poet than Pope; yet Paradise Lost too often remains praised but unread upon the shelf, while the Moral Essays are turned over by a thousand eager hands. I am far from saying that this is a right taste; but I do say that it is, and I believe ever will be, the taste of the larger number of readers. When Pope is blamed for wanting the highest poetic flights, we should remember that such flights did not accord with the subjects he had chosen, and that sublimity misplaced would only become ridiculous. Still less should he be condemned, as appears his frequent fate, only because his imitators, for the following fifty years, were for the most part tasteless and insipid copyists of his harmony without his sense; or, to adopt his own expression, "word-catchers that live on syllables"-who wrote, in very even-balanced numbers, very chilling love-verses and very innocent satires! All this is true, yet all this reflects no discredit upon Pope. It is the fate of all great writers to produce many wretched imitations, and to become the model of all the aspiring dunces of their day. How many ponderous epics have come forth still-born from the press in imitation of Milton! In our own time, what fooleries have been perpetrated, with Byron for their model! What shoals of would-be Laras and Harolds! How many an accomplished young lady, with a richly bound album, has thought it fashionable to describe herself in it as plunged in the lowest depths of despair and hatred to mankind; as one "who dreads the darkness, and yet loathes the light"—who claims the "brotherhood of Cain"—whose hours are "all tortured into ages!" But do all these mincing dainty miseries recoil against the illustrious source of them, and tarnish his great poetic name? And why then is Pope alone to be held responsible for the faults and follies of his copyists?

66

The writers of the age of Anne, by descending from the highest but less popular flights of poetry, and by refining the licentiousness which had heretofore prevailed, greatly extended and enlarged the field of literature. The number of readers grew more and more considerable. Books were no longer confined either to the studious or to the dissolute. Education and reflection spread by degrees throughout all classes; and though several other

causes concurred to this end, the new style in literature was, perhaps, the foremost. To women, especially, the change was of importance; there had hitherto been few books for their suitable amusement, and scarcely any medium between pedantry and ignorance. Amongst the ladies who lived in the time of Pope, nay even in his society, we find a want of that common information, which is seldom acquired but in youth, and which, beyond doubt, their daughters afterwards possessed. Thus, to give one instance, Mrs. Cæsar, whose husband was member of Parliament for Hertford, and had filled offices under Harley, and who was herself a correspondent of Swift, could not spell English; and was so far from considering this deficiency as a matter of shame, that she treats it as a subject of jest. She admits that her spelling is bad, but boasts that her style is terse; and quotes a saying of Pope, that he sometimes finds too many letters in her words, but never too many words in her letters! * In the next generation, I apprehend, many might have misspelt, but would have blushed at it; in the next again, nearly all would have spelt rightly. At the present time, perhaps, some persons might fear that we are passing over into the opposite extreme, and that, so far from misspelling, a young lady would now be more likely to indite a learned Essay on Orthography.

There is another praise to which the age of Anne seems justly entitled; it awakened public attention to the age of Elizabeth. Our noble English ballads had remained forgotten until Addison quoted and applauded Chevy Chace. Thus also the Fairy Queen was proclaimed, and at length acknowledged as a great land-mark of our poetry."‡ Thus the great old dramatists once more resumed their reign, having in this century first excited praise from eminent men as readers, and next again attracted applauding thousands on the stage.

66

66

* Mrs. Cæsar to Swift, August 6. 1732. † Spectator, Nos. 70. and 74.

This was the expression of Pope. (Spence, p. 171.) He said, on another occasion: "There is something in Spenser that pleases "one as strongly in one's old age as it did in one's youth. I read the Fairy Queen when I was about twelve, with infinite delight, and I

During the reigns of William, of Anne, and of George the First, till 1721, when Walpole became Prime Minister, the Whigs and Tories vied with each other in the encouragement of learned and literary men. Whenever a writer showed signs of genius, either party to which his principles might incline him was eager to hail him as a friend. The most distinguished society, and the most favourable opportunities, were thrown open to him. Places and pensions were showered down in lavish profusion; those who wished only to pursue their studies had the means afforded them for learned leisure, while more ambitious spirits were pushed forward in Parliament or in diplomacy. In short, though the Sovereign was never an Augustus, almost every Minister was a Mæcenas. Newton became Master of the Mint; Locke was a Commissioner of Appeals; Steele was a Commissioner of Stamps; Stepney, Prior, and Gay, were employed in lucrative and important embassies. It was a slight piece of humour at his outset and as his introduction-the "City and Country Mouse"-that brought forth a mountain of honours to Montagu, afterwards Earl of Halifax, and First Lord of the Treasury. When Parnell first came to Court, Lord Treasurer Oxford passed through the crowd of nobles, leaving them all unnoticed, to greet and welcome the poet. "I value myself," says Swift, "upon making the Ministry desire to be acquainted with. "Parnell, and not Parnell with the Ministry."* Swift himself became Dean of St. Patrick's, and but for the Queen's dislike would have been Bishop of Hereford. Pope, as a Roman Catholic, was debarred from all places of honour or emolument, yet Secretary Craggs offered him a pension of 300l. a year not to be known by the public, and to be paid from the Secret Service Money.† In 1714 General Stanhope carried a Bill, providing a most liberal reward for the discovery of the longitude.‡ Addison became Secretary of State. Tickell was Secre

"think it gave me as much when I read it over about a year or two

tary in Ireland. Several rich sinecures were bestowed on Congreve and Rowe, on Hughes and Ambrose Philips.* Looking to those times, and comparing them with ours, we shall find that this system of munificent patronage has never been revived. Its place has, however, in some degree, been supplied by the large increase of readers, and the higher price of books, and consequently the far superior value of literary labour. A popular writer may now receive a liberal income from the sale of his works, and, according to the common phrase, needs no other patron than the public. It is often boasted, that the latter state of things far exceeds the former in independence; yet, however plausible this assertion, it is not altogether confirmed by a closer survey. I cannot find that the objects of such splendid patronage were at all humbled by receiving it, or considered themselves in the slightest degree as political or private bondsmen. I cannot find that Swift or Prior, for example, mixed with the great on any other footing than that of equal familiarity and friendship, or paid any submissive homage to Lord Treasurer Oxford or Secretary St. John. In Bolingbroke's Correspondence we may still read the private notes of MATT to HARRY and of HARRY to MATT; and could not easily distinguish from them which was the Minister and which the poet. The old system of patronage in literature was, I conceive, like the old system of patronage in Parliament. Some powerful nobleman, with large burgage tenures in his hands, was enabled to place in the House of Commons any young man of like principles and of promising abilities. That system, whether for good or for evil, endured till the Reform Bill of 1832. But whatever difference of opinion may exist concerning it, there is one point which will be admitted by all those who have observed its inward workings- although we often hear the contrary roared forth by those who never saw it nearer than from the Strangers' Gallery that a man brought into Parliament from his talents felt no humiliating dependence on him by whose interest he was elected - no such dependence, for ex

* See a similar enumeration, and some excellent observations (by Mr. Macaulay), Edin. Review, No. cvii. p. 21.

ample, as would be imposed among gentlemen by what seems a far less favour, a gift of fifty pounds. The two parties met on equal terms of friendship. It was thought as desirable for the one that his principles should be ably supported, as for the other that he should sit in the House of Commons. Thus, likewise, in literary patronage, when Oxford made Swift a Dean, or Bolingbroke made Prior an Ambassador, it was considered no badge of dependence or painful inferiority. It was, of course, desirable for Swift to rise in the Church, and for Prior to rise in the State; but it was also desirable for the administration to secure the assistance of an eloquent writer, and of a skilful diplomatist.

It may, moreover, be observed that literary profits do not in all respects supply the place of literary patronage. First, there are several studies-such as many branches of science or antiquities — which are highly deserving of encouragement, but not generally popular, and therefore not productive of emolument. In these cases the liberality of the Government might sometimes usefully atone for the indifference of the public. But even with the most popular authors, the necessity of looking to their literary labours for their daily bread, has not unfrequently an unfavourable effect upon the former. It may compel, or at least induce, them to over-write themselves; to pour forth hasty and immature productions; to keep at all hazards their names before the public. How seldom can they admit intervals of leisure, or allow their minds to lie fallow for a season, in order to bear hereafter a larger and a better harvest! In like manner, they must minister to the taste of the public, whatever that taste may be, and sometimes have to sacrifice their own ideas of beauty, and aspirations of fame. These are undoubted evils, not merely to them, but to us; and as undoubtedly are they guarded against whenever a fixed and competent provision can be granted to genius. I am therefore clearly of opinion, that any Minister who might have the noble ambition to become the patron of literary men, would still find a large field open to his munificence; that his intercourse with them on the footing of equal friendship would be a deserved distinction to them, and a liberal recreation to himself; that his