1801.] 
One learns every body’s opinion of what 
is going on, but that of the concerned. 
‘The fentiments of the perfonages, al- 
though often fuperfluous and unmotived, 
are however ftrictly appropriate: they 
have moral and local aptnefs; they wear 
the livery of the pérfon and the country. 
No flower of Hebrew origin efcapes the 
preferving care of Klopftock; but he 
never offends by a mifplaced paganifm’ 
of imagery and illuftration. Whatever 
he tranfplants lofes wholly its racinefs. 
Yet this very precaution excludes fome 
fources ofvariety, which were all wanted in 
a poem, where the matter istoo uniformly 
lofty, and wearies, by always keeping 
on the ftretch, the reader’s imagination. 
With a background more modeft the 
tadiant paflages would have acquired a 
bolder relievo, In the art of wording, 
Klopftock is no mean froficient. His 
epithets are chofen judicioufly: they are 
often new, always impreflive, not idle or 
over frequent, and ulually adapted, not 
merely to the fubitantive in general, but 
to the peculiar point of view in which it 
then attracts notice; fo that they are 
what the Germans call sitting epithets, in 
contradiftinction to fuch as mifs their 
aim—to ufe an analogous idiom, they 
all ¢el, Nor is his command and fe- 
lection of phrafe inferior to that of fingle 
words; but he often mifapplies his opu- 
lence, and prodigally fquanders an exqui- 
fite paflage on the adornment of an in- 
fignificant epifode. 
the leading character of Klopftock’s ftyle; 
but it is not a redundance of terms, fo 
-much as of acceffary and fubordinate 
ideas ; a fibrous branchinefs of thought, 
ratherthan parallel pullulations of phrafe; 
amplification, not tautology. He ap- 
pears to confider a liberal prolixity as the 
moft radiant. proof of genius, and to 
difdain any of the felfdenying calculated 
retrenchments of tafte. What Jeremy 
‘Taylor was in homiletic eloquence, Klop- 
ftock is in epic poetry. Both have ex- 
pended into a great book the life of 
Chrift. Both delight alike in the ex- 
tacies of piety and the marvels of myfti- 
cifm; they are continually afcending 
from the ground of fa& into the pleroma 
of hypothefis, extolling the fimpleft fen- 
timents to rhapfodies of infpiration, and 
confecrating the verieft accidents into 
primordial difpenfations and myfteries of 
Providence. Both indulge a fickle, abrupt, 
interftitial ftyle, which betrays every re- 
pofe of the pen. Layers of affecting 
plainnefs, and affected fonorofity, of 
icholaftic jargon, and oriental fenfuali- 
zation, fucceed each other without 
blending. Yet to both belong tongues 
of angels. ‘Their words are {weet as 
Montruty Mag. No. 60, 
The prefent State of Mufic farther confidered. 
Superfluity is indeed | 
505 
manna, pleafant as nard, luxuriant as 
the bowers of Eden. But they pluck 
where they fhould cull. From their 
bafketfuls of iris all hues, rofes, and jefla- 
min, might have been woven a garland 
for hovering feraphs to wave in triumph 
over their hero: they prefer to fcatter 
the indifcriminate plenty beneath his 
foot-fall. Bifhop Taylor is indeed one of 
the Englifh writers who has moft con- 
tributed to tinge the mind of Klopftock; 
Milton, Young, and, if I miftake not, 
Mrs. Rowe’s Letters from the Dead to 
the Living, are alfo of the number: but 
it is not always as interefting as it may 
be meritorious, to track this holy writer 
in his own fnow. Religious zealotry, 
and German nationality, have occa~ 
fionally beftowed * on the author of the 
Mefliah exceflive applanfe; yet, when 
every allowance is made for what is tem- 
porary and local in opinion, enough of 
merit no doubt remains to place his work 
among the lafting monuments of mighty 
minds. Probably pofterity will ftation 
him nearer to Macpherfon in rank and 
quality, than to any other of the more 
diftinguifhed epic poets: both err by a 
too frequent recurrence of analogous ima- 
gery,.and by an unvarying long drawn 
plaintiveneis of tone: both delight by a 
perpetual majelty of ftyle, and by the 
heroic elevation and purity of the man- 
ners of their perfonages. 1s it not glory 
in the higheft to be the Offian of Zion? | 

Lo the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
N a former letter + I remarked, that 
the author of a Comparifon between 
Ancient and Modern Mufict has anti- 
cipated many of the thoughts with which 
I meant to have troubled you. ‘The 
reafons which he affigns for the prefers 
ence given by elderly perfons and dilet- 
tanti performers to the dncient ftyle, are 
excellent ; and his definition of the two 
ftyles, as far as it goes, is very clear and 
accurate, ‘The tendency of the paper 
(which is to do away the prejudices in 

* Hoher fteht er als Homer, haber als 
Milton; ein wunder unfers jabrhunderts - 
eins der erften meifterftitcke des menfchlichen 
Leifies tft fein Meffias. * He ftands higher 
than Milton, hizher than Homer; a 
miracle of our century: his Meifiah is 
one of the firft mafterpieces of human 
intelleét,’’ 
+ See Monthly Magazine for Sept. 
1800. In which the reader is requetted 
to correct the fpelling of the names 
Perluigi, Cariffi, Telemann, Bononcini, 
and Lotti. 
¢ No, 12, Supplementary Number. 
tet favour 
