[ 64 ] 



would be more rational to fuppofe that all our Englifli odes 

 were to be fet to mufic, and to divide them into recitative^ air 

 and chorus. 



Mr. Mafon feems to rely on another principle as certain and 

 incontrovertible, in which, notwithftanding, I cannot readily 

 bring myfelf to acquiefce : that by encreafing the difficulty of 

 writing poetry, we promote its excellence ; and, in particular, 

 that by rendering a fubordinate and merely mechanical part of 

 poetry (for inftance, the meafure) more operofe and inconve- 

 nient to the compofer, we fhall fucceed in checking the growth 

 of bad poetry ; I fay this, fuppofing for the prefent, but by no 

 means admitting, the irregular ode to be, as Mr. Mafon fup- 

 pofes, a fpecles of compofition of the utmoft facility. On this 

 principle of exalting the beauties of poetry, by encreafing its 

 difficulties, which, by the by, feems to be juft fuch an experi- 

 ment as if we ffiould attempt to add grace and agility to a 

 dancer by encumbering his legs with fetters, or fpeed a courfer 

 by loading him witli a heavy burthen ; on this principle where 

 fliall we flop ? What bounds of difficulty and confequent per- 

 fcdion fhall we appoint ? If, in order to deter rafh meddlers, 

 the compofition of an ode is to be rendered more difficult, by 

 wantonly dividing it mtojirophe, antijirophe and epode, why reft 

 there r Let the fanduary of good writing be flill more effedually 

 fecured from prophanc intruders, by ordaining that lyric poems 

 fliould be always written in the Hiape of a flute^ a pair ofwings^ 

 an egg, an ax^ or an altar '? Some Greek writers have attempted 

 all thefe fantartic forms of compofition ; but is the merit of the 

 poems of this kind, wliich have reached us, in any degree pro- 

 portioned 



