lead him no farther. But, as Spenfer knew what belonged to claffick compofition, he was tempted to tie his fubject ftill closer together by one expedient of his own, and by another taken from his claffick models.

His own was to interrupt the proper ftory of each book, by difperfing it into feveral; involving by this means, and as it were intertwifting the feveral actions together, in order to give fomething like the appearance of one action to his twelve adventures. And for this conduct, as abfurd as it feems, he had fome great examples in the Italian poets, though, I believe, they were led into it by different

motives.

The other expedient which he borrowed from the clafficks, was by adopting one fuperiour character, which fhould be feen throughout. Prince Arthur, who had a feparate adventure of his own, was to have his part in each of the other; and thus feveral actions were to be embodied by the interest which one principal Hero had in them all. It is even obfervable, that Spenfer gives this adventure of Prince Arthur in queft of Gloriana, as the proper fubject of his Poem. And upon this idea the late learned editor of the FAERIE QUEENE has attempted, but I think without fuccefs, to defend the Unity and fimplicity of its fable. The truth was, the violence of claffick prejudices forced the poet to affect this appearance of unity, though in contradiction to his Gothick fyftem. And, as far as we can judge of the tenour of the whole work from the finished half of it, the adventure of Prince Arthur, whatever the author pretended, and his critick too eafily believed, was but an after-thought; and at

e

e the late learned editor] Mr. Upton, whofe Remarks precede thefe. TODD.

leaft with regard to the hiftorical fable, which we are now confidering, was only one of the expedients by which he would conceal the disorder of his Gothick plan.

And, if this was his defign, I will venture to fay that both his expedients were injudicious. Their purpose was to ally two things, in nature incompatible, the Gothick, and the claffick, unity; the effect of which mifalliance was to difcover and expose the nakedness of the Gothick.

I am of opinion then, confidering the FAERIE QUEENE as an epick or narrative Poem conftructed on Gothick ideas, that the poet had done well to affect no other unity than that of defign, by which his fubject was connected. But his Poem is not fimply narrative; it is throughout Allegorical: he calls it a perpetual allegory or dark conceit: and this character, for reafons I may have occafion to obferve hereafter, was even predominant in the FAERIE QUEENE. His narration is fubfervient to his moral, and but ferves to colour it. This he tells us himself at fetting out;

"Fierce wars and faithful loves fhall moralize my fong;" that is, fhall ferve for a vehicle, or inftrument, to convey the moral.

Now, under this idea, the unity of the FAERIE QUEENE is more apparent. His twelve knights are to exemplify as many virtues, out of which one illuftrious character is to be compofed. And, in this view, the part of Prince Arthur in each Book becomes effential, and yet not principal; exactly, as the poet has contrived it. They who reft in the literal ftory, that is, who criticife it on the footing of a narrative Poem, have conftantly objected to this management. They fay, it neceffarily breaks the unity of defign. Prince Arthur, they affirm, 1

VOL. II.

He And

fhould either have had no part in the other adventures, or he should have had the chief part. fhould either have done nothing, or more. the objection is unanfwerable; at least I know of nothing that can be faid to remove it but what I have fuppofed above might be the purpose of the poet, and which I myfelf have rejected as infufficient. But how faulty foever this conduct be in the literal ftory, it is perfectly right in the moral: and that for an obvious reason, though his criticks seem not to have been aware of it. His chief hero was not to have the twelve virtues in the degree in which the knights had, each of them, their own; (fuch a character would be a monfter;) but he was to have fo much of each as was requifite to form his fuperiour character. Each virtue, in its perfection, is exemplified in its own knight: they are all, in a due degree, concentered in Prince Arthur.

This was the poet's moral: And what way of expreffing this moral in the history, but by making Prince Arthur appear in each adventure, and in a manner fubordinate to its proper hero? Thus, though inferiour to each in his own fpecifick virtue, he is fuperiour to all by uniting the whole circle of their virtues in himself: And thus he arrives, at length, at the poffeffion of that bright form of Glory, whofe ravishing beauty, as feen in a dream or vifion, had led him out into thefe miraculous adventures in the Land of Faery.

The conclufion is, that, as an allegorical Poem, the method of the FAERIE QUEENE is governed by the juftnefs of the moral: As a narrative Poem, it is conducted on the ideas and ufages of chivalry. In either view, if taken by itself, the plan is defenfible. But from the union of the two defigns there arifes a perplexity and confufion, which is the proper, and only confiderable, defect of this extraordinary Poem.

No doubt Spenfer might have taken one fingle adventure, of the Twelve, for the fubject of his. Poem; or he might have given the principal part in every adventure to Prince Arthur. By this means his fable had been of the claffick kind, and its unity as strict as that of Homer and Virgil.

All this the poet knew very well, but his purpose was not to write a claffick poem. He chofe to adorn a Gothick story; and, to be confiftent through. out, he chofe that the form of his work fhould be. of a piece with his fubject.

Did the poet do right in this? I cannot tell but, comparing his work with that of another great poet, I fee no reafon to be peremptory in condemning his judgement.

The example of this poet deferves to be confidered. It will afford, at least, a fresh confirmation of the point, I principally infift upon; I mean, The preeminence of the Gothick manners and fictions, as adapted to the ends of poetry, above the claffick.

It

I have observed of the famous Torquato Taffo that, coming into the world a little of the latest for the fuccefs of the pure Gothick manner, he thought fit to trim between that and the claffick model. was lucky for his fame, perhaps, that he did fo. For the Gothick fables falling every day more and more into contempt, and the learning of the times, throughout all Europe, taking a claffick turn, the reputation of his work has been chiefly founded on the ftrong resemblance it has to the ancient epick poems. His fable is conducted in the fpirit of the Iliad, and with a ftrict regard to that unity of action which we admire in Homer and Virgil. But this is not all; we find a ftudied and clofe imitation of those poets, in many of the fmaller parts, in the

minuter incidents, and even in the defcriptions and fimilies of his poem.

The claffick reader was pleafed with this deference to the publick tafte: he faw with delight the favourite beauties of Homer and Virgil reflected in the Italian poet and was almoft ready to excufe, for the fake of thefe, his magick tales and faery enchantments. I faid, was almost ready; for the offence given by thefe to the more fashionable fort of criticks was fo great, that nothing, I believe, could make full amends, in their judgement, for fuch extravagancies.

However, by this means the Gierufalemme Liberata made its fortune amongst the French wits, who have conftantly cried it up above the Orlando Furiofo, and principally for this reafon, that Taffo was more claffical in his fable, and more fparing in the wonders of Gothick fiction, than Iris predeceflor.

The Italians have indeed a predilection for their elder bard, whether from their prejudice for antiquity; their admiration of his language; the richnefs of his invention; the comick air of his. style and manner; or from whatever other reason.

Be this as it will, the French criticism has carried it before the Italian, with the reft of Europe. This dextrous people have found means to lead the tafte, as well as fet the fashions, of their neigh bours: And Ariofto ranks but little higher than the rudeft romancer in the opinion of thofe who take their notions of these things from their writers.

But the fame principle, which made them give Taffo the preference to Ariofto, has led them by degrees to think very unfavourably of Taffo himself. The mixture of the Gothick manner in his work has not been forgiven. It has funk the credit of all the reft; and fome inftances of falfe tafte in the