world, as in this little performance.' Letter, Oct. 15, 1726:

MS:

Such are the fentiments of this celebrated foreigner, with refpect to Mr. POPE's poetical merit; and how much warmer would this panegyric have been, had Voltaire been mafter of the nicer beauties of the English language, in which Mr. POPE fo eminently excelled. We find, that fo far from thinking him laborieux, fevere, he pronounces him a poet of what he calls amiable IMAGINATION and gentle Gracesį mafter of great variety, wit, and urbanityQualities tending to perfect a poet, even in those fpecies of compofition, which our effayift deems moft excellent.

Nevertheless, the effayift does not fcruple to queftion Mr. POPE's title to INVENTION and IMAGINATION. In the dedication, above taken notice of, he affects to speak of him rather as a Moralift, than a Poet; adding, that it is à creative and glowing Imagination only, which can ftamp a writer with the latter character.

In another part, fpeaking of the Epiftle from Eloifa to Abelard, he fays-" POPE was a most "excellent IMPROVER, if no great original IN"VENTOR." Again, in the clofe of his Examen of the Rape of the Lock, he thus expreffes himfelf: "It is in this compofition, POPE prin"cipally appears a POET; in which he has dif"played more imagination, than in all his other "works taken together. It fhould, however,

" be

" be remembered," he adds, " that he was not "the FIRST former and creator of those beauti"ful machines, the Sylphs; on which his claim "to imagination is chiefly founded. He found "them exifting ready to his hand; but has, indeed, employed them with fingular judgment " and artifice."

It is to be wifhed, that before the critic had paffed these hafty cenfures, he, who is fo well able, had previously defined the words INVENTION and IMAGINATION; or, at least, that he had premifed what meaning he intended to convey by the use of those terms.

Definitions, it is true, more especially of abftract terms, are dangerous; and much ridicule has been thrown upon the unwary use of them. But it is indifpenfably neceffary, however, that fuch as criticize or difpute, fhould make the world acquainted with the fenfe they annex to the terms they employ: otherwife they may cavil without end, and only create confufion, instead of begetting conviction.

་་

Now Invention and Imagination are, at least, in my apprehenfion, terms, though nearly allied, yet fomewhat different from each other; though they are frequently used indiscriminately, and confounded even by our critic himself; as it fhould seem by the following expreffions.

"The man of rhymes," fays he, " may be "eafily found; but the genuine poet, of a lively Ff 8 plaftic

"plaftic Imagination, the true MAKER or CRE ATOR, is an uncommon prodigy."

Here the critic seems to attribute the power of making or creating, to the Imagination, which more properly belongs to the Invention.

But the TRUE MAKER or CREATOR (fays he) is an uncommon prodigy. I believe fo. Maker of what? Not of Beings, nor Ideas. He may make Monsters: things which never did exist in one cafe, and which never can in the other. We can only combine the Beings and the Ideas which our fenfes prefent unto us. As Maker and Creator, in any other fenfe than a fkilful Affociator and Combiner, the Man in Bedlam has the advantage of the trueft Genius.

So that Invention, as applied to literary compofition, seems to be nothing more than, the faculty of difcovering certain relations among various objects; from whence we form a new and beautiful affociation of ideas: and we pronounce no man a genius, who does not excel in this faculty.

Imagination, on the other hand, is the faculty of illustrating and embellishing those ideas, by new, apt and striking images and figures. It is the office of imagination, to reprefent fome truth to the understanding, as it were by reflection.

Thus it would feem, that imagination is but a proper attendant on invention. As genius is the faculty of forming new affociations of ideas, fo

imagination

imagination is the faculty of representing them by new images.

It is from imagination, that a writer derives the fire and enthusiasm, which, with respect to poetry especially, conftitutes, among other qualities, what we call Genius. But to form a poetic génius, requires a happy concurrence of all the nobler qualities of the mind. The invention fhould be quick and fertile; the poet must be able readily to perceive the relations among various objects which present themselves before him, and to combine them, with fuch curious felicity, as to produce a ftriking and interesting union.

As this union, however, will be more or lefs obvious to others, in proportion as their powers of perception are more or lefs vigorous or languid: therefore the Poet's imagination likewife fhould be lively and ardent. He must be capable of impreffing thofe ideas on different minds, by placeing them in various lights, by the ufe of choice. and strong images, and of figurative illustrations, decked with all the graces of an elegant, fplendid and harmonious diction.

His judgment alfo, fhould be folid and correct. He must be capable of arranging his thoughts in a methodical train; of combining fuch only as have a natural congruity between them, of separating fuch as are diffimilar, and of applying them to their proper purposes, fo as to produce a complete and flriking union,

His tafte, likewise, should be refined: he must be able to distinguish nicely what is beautiful, and to felect fuch imagery as may be beft appropriated to illuftrate the ideas he would convey. He must know, likewife, how to preferve a juft ordonnance of figures, and avoid the jarring clash of metaphors. He muft difcern alfo, what ftile is most properly adapted to the various fpecies of compofition: otherwife he will be liable to mistake inflation for fublimity, conceit for wit, and gaudinefs for elegance.

ハ

Thefe are the qualities which form a genius in poetry, and of thefe Mr. POPE was eminently poffeffed; though the ingenious critic feems to deny, or at leaft to queftion, his title to the moft effential of them, that is, invention.

We are the more furprized at the critic's dif puting Mr. POPE's juft claim to this excellence, as he feems to entertain very just and liberal notions of the nature of invention; where he fays, how confiftently with his judgment of Mr. POPE, let others determine "That a "want of feeming originality arifes frequently, not from a barrennefs and timidity of genius, 1 "but from invincible neceffity, and the nature "of things that the works of thofe, who pro"fefs an art whofe effence is imitation, muft "needs be ftamped with a close refemblance to "each other; since the objects, material or ani"mate, extraneous or internal, which they all "imitate, lie equally open to the observation of "all, and are perfectly fimilar.'

But