ftrewed unfeasonably. Mr. Addifon's Cato, too, is juftly cenfurable in this respect; as, when Portius, just after Lucia had bid him farewel forever, and when he should naturally have been represented as in the most violent anguish, makes his reply in a studied and affected comparison :

Thus o'er the dying lamp th' unsteady flame
Hangs quiv'ring on a point, leaps off by fits,
And falls again, as loth to quit its hold.

Thou must not go; my foul still hovers o'er thee,
And can't get loose.

Every one must be fenfible, that this is quite remote from the language of nature on fuch occafions.

However, as comparison is not the style of strong paffion, fo neither, when employed for embellishment, is it the language of a mind wholly unmoved. It is a figure of dignity, and always requires fome elevation in the fubject, in order to make it proper for it fuppofes the imagination to be uncommonly enlivened, though the heart be not agitated by paffion. In a word, the proper place of comparisons lies in the middle region between the highly pathetic, and the very humble style. This is a wide field, and gives ample range to the figure. But even this field we must take care not to overstock with it. For, as was before faid, it is a fparkling ornament; and all things that sparkle, dazzle and fatigue, if they recur too often. Similes fhould, even in poetry, be ufed with moderation; but, in profe writings, much more: otherwife, the ftyle will become difagreeably florid, and the ornament lofe its virtue and effect.

I proceed, next, to the rules that relate to objects, whence comparisons fhould be drawn ; fuppofing them introduced in their proper place.

In the first place, they must not be drawn from

things, which have too near and obvious a resemblance to the object with which we compare them. The great pleasure of the act of comparing lies, in difcovering likeneffes among things of different fpecies, where we would not, at the first glance, expect a refemblance. There is little art or ingenuity in pointing out the resemblance of two objects, that are fo much akin, or lie fo near to one another in nature, that every one fees they must be like. When Milton compares fatan's appearance, after his fall, to that of the fun fuffering an eclipfe, and affrighting the nations with portentous darkness, we are ftruck with the happiness and the dignity of the fimilitude. But, when he compares Eve's bower in paradife, to the arbour of Pomona, or Eve herself, to a dryad, or woodnymph, we receive little entertainment: as every one fees, that one arbour muft, of course, in feveral respects, resemble another arbour, and one beautiful woman another beautiful woman.

Among fimiles, faulty through too great obviousness of the likeness, we must likewife rank those which are taken from objects become trite and familiar in poetical language. Such are the fimiles of a hero to a lion, of a perfon in forrow to a flower drooping its head, of violent paffion to a tempeft, of chastity to fnow, of virtue to the fun or the stars, and many more of this kind, with which we are fure to find modern writers, of fecond rate genius, abounding plentifully; handed down from every writer of verses to another, as by hereditary right. These comparisons were, at first, perhaps, very proper for the purposes to which they are applied. In the ancient original poets, who took them directly from nature, not from their predeceffors, they had beauty. But they are now beaten; our ears are fo accustomed to them,; that they give no amusement to the fancy. There

320

is, indeed, no mark by which we can more readily diftinguish a poet of true genius, from one of a barren imagination, than by the ftrain of their comparisons. All who call themselves poets, affect them but, whereas a mere verfifier copies no new image from nature, which appears, to his uninventive genius, exhausted by those who have gone before him, and, therefore, contents himself with humbly following their track; to an author of real fancy, nature feems to unlock, fpontaneously, her hidden ftores; and the eye, quick glancing "from earth to heaven," difcovers new fhapes and forms, new likeneffes between objects unobferved before, which render his fimiles original, expreffive, and lively.

66

But, in the fecond place, as comparisons ought not to be founded on likeneffes too obvious, still lefs ought they to be founded on thofe which are too faint and remote. For thefe, in place of affifting, ftrain the fancy to comprehend them, and throw no light upon the fubject. It is alfo to be obferved, that a comparifon, which, in the principal circumstances, carries a fufficiently near re femblance, may become unnatural and obfcure, if pushed too far. Nothing is more oppofite to the defign of this figure, than to hunt after a great number of coincidences in minute points, merely to fhow how far the poet's wit can stretch the refemblance. This is mr. Cowley's common fault; whofe comparisons generally run out fo far, as to become rather a ftudied exercife of wit, than an illustration of the principal object. We need only open his works, his odes especially, to find inftançes every where.

In the third place, the object from which a comparison is drawn, fhould never be an unknown object, or one, of which few people can form clear ideas: "Ad inferendam rebus lucem," fays

Quintilian, "repertæ funt fimilitudines. Præcipue, "igitur, eft cuftodiendum, ne id quod fimilitudinis "gratia afcivimus, aut obfcurum fit, aut ignotum. "Debet enim id quod illuftrandæ alterius rei gratia "affumitur, ipfum effe clarius eo quod illumina"tur.*" Comparisons, therefore,founded on philo fophical discoveries, or on anything with which per+ fons of a certain trade only, or a certain profellion, are converfant, attain not their proper effect. They should be taken from thofe illuftrious, noted objects, which moft of the readers either have feen, or can strongly conceive. This leads me to remark a fault of which modern poets are very apt to be guilty. The ancients took their fimiles from that face of nature, and that clafs of objects, with which they and their readers were acquainted. Hence lions, and wolves, and ferpents, were fruitful, and very proper fources of fimiles amongst them; and thefe having become a fort of confecrated, claffical images, are very commonly adopted by the moderns-injudiciously, however; for the propriety of them is now in a great measure loft. It is only at fecond hand, and by defcription, that we are acquainted with many of thofe objects; and, to most readers of poetry, it were more to the purpose to defcribe lions, or ferpents, by fimiles taken from men, than to defcribe men by lions, Now-a-days, we can more easily form the conception of a fierce combat between two men, than between a bull and a tiger. Every country has a fcenery peculiar to itself; and the imagery of eve

"Comparisons have been introduced into difcourfe, for the fake of throwing light on the fubject. We muft, therefore, be much on our guard, not to employ, as the ground of our fimile, any object which is either obfcure or unknown. That, furely, which is ufed for the purpose of illustrating fome other thing, ought to be more obvious and plain, than the thing intended to be illuftrated."

ry good poet will exhibit it. The introduction of unknown objects, or of a foreign fcenery, betrays à poet copying, not after nature, but from other writers. I have only to obferve further,

In the fourth place, that, in compofitions of a ferious or elevated kind, fimiles fhould never be taken from low or mean objects. These are degrading; whereas, fimiles are commonly intended to embellish, and to dignify: and, therefore, unless in burlefque writings, or where fimiles are introduced purposely to vilify and diminish an object, mean ideas fhould never be prefented to us. Some of Homer's comparisons have been taxed, without reafon, on this account. For it is to be remembered, that the meannefs or dignity of objects depends, in a great degree, on the ideas and manners of the age wherein we live. Many fimiles, therefore, drawn from the incidents of rural life, which appear low to us, had abundance of dignity in those fimpler ages of antiquity.

I have now confidered fuch of the figures of fpeech as feemed moft to merit a full and particular difcuffion-metaphor, hyberbole, perfonification, apoftrophe, and comparifon. A few more yet remain to be mentioned; the proper ufe and conduct of which will be easily understood from the principles already laid down.

As comparison is founded on the refemblance, fo antithefis on the contraft or oppofition of two objects. Contraft has always this effect, to make each of the contrafted objects appear in the ftronger light. White, for inftance, never appears fo bright as when it is oppofed to black, and when both are viewed together. Antithefis, therefore, may, on many occafions, be employed to advantage, in order to ftrengthen the impreffion which we intend that any object should make. Thus Cicero, in his oration for Milo, reprefenting the im