¥N 
arrogant 
been or 
1796] 
lon; he has only deduced it from the 
Golcan, and mentioned a very few of 
their authors 
/be loeked upon as new. 
wt can promife the’ reader fome infor- 
mation on thefe fubjects: of this he may 
be a'fured, that I teal not affume the 
appearance of information when I poftels 
“it not; in treating or thofe authors who 
are familiar to me, py own opinion may 
properly be exprefled; with refpeét to 
Gibic dr whom! & now little, 1 fhall con- 
fequently fay little from mytelf: the man 
who can oe ‘credit for ac equiuitions 
which he does not poflefs, muit be dread- 
fully ditempered. with vanity. 
The Sipaniards call their nine moft ee 
vourite authors the nine Spanih mufes : 
they: are Garcildfo de la Veva, Don 
Efteban de Villegas, uevedo, Count 
_ Bernardino de Mebelledo Lupercio Leo- 
nardo de Argenfola, and his brother Bar- 
tolome, Father Lats de Le: m,. Lope de 
Wega, and Don Franciteo a Borja y 
Aragon, Prince cf Hiquilache : many of 
equal merit are excluded from the itt, 
and, perhaps, fome of fuperior , with 
thete, however, I fhall begin my talk. 
5S 
The poet is indeed a citizen of the 
; this field may therefore 
world ; In every country, and in- every 
ave, he meets with forie-co 1eenial {pi- 
rit; to fim time ts annihtl laced, and he 
conyerfes with Homer and with Ovhan: 
it is to fuch readers cluefiy that i addrets 
myfelf ; and if, when they are intro- 
daced to Borean, Garcilato de la Vega, 
Quevedo, and the two Ledn2 eos, they 
do not add them to the number of their 
friends, 1 thall at leatt have enlarged 
the circle of their acquaintance, : 
Gy 3 1.798. Vous. cc. a ay, 
Tie BONO UE Re RO No. VI. 
QUESTION: I: Herfe cfential  Boetry ? 
LET ME, FOR ONCE, PRESUME T’ IN- 
SUC E THE TIMES, 
TO KNOW THE FOET FROM THE MAN 
OF RHIMES. Zo ¢s Vope. 
this age of bold exammation, in 
which high prem of every kind 
are, without {eruple, brought to the 
touchftone of reafon, it muy: not be 
thought prefumptuaus to enquire, whe- 
ther vent {pirit of moncpoly, which has 
proved fo injurtous in ecclefiattical and 
civil fociety, thas not alfo found its way 
anto the republic of letters. Phere is, 
perhaps, fome reafon to affert, that an 
affimition of this kind has 
made in favour of poets. ‘That 
Lhe Enquirer. 
Nol NI. 7% 453 
ambitious race, not fatisfed with holding’ 
the almoft undif puted poileiiion of the: 
first divificn in the yanks of- literary 
merit, have, by the help of that magica 
wan which they know fo weil how to 
ule, conjured up a wall of feparation be- 
tween themfelves and other writers. 
Faacying the inhabitants of this con- 
fecrated inciofuyre a privileged order, they 
have been accuftomed te look doin, with, 
a kind of ‘fenatorial naughtineis, cea 
the profe -men, who innit the co 
of letters, as a vulg var, pl-beian ea 
Without fear of offending the ¢ d Ler- 
minus, I fhall in this paper taxe leave ta 
examine, whether this wall of feparation 
ought to remain—whet her the exciutive 
appropriation of the:term foeny, to v ce 
has folid foundation. 
“ affords a tolerable prelumption in 
* fav OUNe se the opinion that verie is not 
e tle: eal to poetry, t aye amony the nu- 
merous definitions given of this art by 
critics, not one is to be found, which 
difinétly marks the boundaries between 
poetry and pre ote, or fugzetts any neaton 
for confining the produstions of the 
mufes within the enclofure of meafured 
times. 
Ariftotle makes the effence of pocery 
to confit in imitation : at the pee 
f-his Poetics, he defcribes muhe, dauc- 
ing, and poetry, aS imitative arts. Arver 
the Stae yrite, ee Peg ulres his pect to 
make his languave a copy ef life: 
refftic re excmpar Vit@. 
I j 

Among modern critics, Voilius defines 
poetry to be the art of representing ac- 
tions im-metre : dBatteaux, in his Belles 
Lettres, calls poetry the imitaron of a 
gant nature . and Trapp, in his-Lecture 
on Poetry, gives, upon the iame ee 
ciple, this lapoured: definition: ‘* Poetry 
is the art of imitating or illuftrating, in - 
metrical numbers, every beiny in nature, 
and every object cf the imagination, for 
the delight and improvement of man-— 
kind.’ Without dwelling upon the cb- 
vious objection of this definition, that the 
term mu/tation is improperly ufed to ex- 
prefs the defcripticn of objects by ar- 
bitrary figns, , which exhibit-no copy of | 
nature; if the definition be admicted, it 
mutt evidently comprehend all verbai de. 
lineations of nature, whether in verfe or 
profe. “A profe-comedy is at leaft as 
pertect an imitation of nature as a tra 
gedy in verte; and a well written novel 
is a8 acctirate a copy of nature as an epic 
poem. 
“Other ctitics haye chofen to derive | 
their 
