272 
production of Mr. George Canning, a 
gentleman, full as refpeétably known in 
the capacity of a fchoolboy as in that of a 
fenator. Having obferved that it was 
cuftomary among periodical writers, to dif- 
play their abilities by criticifms on poets 
either of acknowledged or obf{cure merit, 
he declares his intention of expatiating on 
« an object as yet untreated of, by any of 
«his predecefiors.’’ It is needlefs to fay, 
that he has executed his tafk in a manner 
amufing to his readers, and, confequently, 
creditable to himfelf. But you may not 
have heard that there has long exifted in 
the French laneuage, a compolition pre- 
cifely the fame in defign, and in execution 
very nearly correfponding with Mr. Can- 
ning’s, as far asthe latter goes. The title 
ss, Le chef Pauvre dun inconnu, poeiie, 
&c. Its objeét to expofe the jargon of 
criticifm. It feems to have been written 
early in the prefent century. ‘The fiéti- 
tious approbaiions of the cenfors of the 
pret are dated in 1714 “The fourth 
edition was publifhed in 1758, in 2 vols. 
nzmo. ‘The poem has anafiected fillineis 
(niaiferie) of thought and ftyle. Here it 
is. The fearcity of the work will, I be- 
heve, juftify you in reprinting it. 
E’autse jour Colin malade 
Dedans fon lit, 
Pune crofie maladie 
Penfant mouri, 
De trop fonger a fes amours, 
Ne peut dormir. ; 
Yl veut tenir celle qu’il aime 
‘Foute la nuit. 
Le Galant y fat habile, 
” Ife leva; 
A la porte de fa belic 
Trois foils frappa : 
Eatin, Catos, Belle Ber- 
gére, Gormez-vous ? 
La promeffe qué m’avez faite, 
Ta tiendrez vous ? 
La Allette fut fragile ; 
Elle fe leva, 
Toute nue en fa chemife 
La porte ouvra. | 
Marchez tout-doux, parlez tout-bas, 
Won doux ami, 
Car fi men’ papa vous entend 
Morte je fuis. 
Le Galant, qui fut henneéte, 
Droit fe coucha, 
Entre Jes bras de fa belie 
Se repofa. 
Ah! je n’ai pas perdu mes peines, 
Aufli mes pas, 
Puifque je tiens celle que jaime 
Entre mes bras. 
Jentends I’ Alouette qui chante 
Au point de jour, 
Suppofed Imitation in the Microcofm. 
[May 
- Amant, fi vous étes honnéte 
~ Retirez-vous. 
Marchez tout-doux, parlez tout-basy, 
Mon doux ami, tae 
Car fi mon Papa vous entend 
Morte je fuis. 
For two pieces thus fimilar in concep- 
tion, Epic honours are claimed, - on 
the grounds of their having a deginning, 
middle, and end; and both commentators 
confidently appeal on this head to the 
eftablifhed canons. of criticifm. The 
freedom. from the incumbrance of: epi- 
fodes is noticed by both. In {peaking of 
the beginning, ‘‘ can any thing,” ex- 
claims Mr. C. ‘be more clear; more 
natural; more agreeable to the true 
{pirit of fimplicity ? Here are no tropes ; 
no figurative expreffions—not even fo 
much as an invocation to the mufe. He 
does not detain his,readers by any need- 
lefs circumlocution ; by unneceffarily in- 
forming them what he zs going to fing ; 
or ftill more unneceffarily enumerating 
what he 7s zot going to fing.” In the | 
fame vein the French writer : ‘* What 
beginning can be more fimple -than that 
of our author ? It is more fimple than 
Homer’s, It is more modeft than Vir- 
gil’s, who, with all his fimplicity, fets him- 
{elf foremoft. I fing. Cano. What nee to 
tell that one fings? Isit not felf-evident ?” 
Both critics remark, how their poets 
come to the point at once; and beth onthis 
occafion quote from Horace zu medias res— 
avditorem rapit. Li Mx. C. prefies the mo- 
rality.cf his poem, his predeceffor, with 
greater boldnefs, lays claim alfo to this 
praife. ‘¢ The fable, he afferts, is rea- 
{enable and probable, it imitates a com- 
plete and important action, and befides 
involves a peint of morality, which may 
ferve the purpefe cf inftruction”. Mr, 
C. comments on the ftudied felicity ef 
the phrafe, Allon a fummer’s day; and fo 
does Mr. — on L'autre jour. The 
latter has, moreover, a profufion of an- 
notations, in ridicule of heavy commen- 
tators on the claflics, like thole of Mar- 
tinus Scriblerus. But the.general re- 
marks, as well as the ftyle of the poems 
them/elves, have that degree.of difference 
and of refemblance, which perfeétly {uits 
the hypothefis of Imitation. ‘ 
_ An independent ‘coincidence which 
would naturally follow from a fingle 

leading idea, is certainly poffible. Mr. 
Canning, when he affifted in writing 
the Mcrocofm,, may neither have read 
French, nor have had any acquaint- 
ance capable of furnithing a fuggeftion . 
from the chef-d’auvre, In this cafe, , 
he 
