THE business therefore of the Poet, is to give fome unexpected advantage to thefe general feelings; either, by a happiness in the incidents from which they spring; or fome peculiarity in the fituation and character of the perfon affected: of this we have a complete example, when the Daughters of Lear prefs hard upon him to reduce the number of his Knights

Regan.

If you come to me,

(For now I fpy a danger) I intreat you

To bring but five and twenty; to no more

Will I give place or notice—

Lear. I gave you all.

THE ingratitude of a daughter, who owed every thing to a father's generofity, might naturally

H 2

naturally produce fuch a reproach as thisbut it receives an additional tenderness from the violent character of Lear, and the aggravating circumstances of his children's conduct.

If the Pathetic, as fhould feem from thefe proofs, muft owe its effect to the occafion which produced it; the fame may be affirmed, in part, of the fublime: I say in part, because though great fentiments, when produced in the Drama, muft, in common with the pathetic, derive a particular and spe, cific beauty from a happiness in their application; yet there will be this difference between them, that if a pathetic fentiment be confidered independent of the occafion which produced it, it lofes its pathetic force, On the other hand, if a fublime fentiment be confidered in the fame light, it lofes the advantage

advantage it received from a happiness in its application, but retains its intrinfic greatnefs. This, I think, will appear, by comparing the answers of Afpafia and Lear, in the two last examples, with the follow ing reply of Guiderius, to the rash and foolish Cloten, who had threatened to kill him.

Cloten.

Art not afraid?

Guid. Thofe that I rev'rence, thofe I fear, the wife,

At fools I laugh, not fear them.

THIS fentiment had been noble on any occafion; on this, it is happy as well as great.

FROM thefe obfervations it is evident, that the variety and force of our fentiH 3

ments,

ments, particularly in the pathetic, muft depend on the variety and nature of their motives. In this the Painter is extremely confined; for among the infinite turns and workings of the mind, which may be expreffed by words, and become the fprings of fentiment, there are fo few to which he can give a shape or being; and his indications of peculiar and characteristic feelings, are fo vague and undecifive, that his expreffions, like their motives, must be [2] obvious and general.

[4] If Painting be inferior to Poetry, Mufic, confidered as an imitative art, must be greatly inferior to Painting for as Mufic has no means of explaining the motives of its various impreffions, its imitations of the Manners and Paffions must be extremely vague and undecifive for inftance, the tender and melting tones which may be expreffive of the Paffion of Love, will be equally in unifon with the collateral feelings of Benevolence, Friendship, Pity, and the like-Again, how are we to distinguish the rapid movements of Anger, from

Ir

It is obfervable, that the fame Critics, who condemn fo much in Shakespear a neglect of the unities, are equally forward. in acknowledging the fingular energy and beauty of his fentiments. Now, it seems to me, that the fault which they cenfure, is the principal fource of the beauties which they admire. For, as the Poet was not confined to an [r] unity and fimplicity of action,

thofe of Terror, Diftraction, and all the violent agitations of the Soul? But, let Poetry co-operate with Mufic, and specify the motive of each particular impreffion, we are no longer at a lofs; we acknowlege the agreement of the found with the idea, and general impreffions become fpecific indications of the Manners and the Paffions.

[r] Ariftotle, in his Poetics, chap, vi. obferves, that the firft Dramatic Poets were irregular in the conduct of the Fable; but excelled in the Manners, and in the Diction: that the Poets of his time, on the contrary, excelled in the conduct of the Fable, but were weak in the Manners, and declamatory in the Diction. By the