subject in general. There is such a dearth of
invention in the -,Eneid, (and when he did invent,
it was often so foolishly,) so little good sense,
so little variety, and so little power over the passions,
that I have frequently said, from contempt for his
matter, and from the charm of his harmony, that I
believe I should like his poem better, if I was to
hear it repeated, and did not understand Latin.
On the other hand, he has more than harmony:
whatever he utters is said gracefully, and he ennobles
his images, especially in the Georgics; or at least
it is more sensible there from the humility of the
subject. A Roman farmer might not understand
his diction in agriculture; but he made a Roman courtier
Understand farming, the farming of that age, and could
captivate a lord of Augustus’s bedchamber, and
tempt him to listen to themes of rusticity. On
the contrary, Statius and Claudian, though talking
of war, would make a soldier despise them as bullies.
That graceful manner of thinking in Virgil seems
to me to be more than style, if I do not refine too
much; and I admire, I confess, Mr. Addison’s
phrase, that Virgil “tossed about his dung with
an air of majesty.” A style may be excellent
without grace: for instance, Dr. Swift’s.
Eloquence may bestow an immortal style, and one of
more dignity; yet eloquence may want that ease, that
genteel air that flows from or constitutes grace.
Addison himself was master of that grace, even in
his pieces of humour, and which do not owe their merit
to style; and from that combined secret he excels
all men that ever lived, but Shakspeare, in humour,
by never dropping into an approach towards burlesque
and buffoonery’, when even his humour descended
to characters that in any other hands would have been
vulgarly low. Is not it clear that Will Wimble(546)
was a gentleman, though he always lived at a distance
from good company . Fielding had as much humour,
perhaps, as Addison; but, having no idea of grace,
is perpetually disgusting. His innkeepers and
parsons are the grossest of their profession and his
gentlemen are awkward, when they should be at their
ease.
The Grecians had grace in every thing; in poetry, in oratory, in statuary, in architecture, and, probably, in music and painting. The Romans, it is true, were their imitators; but, having grace too, imparted it to their copies, which gave them a merit that almost raises them to the rank of originals. Horace’s Odes acquired their fame, no doubt, from the graces of his manner and purity of his style, the chief praise of Tibullus and Propertius, who certainly cannot boast of more meaning than Horace’s Odes.