsfully, except once in the Rape of the Lock.

Expletives he very early ejected from his verses; but he now and then admits an epithet rather commodious than important. Each of the fix first lines of the Iliad might lofe two fyllables with

very little diminution of the meaning; and fometimes, after all, his art and labour, one verfe feems to be made for the fake of another...

I have been told that the couplet by. which he declared his own ear to be moft gratified was this:

Lo, where Mootis fleeps, and hardly flows

The freezing Tanais through a waste of fnows.

But the reason of this preference I cannot discover.

It is remarked by Watts, that there is fcarcely a happy combination of words, or a phrase à phrafe poetically elegant in the English language, which Pope has

not

not inferted into his verfion of Homer. How he obtained poffeffion of fo many beauties of fpeech, it were defirable to know. That he gleaned from authors, obfcure as well as eminent, what he thought brilliant or useful, and preferved it all in a regular collection, is not unlikely. When, in his last years, Hall's Satires were fhewn him, he wished that he had feen them fooner.

New fentiments and new images others may produce; but to attempt any further improvement of verfification will be dangerous. Art and diligence have now done their best, and what fhall be added will be the effort of tedious toil and needlefs curiofity.

After

After all this, it is furely fuperfluous to answer the queftion that has once been afked, Whether Pope was a poet? otherwife than by afking in return, If Pope be not a poet, where is poetry to be found? To circumfcribe poetry by a definition will only fhew the narrowness of the definer, though a definition which fhall exclude Pope will not eafily be made. Let us look round upon the present time, and back upon the paft; let us enquire to whom the voice of mankind has decreed the wreath of poetry; let their productions be examined, and their claims ftated, and the pretenfions of Pope will be no more difputed. Had he given the world only his verfion, the name of poet must have been allowed him: