Monsieur Dacier is so far from being of Corneille's Opinion, that he thinks a Man who never did write a Tragedy, may criticise on another's Poem the better for that he never wrote himself. Nay, I do not know, says he in his Preface to Aristotle, whether he who has written Dramatick poems, is so proper to explain the Rules of the Art, as he, who never wrote any: For it would be a Miracle if the former were not seduced by Self-love; whereas the latter is disinterested, and the more likely to be an impartial Judge. Again, if it was necessary to be a good poet to make Criticisms on Poetry, we should never have had any Critick at all; for I do not know one Critick upon Poetry, that was himself a Poet. By this one would think, that he did not look upon Rapin as a Critick in Poetry, for he wrote a Poem on Gardening. Menage makes as little of him as Dacier; yet Dryden says, were all the Writings of other Criticks lost, Rapin's Works alone would be sufficient to teach us the whole Art of Criticism. We all know Aristotle and Horace wrote upon Epick Poetry and Tragedy, yet neither of them ever wrote a Tragedy or Epick Poem; and perhaps neither of them would have succeeded if he had. Rymer made one poor Attempt that Way in his Edgar: But, as if it had been written only to prove that a Man may judge well of an Art, without being a Performer, like an ill-built Ship, it sunk in the very launching, and seem'd to be written only to be damned.
The Guardian seconds the Spectator, and forbids any one to criticise, that cannot write to Perfection. If I find by his own Manner of Writing, that he is heavy and tasteless, I throw aside his Criticisms with a secret Indignation, to see a Man without Genius or Politeness, dictating to the World on Subjects which I find are above his Reach. Thus Mr. Rymer, the best Critick we had till then, and all his Rules, are void and of no Effect; He has cancelled them with a Dash of his Pen. If a Man must not only have Politeness, but a Genius, what will become of Aristotle and Longinus, Bossu and Dacier? They were all polite Writers, but have not discover'd that they had Genius. I ever had as little Opinion of heavy tasteless Criticks as the Spectator or Guardian, yet I never could endure an arbitrary Judgement; for, what else is tasteless and heavy without Proof? But then, that Proof could not be produced without the Criticisms, which, let them be ever so poor, are often more easily despis'd than answer'd.
I was always convinced by Example, that a Critick may have a just Taste, without being a Poet; and that the Indignation the Guardian speaks of, is never provoked, unless a weak Place is hit upon: As, in the low Phrase, A galled Horse winces when you touch the Sore. In three or four Lines, we have tasteless, heavy, dogmatical, stupid Macer and Mundungus all of the poor Criticks. Had they been really such stupid Creatures, they could not have given such Offence. Hard Words shew Anger more than Indignation, and we are apt to conjecture, that the Poets would not be so angry with the Criticks, if they were not afraid of them. The Concern of the former is wonderfully generous; they are not in Pain for what the Criticks say of their Errours and Failings, but for the Heaviness and Stupidity of their Criticisms. Thus in the lowest Life, we shall often hear one angry Woman cry out of another, I do not matter what she said of me, but to see the Impudence of the Slut. Macer and Mundungus are taken from Mr. Congreve's Epistle to Sir Richard Temple;
So Macer and Mundungus school the Times,
And write in rugged Verse the softer Rules of Rhimes.
If the Guardian had the Critick upon Cato in his Thoughts, when he quoted those Verses, which I suppose he had, why does he mention rhiming Criticisms? That Author wrote his Rules and Remarks always in Prose, so did Rymer; what then do they all mean by rugged Verse? The Lord Roscommon's Poetry is Harmony it self. The last Essay upon Criticism in Verse was not then written. There remains only the late Duke of Buckingham's Poetical Essay, of Note enough to be remembered by Mr. Congreve: That could not be named, without offending good Breeding, a Term very often made use of by two elegant Authors; who, I much question, had never the Education of a Dancing-Master. However, Poetry and Criticism are perfect Levellers, and no Man can plead Privilege in the Court of Parnassus; what then is the Meaning of the next Lines after Mundungus?
Well do they play the careful Critick's Part,
Instructing doubly by their matchless Art:
Rules for good Verse they first with Pains indite,
Then shew us what are bad by what they write.
The Guardian and Spectator would not do the Poets the Honour to name them; but we know who are the Criticks which are thrown aside by them; for no Body but Mr. D—— and Mr. G—— made Remarks upon their Writings, and both of them did. I do not say with that Politeness and Elegance, which the Spectator and Guardian have laid down, as the sole Characteristicks of good Talk and Judgement; though one may almost as well say, that a Man cannot have good Sense and Wit, without good Cloaths and a genteel Air. I must needs own, that I think most of their Criticisms very just, though had they been still juster than they are, I would not nave been the Author of them, without taking Notice of Beauties, as well as finding of Faults, there being much more Room for the former than the latter.
It is very plain, the Spectator highly stomached the Remarks which were made on his Writings, and is not very candid in his Reasoning, to render his Opponents contemptible, which was the surest Way of disarming them. These Criticks fall upon a Play, not because it is ill written, but because it takes: This is not the whole Truth. It is not because it takes, but because it takes for those very Things which should have damned it Durfey's Boarding-School, and his Marriage-Hater match'd, took with a Vengeance, though the two greatest Pieces of Wit in them, were Miss's Bread and Butter, and Mynheer's Muff. Settle's Tragedies took for the Noise, the Show, and the Rhime. No Play, that was not supported by poetical or political Party, which most taking Plays have been, ever took more than Settle's Heir of Morocco, in which there is not one good Thought or Expression. Again, several of these Criticks have laid it down as a Maxim, that whatever Dramatick Poem has a long Run, must of Necessity be good for nothing, which is a Misrepresentation. The Orphan, Venice Preserv'd, Tamerlane, &c. had long Runs, and run still; yet no Critick has dared to say they did not deserve it: But whoever will owe his Reputation to taking only, must be contented to roll with Settle, Durfey, and many other Poets, that took in their Turn. Could any thing be more monstrous, than to determine the Merit of Nixon's Prophecy, and the Spectator, by the Run of the Papers. The former, a Maggot given to the Rabble, bore more Editions in Ten Weeks, than the latter has done in Ten Years.
I would not be understood in this, or any thing else, to endeavour to lessen the Opinion the People have generally and justly of the Spectator's Perfections: I verily believe, there is no Production of the Mind, ancient or modern, where are to be found more Wit, Politeness, fine Raillery, good Sense, Learning, and Eloquence; but what I have said, is to shew, that great Wits as well as little have their Passions, their Piques and Prejudices, when the least Blemish is discovered in their Glory. In the same Spectator, we have another Hint, that no Body ought to criticise on that Author's Writings, unless he could write as elegantly as himself, which effectually cuts off all Criticism. These professed Criticks cannot put ten Words together with Elegance, or common Propriety. What an arbitrary Way of arguing is this? These Criticks are Smatterers; They vilify only the Productions that gain Applause; the Blemishes they descry are imaginary; their Arguments are far fetched; Their Works are like those of the Sophists, they are thought deep, because unintelligible; they instruct the People in Absurdities. Would the Spectator allow this positive Air in any other Writer? How does it appear that one Word of all this is true? Ipse dixit. That must satisfy, though he is in this Case too much a Party, to be a Judge. These Criticks are led themselves into Absurdities, by not considering, That there is sometimes a greater Judgement shewn in deviating from the Rules of Art, than adhering to them. The Word sometimes here would make every right Argument wrong, and every Truth Falsehood, because sometimes there may be an Exception to a general Rule. Why, does he not tell us, wherein himself, or any one else shewed his Judgement in deviating from the Rules of Art? The Critical Smatterers do not charge him in those Places where Judgement was shewn in such deviating, but where the Want of Judgement appeared in it. I shall have occasion to touch this Subject a little elsewhere; though I hope what I have said here, is enough to prove that just Criticisms are not the Productions of Ignorance and Envy, as the Spectator intimates; but that they are, on the contrary, useful and necessary to be a Check on the greatest Genius's, who want the Rein much more than the Spur; and what, in a few Years, would become of all good Writing, if those great Genius's could impose their very Blemishes on the World for the most shining Beauties?
The Spectator gives us another Mark, by which we may discover a Critick, who has neither Taste nor Learning, and that is, He seldom ventures to praise any Passage in an Author, which has not been before received and applauded by the Publick. If this Remark had been infallible and universal, it must have deprived the Spectator himself of the two greatest Beauties in all his Quotations out of Milton which are in every one's Mouth. The One in the sublime Kind in the Speech to the Sun.