CRITICISM. 
to please the intelligent must conform him- 
self to tlw laws which are established by tjieir 
sanction. It is true, indeed, that the promul- 
gation of the rules of criticism did not pre- 
cede the production of some of the greatest 
monuments of human genius. On the con- 
trary, the circulation of works of transcen- 
dent merit afforded the models, from the 
contemplation of which were derived the 
rules of criticism. It was from the study 
of Homer, of Eschylus, of Sophocles, and 
Enripedes, that Aristotle deduced those 
laws of composition which have been uni- 
versally received, by the enlightened part of 
the world, as the dictates of sound judgment 
and elegant discrimination. But it must 
not on that account be imagined, that the 
autliors of those models did not form and 
shape them by rule. Though they were not 
guided by any lex seripta, it may truly be 
asserted, that “ they were a law unto thenir 
selves f they w'ere guided by an intuitive 
sense 
“ Of decent and sublime, with quick 
disgust 
Of things deform’d, or disarrang’d, or 
gross 
In species ” 
But as this immediate perception of what is 
fitting and what is unbecoming in works of 
art, seems to be communicated only to a 
chosen few, it must be regarded as a law of 
our nature, that mankind in general must be 
content to learn by study, what they do not 
derive from intuition, and on this circum- 
stance are founded the utility and the dig- 
nity of the elements of criticism. 
The truth of this observation will be the 
more apparent, if we examine the writings 
of those, who either enjoyed no opportunity 
of becoming acquainted with those ele- 
ments, or from the heights of their vain ima- 
ginations looked down upon them with con- 
tempt. These have universally been be- 
trayed into tlie most glaring improprieties, 
whieh, tliougli they may in some instances 
have been, by the applause of the inju- 
dicious, rendered popular for a short period, 
have never stood the test of time, but in 
consequence of the operation of good sense 
have been finally condemned by the unani- 
mous suffrage of the public. The conceits 
of Cowley had tlieir admirers for a few 
years, but they are now buried in oblivion, 
or are only quoted as lessons of warning to 
the youthful poet. It is the opinion of true 
judges, wluch rectifies the impressions of the 
multitude when they are led astray by liaste, 
by ignorance, or by the pursuit of fake or- 
nament, that at lengtlr bestows the meed 
of lasting renown. 
Let it not be said, in opposition to this 
recommendation of the study of the rules 
of criticism, tliat certain writings, which 
have grossly violated their precepts, have 
nevertheless descended with high applause 
to future times, and are still read with 
unabating avidity. This may be true : and 
indeed in the deserved popularity of the 
plays of Shakspeare, we have in our ver- 
nacular language a most striking case in 
point. But it has been justly observed, 
that these plays “ have gained the public 
admiration, not by their being irregular, not 
by tlieir transgressions of the rules of art, 
but in spite of such transgressions. They 
possess other beauties, which are conform- 
able to just rule ; and the force of these 
beauties has been so great as to overpower 
all censure, and to give the public a degree 
of satisfaction superior to the disgust arising 
from their blemishes.” If the mixed meta- 
phors, the low puns, and far-fetched allu- 
sions which abound in Shakspeare’s writings 
had not been redeemed by such truly em- 
passioned and high-wrought scenes as the 
closet interview between Hamlet and his 
mother, or the terrific phantom of the “ air- 
drawn dagger,” his works would have been 
left to moulder in the dust of public libra- 
ries, or would have been doomed by their 
rare occurrence to acquire a factitious value, 
by being stored up on the shelves of the 
curioas collector. 
If rightly considered, indeed, the in- 
stance of Shakspeare eminently evinces the 
necessity of an acquaintance with tlie rules 
of criticism, to the attainment of perfec- 
tion in the art of composition. Had tliat 
child of fancy possessed taste in the same 
degree with which he was gifted with ge- 
nius, he would have reduced the plots of his 
dramas to order ; he would have pruned tlta 
luxuriance of his style ; he would have dis- 
carded all meretricious ornaments, and 
would have cleared away those incongrui- 
ties which abound in his writings, like noi- 
some and disgusting weeds amidst a wilder- 
ness of sweets. Thus would he have risen 
from the rank of the darling of a nation, to 
that of the poet of the civilized world. 
AVhilst it must be confessed that flic most 
approved system of rules cannot kindle the 
fixe of genius, or stimulate the activity of 
tlie imagination ; yet it is equally true that 
a knowledge of the laws of criticism is ab- 
solutely necessary to preserve a writer from 
