552 
Amycus, he is more clear and pathetic 
than Apollonius, who has the same sub- 
jects. Others have the ease and familiar 
dialogue which reign in the Odyssey; 
while some critics have discovered in 
the Hercules Lion-Slayer* all the ma- 
jesty of the Iliad. The panegyric on 
Ptolemy, has always been. considered a 
model in that species of writing. 
licacy of address, in the soothing and 
graceful expression of his respect and ate 
tachment, he is not inferior to Callima- 
chus. In the noble bymn in praise of 
Castor and Pollux, it is perhaps no ex-— 
travagance of criticism to say, that, in 
bolduess of thought and splendour of 
diction, he scarcely yields to Pindar or 
Elomer.+ 
But, afterall, it is asa pastoral poet 
that ‘Thieochk itus is known to the gene- 
rality of readers, 
we are now to consider him.{ His pas- 
torals, undoubtedly, form the foundation 
of that high estimation in which he is 
held as a poet. Upon these rest his 
claims to immortality, as the great mas- 
ter, and probably inventor, of his art. 
Few of the wmitutormn servum pecus, 
have yet approached hin in excellence. 
Tt is as true in poetry as in painting, that 
originals generally, if not always, excel 
their copies ; 
emplified in Theocritus, and his’ fullow- 
ers, ‘He isin pastorals what Homer is 
im the epic—the standard by which all 
perfection in that species of poetry must 
be estimated. The critics have con- 
verted his practice into so many settled 
* Idyll. 25. Itis singular that Scaliger, 
Heinsius, and Casaubon, bestow no commen- 
dation his en es piece, the longest, 
. est, of Theocritus. 
feiss, in the second book of his 
Argonaut. has copied the contest between 
Poliux and Amytus, in the former part of 
this hyg “Theocritus: and i in his 
usual authoritative style, gives the preference 
to Apollenius: splendore et arts ak Apollonia 
Theocritus superatur, Poet. lid. v. c.6.. This 
detisiun seems to be adopted by Warton. But 
Casaubon is of a different opinion. 
t The severity of critics has adjudged 
elevenoniy out of thethirty idylliums, to be 
purely and preperly pastora/s. Against this 
decisio: Dy some appeals might be made. The 
Hylas, far instance, has many of the charac- 
teristics of a pa-toral; and the 20th Idyllium, 
which has for its subject Eumnica, or the Neat- 
herd, is surely bucolice/ enough. Heinsius, it - 
is true, has attributed it to Moschus; but 
Fawkes has, in our opinion, justly restored it 
to Lheocritus. 
Lyceum of Ancient Literature.—No. 
In de- | 
and in this light only _ 
a truth unguestionably eX= 
of his own fund, without ar i 
which 
XXX. [July 4, 
and eternal rules, for the guidance of 
every future pastoral nature herself 
seeins to be measured by this aecom- 
plished model. Virgil, who sometimes 
translates, rather than imitates him, is 
avowedly inferior to hin in simplicity 
and sweetness. These are, indeed, in 
two words, the peculiar and character- 
istic beauties of Theocritus. The soft- 
‘ness of the Doric dialect, which he im- 
proved beyond any poet who had pre- 
ceded him, is what the Roman writers 
confessed their language could not ap- 
proach. His thoughts and sentiments 
are as inimitably soft and tender, as the 
verse in which they are conveyed, is 
sweet and melodious. The same uni- 
form simplicity is observable in his cha- 
racters. fiis Shepherds, in their con- 
‘tests, their amorous jealousies and com- 
plaints, never rise above the ideas or lan~ 
guage natural to their station. The 
characters of Virgil are too well read in 
the philosophy of Epicurus and Plato; 
-the modern shepherds of Guarini’ pro- 
fess the sentiments and speak the lan-, 
guage ‘of courtiers. But Theocritus, 
like’ Casso, confines his to cottages and 
plains ; ; his comparisons are drawn from 
the country itself; his thoughts seem 
naturally the result of the rural life he 
describes. {le is as soft as Ovid; he 
touches.the passions as delicately ; “and. 
all this (sayst yden*) is performed out 
to the 
arts and sciences for a su} a” The ro- 
mantic wildness of ane peichinned 
by. the Doric dialect, the lively pic- 
tures of the passions, and the leasing 
delineation of simple unado ‘nature, 
are specimens of genuine pastoral, which 
we meet with only in Theocritus; and 
have re ndered him: unimitated, 
and inimitable, ever since. F 
‘We are nut however Jasserting here, 
that Lheocritus is absolately faultless. 
He is accused of being occasionally 
coarse; the dialogu ‘is sometjines rude 
and abusive; the expressions uncouth 
and obscene. “These charges ¢ appear to 
be chiefly, if not wholly, founded upon the 
5th Tdyilium, which undoubtedly offends 
against the verum atgue DECENS of 
Horace. ' Yet Heinsius selects this and 
the third eclogue of Virgil, as examples 
of genuine’ bucolics; “vere Baxodieg 
 exemplum in guinto Theocrilt, in Virgil 
tertio habemus.t.~ Butit is said that The- 
ocritus intended it.as a specimen of the 
* See Dryd. Pref. to his Translations. 
+ Heinsiys in Theoc. 
. 
very 
