“I sing the sacred armies and the knight
  That Christ’s great tombe enfranchis’d and set free. 
  Much wrought he by his witte, much by his might,
  Much in that glorious conquest suffred hee: 
  Hell hindered him in vaine:  in vaine to fight
  Asia’s and Affrick’s people armed bee;
    Heav’n favour’d him:  his lords and knights misgone
    Under his ensigne he reduc’d in one.”

I own that, to my ear and judgment, this is no improvement upon what we may consider the author’s second attempt, although I think that the slip pasted over some (if not most) copies is better than the first experiment.

THE HERMIT OF HOLYPORT.

* * * * *

SMALL WORDS.

I stand convicted by the critical acumen of your correspondent [Greek:  Ph]. of having misquoted the line from Pope which heads my “note” at p. 305.  I entirely agree with [Greek:  Ph]. that the utmost exactness is desirable in such matters; and as, under such circumstances, I fear I should be ready enough to accuse others of “just enough of learning to misquote,” I have not a word to say in extenuation of my own carelessness.

But I entirely dispute [Greek:  Ph].’s inference, and am unable to see that the difference detracts in any substantial degree from the applicability of my remarks, such as they were. {378}

What does Pope’s epithet “low” mean?  Is it used for “vulgar” (as I presume [Greek:  ph]. intends us to infer), or simply for “small, petty, of little size or value”?

To me it appears impossible to read the line without seeing that Pope had in his mind the latter idea, that of poor, little, shabby, statureless monosyllables, as opposed to big, bouncing, brave, sonorous polysyllables, such as Aristophanes called [Greek:  hraemata hippokraemna].  After all, however, it would do me very little damage to concede that he intended the meaning which [Greek:  ph]. appears to attribute to the epithet “low”, for if he did mean “vulgar” words, it is evident that he considered vulgarity in such matters inseparable from littleness, as the “low” words must, if his line is not to lose its point altogether, have been ten in number, that is, every one a monosyllable, a “small” word.

Take it which way you will, the leading idea is that of “littleness;” moreover, there is no propriety in the word “creep” as applied to merely vulgar words, while words petty in size may, with great justice, be said to “creep” in a “petty pace,” requiring no less than ten steps to walk the length of a line.

Pope was criticising compositions intended to pass as poetry of the best kind.  Will [Greek:  ph]. point out in any existing poem of such profession and character, a single heroic line, consisting of ten words, all which ten words shall be “low” in the sense of “vulgar”?  Can even the Muses of burlesque and slang furnish such an instance?