{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_13464/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_13464","id":"gutenberg_13464","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/13464","summary":null,"tags":["Aesthetics","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics"],"text":"The Augustan Reprint Society\n\n       ESSAYS ON TASTE\n\n            from\n\n\n     John Gilbert Cooper\n\n  _Letters Concerning Taste_\n\n     Third Edition (1757)\n\n\n             &\n\n\n       John Armstrong\n\n       _Miscellanies_\n\n           (1770)\n\n\n   With an Introduction by\n\n         Ralph Cohen\n\n\n\nPublication Number 30\n\nLos Angeles\n\nWilliam Andrews Clark Memorial Library\n\nUniversity of California\n\n\n\n\n  _GENERAL EDITORS_\n  H. RICHARD ARCHER,    _Clark Memorial Library_\n  RICHARD C. BOYS.,     _University of Michigan_\n  EDWARD NILES HOOKER,  _University of California, Los Angeles_\n  JOHN LOFTIS,          _University of California, Los Angeles_\n\n  _ASSISTANT EDITOR_\n  W. EARL BRITTON,      _University of Michigan_\n\n  _ADVISORY EDITORS_\n  EMMETT L. AVERY,      _State College of Washington_\n  BENJAMIN BOYCE,       _Duke University_\n  LOUIS I. BREDVOLD,    _University of Michigan_\n  CLEANTH BROOKS,       _Yale University_\n  JAMES L. CLIFFORD,    _Columbia University_\n  ARTHUR FRIEDMAN,      _University of Chicago_\n  LOUIS A. LANDA,       _Princeton University_\n  SAMUEL H. MONK,       _University of Minnesota_\n  ERNEST MOSSNER,       _University of Texas_\n  JAMES SUTHERLAND,     _Queen Mary College, London_\n  H.T. SWEDENBERG, JR., _University of California, Los Angeles_\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nThe essays on taste taken from the work of John Gilbert Cooper and\nJohn Armstrong and reprinted in this issue are of interest and value\nto the student of the eighteenth century because they typify the\nshifting attitudes toward taste held by most mid-century poets and\ncritics. Cooper, who accepts the Shaftesbury-Hutchesonian thesis of\nthe internal sense, emphasizes the personal, ecstatic effect of taste.\nArmstrong, while accepting the rationalist notions of clarity\nand simplicity, attacks methodized rules and urges reliance on\nindividuality.\n\nFollowing Shaftesbury and Hutcheson closely, Cooper treats taste as an\nimmediate, prerational response of an internal sense to the proportion\nand harmony in nature, a response from an internal harmony of the\nsenses, imagination, and understanding to a similar harmony in\nexternal nature. Cooper defines the effect of good taste as a \"Glow\nof Pleasure which thrills thro' our whole Frame.\" This \"Glow\" is\ncharacterized by high emotional sensibility, and it thus minimizes the\npassivity which Hutcheson attributes to the internal sense.\n\nArmstrong's sources are more eclectic than Cooper's. Armstrong shows\nsimilarities to Pope in his rationalism, to Dennis in his treatment\nof poetry as an expression of the passions, and to Hutcheson in his\nemphasis on benevolence and the psychological basis of perception.\nBut to these views, he frequently adds personal eccentricities. For\nexample, _Taste: An Epistle to a Young Critic_ reveals its Popean\ndescent in its tone and form; however, its gastronomic ending displays\nArmstrong's interest, as a physician, in the relation of diet to\nliterary taste. If Armstrong's boast that \"I'm a shrewd observer,\nand will guess What books you doat on from your fav'rite mess,\" is\na personal eccentricity, his attack on false criticism and his\nexhortation to judge for oneself are typical harbingers of late\neighteenth-century individualism and confidence in the \"natural\" man.\n\n    An honest farmer, or shepherd [writes Armstrong in \"Of\n    Taste\"], who is acquainted with no language but what is\n    spoken in his own county, may have a much truer relish of the\n    _English_ writers than the most dogmatical pedant that ever\n    erected himself into a commentator, and from his _Gothic_\n    chair, with an ill-bred arrogance, dictated false criticism to\n    the gaping multitude.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: John Armstrong, _Miscellanies_ (London, 1770), II, 137.]\n\nCooper and Armstrong both hold a historically intermediate position\nin their attitudes toward taste, accepting early eighteenth-century\nassumptions and balancing them with late eighteenth-century emphases.\nNeither of them abandons the moral assumption of art which, as\nArmstrong explains it, is a belief in \"a standard of right and wrong\nin the nature of things, of beauty and deformity, both in the natural\nand moral world.\"[2] Cooper, who defines taste as a thrilling response\nto art, falls back upon Hutcheson in minimizing the importance of\nart and making it secondary to moral knowledge. Armstrong, while\ndescribing taste as the sensitive discrimination of degrees of beauty\nand deformity, bases this discrimination not on artistic, but on moral\nqualities.\n\n[Footnote 2: _Ibid._, II, 134.]\n\nThe complete transition from classic to romantic premises of taste is\ncharacterized by the separation of art from morals. This step neither\nCooper nor Armstrong takes. But they do exhibit tendencies which\nexplain how the shift was made possible. Both writers insist on a felt\nresponse to a work of art. Cooper emphasizes that this response must\nbe to the whole work. This assumption implies that a work of art is\nan entity complete in itself; it makes possible the argument that\nart conveys artistic, not moral knowledge. Cooper, by stressing\nsensibility as an effect of taste, suggests the Wordsworthian notion\nthat the poet is more sensitive than other people.\n\nArmstrong, in addition to his hostility to formal criticism and his\nconfidence in the natural man, reveals three other tendencies which\nlater eighteenth-century critics elaborated. Like Edward Young in his\n_Conjectures on Original Composition_, 1759, Armstrong opposes slavish\nimitation of ancient models and declares that the writer should \"catch\ntheir graces without affecting it [them]\" so that his \"own original\ncharacteristical manner will still distinguish itself.\"[3] Armstrong\nemphasizes exquisiteness of perception as the basis for taste: the\nmore exquisite the mind, the more is it able to discriminate among\nthe various degrees of the beautiful and the deformed. Although later\ncritics repudiate Armstrong's moral discrimination, they transform\nit into a refined discrimination of aesthetic qualities. Finally, by\nsuggesting that the man of genius differs from the man of taste by\nhis ability to handle a medium, Armstrong implies the possibility of\na technical criticism in terms of the writer's craft, apart from moral\njudgment.\n\n[Footnote 3: _Ibid._, II, 168.]\n\nAlthough the works of Cooper and Armstrong elicited contrasting\npopular reactions--_Letters concerning Taste_ running into four\neditions from 1755 to 1771 and Armstrong's writings, with the\nexception of _The Art of Preserving Health_, never winning much public\nfavor--neither writer exerted a strong critical influence. Cooper did\nnot reassess or change significantly the assumptions of Shaftesbury\nand Hutcheson. His work was primarily a popularization of their ideas,\nand, in its enthusiastic language, its emphasis on sensibility,\nand its epistolary form, it seems directed at flattering a female\naudience. Armstrong's remarks on taste, written in imitation of\nthe simplicity and clarity of the rational tradition, are personal\nassertions and opinions rather than well-defined or clearly\nthought-out critical positions. They are random thoughts rather than a\ncoherent critical theory.\n\nThe significance of Cooper and Armstrong rests, therefore, on certain\nrepresentative attitudes toward taste which exhibit the change\n\"from classic to romantic.\" On the one hand, they accept the moral\npostulates of art, and, on the other, they emphasize the emotional\nbasis of taste. Cooper treats art as a secondary form of knowledge,\nyet emphasizes the thrill that art gives. Armstrong accepts\nthe standards of clarity and simplicity, while emphasizing the\nindividuality of response and the need for discriminating particular,\nrather than general, qualities. Though Cooper and Armstrong fail to\nrevaluate the traditions they accept, they exemplify trends which\nled others to perform this revaluation and to transform the moral\nassumptions into aesthetic criteria.\n\n\nBibliographical Note\n\nThe two reprints from the twenty letters of John Gilbert Cooper's\n_Letters concerning Taste. To which are added Essays on similar and\nother Subjects_ are from the third edition, dated 1757; the first\nedition was published in 1755 as _Letters concerning Taste_.\nThe selections by John Armstrong are taken from the two-volume\n_Miscellanies_ published in 1770. \"The Taste of the Present Age\"\nreceived its first publication in this edition, but the other prose\nhad previously been published in 1758 under the pseudonym of Launcelot\nTemple in the first volume of _Sketches: or Essays on Various\nSubjects_. The poem _Taste: An Epistle to a Young Critic_ was first\npublished in 1753.\n\n  Ralph Cohen\n\n\n\n\nLETTERS CONCERNING TASTE.\n\n\n\n\nLETTER I.\n\nTo EUPHEMIUS.\n\n\nWhence comes it, EUPHEMIUS, that you, who are _feelingly_ alive to\neach fine Sensation that Beauty or Harmony gives the Soul, should so\noften assert, contrary to what you daily experience, _that_ TASTE _is\ngoverned by Caprice, and that_ BEAUTY _is reducible to no Criterion?_\nI am afraid your Generosity in this Instance is greater than your\nSincerity, and that you are willing to compliment the circle of your\nFriends, in giving up by this Concession that envied Superiority you\nmight claim over them, should it be acknowledged that those uncommon\nEmotions of Pleasure, which arise in your Breast upon the Observation\nof moral or natural Elegance, were caused by a more ready and intimate\nPerception of that universal TRUTH, which the all-perfect CREATOR\nof this harmonious System ordained to be the VENUS of every Object,\nwhether in the Material World; in the imitative Arts; or in living\nCharacters and Manners. How irreconcileable are your Doctrines to the\nExample you afford us! However, since you press me to justify your\nPractice against your Declarations, by giving a Definition of what is\nmeant by TASTE, I shall not avoid the invidious Office of pointing out\nyour superior Excellence to others, by proving that TRUTH and BEAUTY\nare coincident, and that the warmest Admirers of these CELESTIAL\nTWINS, have consequently Souls more nearly allied to \u00e6therial Spirits\nof a higher Order. The effect of a _good_ TASTE is that instantaneous\nGlow of Pleasure which thrills thro' our whole Frame, and seizes upon\nthe Applause of the Heart, before the intellectual Power, Reason, can\ndescend from the Throne of the Mind to ratify it's Approbation, either\nwhen we receive into the Soul beautiful Images thro' the Organs\nof bodily Senses; or the Decorum of an amiable Character thro' the\nFaculties of moral Perception; or when we recall, by the imitative\nArts, both of them thro' the intermediate Power of the Imagination.\nNor is this delightful and immediate Sensation to be excited in an\nundistempered Soul, but by a Chain of Truths, dependent upon one\nanother till they terminate in the hand of the Divine COMPOSER of the\nwhole. Let us cast our Eyes first upon the Objects of the Material\nWorld. A rural Prospect upon the very first Glance yields a grateful\nEmotion in the Breast, when in a Variety of Scenes there arises from\nthe whole ONE Order, whose different Parts will be found, by the\ncritical Eye of Contemplation, to relate mutually to one another,\nand each examined apart, to be productive of the Necessaries, the\nConveniencies, and Emoluments of Life. Suppose you was to behold from\nan Eminence, thro' a small range of Mountains covered with Woods,\nseveral little Streams gushing out of Rocks, some gently trickling\nover Pebbles, others tumbling from a Precipice, and a few gliding\nsmoothly in Willow-shaded Rivulets thro green Meadows, till their\ntributary Waters are all collected by some River God of a larger Urn,\nwho at some few Miles distance is lost in the Ocean, which heaves\nit's broad Bosom to the Sight, and ends the Prospect with an immense\nExpanse of Waters. Tell me, EUPHEMIUS, would not such a Scene\ncaptivate the Heart even before the intellectual Powers discover\nMinerals in the Mountains; future Navies in the Woods; Civil and\nMilitary Architecture in the Rocks; healing Qualities in the smaller\nStreams; Fertility, that the larger Waters distribute along their\nserpentising Banks; Herbage for Cattle in the Meadows; and lastly,\nthe more easy Opportunities the River affords us to convey to other\nClimates the Superfluities of our own, for which the Ocean brings us\nback in Exchange what we stand in need of from theirs. Now to heighten\nthis beautiful Landscape, let us throw in Corn Fields, here and there\na Country Seat, and, at proper Distances, small Hamlets, together with\nSpires and Towers, as MILTON describes them,\n\n    \"bosom'd high in tufted Trees.\"\n\nDoes not an additional Rapture flow in from this Adjunct, of which\nReason will afterwards discover the latent Cause in the same manner\nas before. Your favourite Architecture will not fail to afford less\nremarkable Instances, that Truth, Beauty, and Utility are inseparable.\nYou very well know that every Rule, Canon, and Proportion in building\ndid not arise from the capricious Invention of Man, but from the\nunerring Dictates of Nature, and that even what are now the ornamental\nParts of an Edifice, originally were created by Necessity; and are\nstill displeasing to the Sight, when they are disobedient, if I may\nuse that moral Expression, to the Order, which Nature, whose Laws\ncannot be repealed, first gave to supply that Necessity. Here I appeal\nto your own Breast, and let me continue the Appeal by asking you\nconcerning another Science analogous to this, which is founded upon as\ninvariable Principles: I mean the Science of living well, in which\nyou are as happily learned as in the former. Say then, has not every\namiable Character, with which you have been enamoured, been proved by\na cool Examination to contain a _beautiful_ Proportion, in the Point\nit was placed in, relative to Society? And what is it that constitutes\nMoral Deformity, or what we call Vice, but the Disproportion which any\nAgent occasions, in the Fabric of Civil Community, by a Non-compliance\nto the general _Order_ which should prevail in it?\n\nAs the Arts of Painting, Sculpture, and Poetry are imitative of these,\ntheir Excellence, as ARISTOTLE observes, consists in Faithfulness to\ntheir Original: nor have they any _primary_ Beauty in themselves, but\nderive their shadowy Existence in a mimetic Transcript from Objects\nin the Material World, or from Passions, Characters, and Manners.\nNevertheless that _internal Sense_ we call TASTE (which is a Herald\nfor the whole human System, in it's three different Parts, the\nrefined Faculties of Perception, the gross Organs of Sense, and the\nintermediate Powers of Imagination) has as quick a Feeling of this\nsecondary Excellence of the Arts, as for the primary Graces; and\nseizes the Heart with Rapture long before the Senses, and Reason in\nConjunction, can _prove_ this Beauty by collating the Imitations with\ntheir Originals.\n\nIf it should be asked _why_ external Objects affect the human Breast\nin this Manner, I would answer, that the ALMIGHTY has in this, as well\nas in all his other Works, out of his abundant Goodness and Love to\nhis Creatures, so _attuned_ our Minds to Truth, that all Beauty from\nwithout should make a responsive Harmony vibrate within. But should\nany of those more curious Gentlemen, who busy themselves With\nEnquiries into Matters, which the Deity, for Reasons known only to\nhimself, has placed above our limited Capacities, demand _how_ he has\nso formed us, I should refer them, with proper Contempt, to their more\naged Brethren, who may justly in Derision be stiled _the Philosophers\nof ultimate Causes_. To you, my dear Friend, whose truly philosophical\nand religious Taste concludes that whatever GOD ordains is right,\nit is sufficient to have proved that _Truth_ is the Cause of all\n_Beauty_, and that Truth flows from the Fountain of all Perfection, in\nwhose unfathomable Depth finite Thought should never venture with\nany other Intention than to wonder and adore. But I find I have been\nimperceptibly led on from Thought to Thought, not only to trespass\nupon the common Stile of a Letter, by these abstruse Reasonings and\nreligious Conclusions, but upon the ordinary length of one likewise;\ntherefore shall conclude by complimenting my own Taste in Characters,\nwhen I assure you that I am,\n\n  _Your most affectionate Friend_, &c.\n\n\n\n\nLETTER II.\n\nTo the SAME.\n\n\nIt gave me no small Pleasure to find, by your Answer to my last\nLetter, that you now allow BEAUTY to be the Daughter of TRUTH; and I\nin my turn will make a Concession to you, by confessing that BEAUTY\nherself may have _acquired_ Charms, but then they are altogether such\nas are consistent with her divine Extraction. What you observe is\nvery true, that the human Form (the most glorious Object, as you are\npleased to call it, in the Creation) let it be made with the most\naccurate Symmetry and Proportion, may receive _additional_ Charms from\nEducation, and steal more subtily upon the Soul of the Beholder from\nsome adventitious Circumstances of easy Attitudes or Motion, and an\nundefineable Sweetness of Countenance, which an habitual Commerce with\nthe more refined Part of Mankind superadds to the Work of Nature. This\nthe ancient _Grecian_ Artists would have represented mythologically\nin Painting by the GRACES crowning VENUS. We find how much LELY has\navailed himself in his shadowy Creations of transcribing from Life\nthis adventitious Charm into all his Portraits. I mean, when he\n_stole_ upon his _animated Canvas_, as POPE poetically expresses it,\n\n  \"The sleepy Eye that spoke the melting Soul.\"\n\nYou will ask me, perhaps, how I can prove any Alliance in this\nparticular Circumstance of a single Feature to Truth; Or rather\ntriumphantly push the Argument farther, and say, Is not this\nadditional Charm, as you call it, inconsistent with the Divine\nOriginal of Beauty, since it deadens the fiery Lustre of that\npenetrating Organ? I chuse to draw my Answer from the Schools of the\nantient ETHOGRAPHI, who by their enchanting Art so happily conveyed,\nthro' the Sight, the Lessons of Moral Philosophy. These Sages would\nhave told you, that our Souls are attuned to one another, like the\nStrings of musical Instruments, and that the Chord of one being\nstruck, the _Unison_ of another, tho' untouched, will vibrate to it.\nThe Passions therefore of the human Heart, expressed either in the\nliving Countenance, or the mimetic Strokes of Art, will affect the\nSoul of the Beholder with a similar and responsive Disposition. What\nwonder then is it that Beauty, borrowing thus the Look of softening\nLove, whose Power can lull the most watchful of the Senses,\nshould cast that sweet _Nepenthe_ upon our Hearts, and enchant our\ncorresponding Thoughts to rest in the Embraces of Desire? Sure then\nI am, that you will always allow Love to be the Source and End of our\nBeing, and consequently consistent with Truth. It is the Superaddition\nof such Charms to Proportion, which is called _Taste_ in Musick,\nPainting, Poetry, Sculpture, Gardening and Architecture. By which is\ngenerally meant that happy Assemblage which excites in our Minds, by\nAnalogy, some pleasurable Image. Thus, for Instance, even the Ruins\nof an old Castle properly disposed, or the Simplicity of a rough hewn\nHermitage in a Rock, enliven a Prospect, by recalling the Moral Images\nof _Valor_ and _Wisdom_; and I believe no Man will contend, that Valor\nexerted in the Defence of one's Country, or Wisdom contemplating in\nRetirement for the Welfare of Mankind, are not truly amiable Images,\nbelonging to the Divine Family of Truth. I think I have now reconciled\nour two favorite Opinions, by proving that these _additional_ Charms,\nif they must be called so, have their Origin in Nature as much as\nProportion itself.--I am very glad the Prints I sent afforded you so\nmuch Pleasure, not only as I wish every thing which comes from me may\nbe favorably received by you, but as they are likewise a Confirmation\nof my Arguments; for the Man who drew them is no very great Artist,\nbut being a faithful Disciple of Nature, having delineated every\nObject in a _Camera Obscura_, he has not failed of gaining the\nuncontested Applause, which the Followers of that unerring Mistress\nwill ever receive from Mankind. My EUDOCIA calls me to administer\nwith her Comfort to a little fatherless Family in the District of our\nHamlet, therefore must conclude myself,\n\n_Your sincere Friend_, &c.\n\nLETTER\n\n\n\n      TASTE:\n\n       AN\n\n    EPISTLE\n\n     TO A\n\n  YOUNG CRITIC.\n\n\n  Range from Tower-hill all London to the Fleet,\n  Thence round the Temple, t'utmost Grosvenor-street:\n  Take in your route both Gray's and Lincoln's Inn;\n  Miss not, be sure, my Lords and Gentlemen;\n  You'll hardly raise, as I with[A] _Petty_ guess,   }  5\n  Above twelve thousand men of taste; unless         }\n  In desperate times a _Connoisseur_ may pass.       }\n\n    \"A Connoisseur! What's that?\" 'Tis hard to say:\n  But you must oft amidst the fair and gay\n  Have seen a wou'd-be rake, a fluttering fool,              10\n  Who swears he loves the sex with all his soul.\n  Alas, vain youth! dost thou admire sweet Jones?\n  Thou be gallant without or blood or bones!\n  You'd split to hear th' insipid coxcomb cry\n  Ah charming Nanny! 'tis too much! I die!--                 15\n  Die and be d--n'd, says one; but let me tell ye\n  I'll pay the loss if ever rapture kill ye.\n\n  [Footnote A: Sir William Petty, author of the _Political Arithmetic_.]\n\n    'Tis easy learnt the art to talk by rote:\n  At Nando's 'twill but cost you half a groat;\n  The Redford school at three-pence is not dear, Sir;\n  At White's--_the stars instruct you_ for a tester.    21\n  But he, whom nature never meant to share\n  One spark of taste, will never catch it there:--\n  Nor no where else; howe'er the booby beau\n  Grows great with Pope, and Horace, and Boileau.\n\n    Good native Taste, tho' rude, is seldom wrong,\n  Be it in music, painting, or in song.\n  But this, as well as other faculties,\n  Improves with age and ripens by degrees.\n  I know, my dear; 'tis needless to deny 't,                 30\n  You like Voiture, you think him wondrous bright;\n  But seven years hence, your relish more matur'd,\n  What now delights will hardly be endur'd.\n  The boy may live to taste Racine's fine charms,\n  Whom Lee's bald orb or Rowe's dry rapture warms:\n  But he, enfranchis'd from his tutor's care,                36\n  Who places Butler near Cervantes' chair;\n  Or with Erasmus can admit to vie\n  Brown of Squab-hall _of merry memory_;\n  Will die a Goth: and nod at [A]Woden's feast,              40\n  Th' eternal winter long, on [B]Gregory's breast.\n\n    Long may he swill, this patriarch of the dull,\n  The drowsy Mum--But touc not Maro's skull!\n  His holy barbarous dotage sought to doom,\n  Good heaven! th' immortal classics to the tomb!--\n  Those sacred lights shall bid new genius rise              45\n  When all Rome's saints have rotted from the skies.\n  Be these your guides, if at the ivy crown\n  You aim; each country's classics, and your own.\n  But chiefly with the ancients pass your prime,             50\n  And drink Castalia at the fountain's brim.\n  The man to genuine Burgundy bred up,\n  Soon starts the dam of Methuen in his cup.\n\n  [Footnote A: Alluding to the Gothic heaven, Woden's hall; where the\n  happy are for ever employed in drinking beer, mum, and other\n  comfortable liquors out of the skulls of those whom they had\n  slain in battle.]\n\n  [Footnote B: Pope Gregory the VIth, distinguished by the name of St.\n  Gregory; whose pious zeal, in the cause of barbarous ignorance\n  and priestly tyranny, exerted itself in demolishing, to the\n  utmost of his power, all the remains of heathen genius.]\n\n    Those sovereign masters of the Muses skill\n  Are the true patterns of good writing still,               55\n  Their ore was rich and seven times purg'd of lead;\n  Their art seem'd nature, 'twas so finely hid.\n  Tho' born with all the powers of writing well,\n  What pains it cost they did not blush to tell.\n  Their ease (my Lords!) ne'er lowng'd for want of fire,\n  Nor did their rage thro' affectation tire.                 61\n  Free from all tawdry and imposing glare\n  They trusted to their native grace of air.\n  Rapt'rous and wild the trembling soul they seize,  }\n  Or sly coy beauties steal it by degrees;           }       65\n  The more you view them still the more they please. }\n\n    Yet there are thousands of scholastic merit\n  Who worm their sense out but ne'er taste their spirit.\n  Witness each pedant under Bentley bred;\n  Each commentator that e'er commented.                      70\n  (You scarce can seize a spot of classic ground,\n  With leagues of Dutch morass so floated round.)\n  Witness--but, Sir, I hold a cautious pen,\n  Lest I should _wrong_ some _honourable men_.\n  They grow enthusiasts too--_'Tis true! 'tis pity!_      75\n  But 'tis not every lunatic that's witty.\n  Some have run Maro--and some Milton--mad,\n  Ashley once turn'd a solid barber's head:\n  Hear all that's said or printed if you can,\n  Ashley has turn'd more solid heads than one.               80\n\n    Let such admire each great or specious name;\n  For right or wrong the joy to them's the same.\n  \"Right!\" Yes a thousand times.--Each fool has heard\n  That Homer was a wonder of a bard.\n  Despise them civilly with all my heart--                   85\n  But to convince them is a desperate part,\n  Why should you teize one for what secret cause\n  One doats on Horace, or on Hudibras?\n  'Tis cruel, Sir, 'tis needless, to endeavour\n  To teach a sot of Taste he knows no flavour,               90\n  To disunite I neither wish nor hope\n  A stubborn blockhead from his fav'rite fop.\n  Yes--fop I say, were Maro's self before 'em:\n  For Maro's self grows dull as they pore o'er him.\n\n    But hear their raptures o'er some specious rhime\n  Dub'd by the musk'd and greasy mob sublime.                96\n  For spleen's dear sake hear how a coxcomb prates\n  As clam'rous o'er his joys as fifty cats;\n  _\"Music has charms to sooth a savage breast,\n  To soften rocks, and oaks\"_--and all the rest:          100\n  _\"I've heard\"_--Bless these long ears!--\"Heav'ns what a strain!\n  Good God! What thunders burst in this _Campaign_!\n  Hark Waller warbles! Ah! how sweetly killing!\n  Then that inimitable Splendid Shilling!\n  Rowe breathes all Shakespear here!--That ode of Prior      105\n  Is Spencer quite! egad his very fire!--\n  As like\"--Yes faith! as gum-flowers to the rose,\n  Or as to Claret flat Minorca's dose;\n  As like as (if I am not grosly wrong)\n  Erle Robert's Mice to aught e'er Chaucer sung.             110\n\n    Read boldly, and unprejudic'd peruse\n  Each fav'rite modern, ev'n each ancient muse.\n  With all the comic salt and tragic rage\n  The great stupendous genius of our stage,\n  Boast of our island, pride of human-kind,                  115\n  Had faults to which the boxes are not blind.\n  His frailties are to ev'ry gossip known:\n  Yet Milton's pedantries not shock the town.\n  Ne'er be the dupe of Names, however high;\n  For some outlive good parts, some misapply.                120\n  Each elegant Spectator you admire;\n  But must you therefore swear by Cato's fire?\n  Masques for the court, and oft a clumsey jest,\n  Disgrac'd the muse that wrought the Alchemist.\n  \"But to the ancients.\"--Faith! I am not clear,             125\n  For all the smooth round type of Elzevir,\n  That every work which lasts in prose or song,\n  Two thousand years, deserves to last so long.\n  For not to mention some eternal blades\n  Known only now in th' academic shades,                     130\n  (Those sacred groves where raptur'd spirits stray,\n  And in word-hunting waste the live-long day)\n  Ancients whom none but curious critics scan,\n  Do, read[A] Messala's praises if you can.\n  Ah! who but feels the sweet contagious smart               135\n  While soft Tibullus pours his tender heart?\n  With him the Loves and Muses melt in tears;\n  But not a word of some hexameters.\n  \"You grow so squeamish and so dev'lish dry,\n  You'll call Lucretius vapid next.\" Not I.                  140\n  Some find him tedious, others think him lame:\n  But if he lags his subject is to blame.\n  Rough weary roads thro' barren wilds he tried,\n  Yet still he marches with true Roman pride:\n  Sometimes a meteor, gorgeous, rapid, bright,               145\n  He streams athwart the philosophic night.\n  Find you in Horace no insipid Odes?--\n  He dar'd to tell us Homer sometimes nods;\n  And but for such a aide's hardy skill\n  Homer might slumber unsuspected still.                     150\n\n  [Footnote A: A poem of Tibullus's in hexameter verse; as yawning and\n  insipid as his elegies are tender and natural.]\n\n    Tasteless, implicit, indolent and tame,\n  At second-hand we chiefly praise or blame.\n  Hence 'tis, for else one knows not why nor how,\n  Some authors flourish for a year or two:\n  For many some, more wond'rous still to tell;               155\n  Farquhar yet lingers on the brink of hell.\n  Of solid merit others pine unknown;             }\n  At first, tho'[A] Carlos swimmingly went down,  }\n  Poor Belvidera fail'd to melt the town.         }\n  Sunk in dead night the giant Milton lay                    160\n  'Till Sommer's hand produc'd him to the day.\n  But, thanks to heav'n and Addison's good grace\n  Now ev'ry fop is charm'd with Chevy Chace.\n\n  [Footnote A: Don Carlos, a tragedy of Otway's, now long and justly\n  forgotten, went off with great applause; while his Orphan, a\n  somewhat better performance, and what is yet more strange, his\n  Venice Preserved, according to the theatrical anecdotes of those\n  times, met with a very cold reception.]\n\n    Specious and sage, the sovereign of the flock\n  Led to the downs, or from the wave-worn rock               165\n  Reluctant hurl'd, the tame implicit train\n  Or crop the downs, or headlong seek the main.\n  As blindly we our solemn leaders follow,\n  And good, and bad, and execrable swallow.\n\n    Pray, on the first throng'd evening of a play            170\n  That wears the[A] _facies hippocratica_,\n  Strong lines of death, signs dire of reprobation;\n  Have you not seen the angel of salvation\n  Appear sublime; with wise and solemn rap\n  To teach the doubtful rabble where to clap?--              175\n  The rabble knows not where our dramas shine;\n  But where the cane goes pat--_by G-- that's fine_!\n\n  [Footnote A: The appearance of the face in the last stage\n  of a consumption, as it is described by Hippocrates.]\n\n    Judge for yourself; nor wait with timid phlegm\n  Till some illustrious pedant hum or hem.                   179\n  The lords who starv'd old Ben were learn'dly fond\n  Of Chaucer, whom with bungling toil they conn'd,\n  Their sons, whose ears bold Milton could not seize,    }\n  Would laugh o'er Ben like mad, and snuff and sneeze,   }\n  And swear, and seem as tickled as you please.          }\n  Their spawn, the pride of this sublimer age,               185\n  Feel to the toes and horns grave Milton's rage.\n  Tho' liv'd he now he might appeal with scorn\n  To Lords, Knights, 'Squires and Doctors, yet unborn;\n  Or justly mad to Moloch's burning fane\n  Devote the choicest children of his brain.                 190\n  Judge for yourself; and as you find report.\n  Of wit as freely as of beef or port.\n  Zounds! shall a pert or bluff important wight,\n  Whose brain is fanciless, whose blood is white;\n  A mumbling ape of taste; prescribe us laws                 195\n  To try the poets, for no better cause\n  Than that he boasts _per ann._ ten thousand clear,\n  Yelps in the House, or barely sits a Peer?\n  For shame! for shame! the liberal British soul\n  To stoop to any stale dictator's rule!                     200\n\n    I may be wrong, and often am no doubt,\n  But right or wrong with friends with foes 'twill out.\n  Thus 'tis perhaps my fault if I complain\n  Of trite invention and a flimsy vein,\n  Tame characters, uninteresting, jejune,                    205\n  And passions drily copied from [A]Le Brun.\n  For I would rather never judge than wrong\n  That friend of all men, generous Fenelon.\n  But in the name of goodness, must I be                     210\n  The dupe of charms I never yet could see?\n  And then to flatter where there's no reward--\n  Better be any patron-hunting bard,\n  Who half our Lords with filthy praise besmears,\n  And sing an Anthem to ALL MINISTERS:\n  Taste th' Attic salt in ev'ry Peer's poor rebus,           215\n  And crown each Gothic idol for a Phoebus.\n\n[Footnote A: First painter to Lewis XIV. who, to speak in fashionable\nFrench English, _called himself_ LEWIS THE GREAT. Our sovereign lords\nthe passions, Love, Rage, Despair, &c. were graciously pleased to\nsit to him in their turns for their portraits: which he was generous\nenough to communicate to the public; to the great improvement, no\ndoubt, of history-painting. It was he who they say poison'd Le Sueur;\nwho, without half his advantages in many other respects, was so\nunreasonable and provoking as to display a genius with which his own\ncould stand no comparison. It was he and his Gothic disciples, who,\nwith sly scratches, defac'd the most masterly of this Le Sueur's\nperformances, as often as their barbarous envy could snugly reach\nthem. Yet after all these atchievements he died in his bed! A\ncatastrophe which could not have happened to him in a country\nlike this, where the _fine arts_ are as zealously and judiciously\npatronised as they are well understood.]\n\n    Alas! so far from free, so far from brave,\n  We dare not shew the little Taste we have.\n  With us you'll see ev'n vanity controul\n  The most refin'd sensations of the soul.                   220\n  Sad Otway's scenes, great Shakespear's we defy:\n  \"Lord, Madam! 'tis so unpolite to cry!--\n  For shame, my dear! d'ye credit all this stuff?--\n  I vow--well, this is innocent enough?\"\n  At Athens long ago, the Ladies--(married)                  225\n  Dreamt not they misbehav'd tho' they miscarried,\n  When a wild poet with licentious rage\n  Turn'd fifty furies loose upon the stage.\n\n    They were so tender and so easy mov'd,\n  Heav'ns! how the Grecian ladies must have lov'd!\n  For all the fine sensations still have dwelt,              231\n  Perhaps, where one was exquisitely felt.\n  Thus he who heavenly Maro truly feels\n  Stands fix'd on Raphael, and at Handel thrills.\n  The grosser senses too, the taste, the smell,    }         235\n  Are likely truest where the fine prevail:        }\n  Who doubts that Horace must have cater'd well?   }\n  Friend, I'm a shrewd observer, and will guess\n  What books you doat on from your fav'rite mess,\n  Brown and L'Estrange will surely charm whome'er\n  The frothy pertness strikes of weak small-beer.\n  Who steeps the calf's fat loin in greasy sauce\n  Will hardly loathe the praise that bastes an ass.\n  Who riots on Scotcht Collops scorns not any\n  Insipid, fulsome, trashy miscellany;                       245\n  And who devours whate'er the cook can dish up,\n  Will for a classic consecrate each[A] bishop.\n\n  [Footnote A: See Felton's Classics.]\n\n    But I am sick of pen and ink; and you\n  Will find this letter long enough. Adieu!\n\n\n\n\nOF GENIUS\n\n\nThere is a standard of right and wrong in the nature of things, of\nbeauty and deformity, both in the natural and moral world. And as\ndifferent minds happen to be more or less exquisite, the more or less\nsensibly do they perceive the various degrees, of good and bad, and\nare the more or less susceptible of being charmed with what is right\nor beautiful, and disgusted with what is wrong or deformed. It is\nchiefly this sensibility that constitutes genius; to which a sound\nhead and a good heart are as effectual as a lively imagination. And a\nman of true genius must necessarily have as exquisite a feeling of the\nmoral beauties, as of whatever is great or beautiful in the works\nof nature; or masterly in the arts which imitate nature, in poetry,\npainting, statuary, and music.\n\nOn the other side, where the heart is very bad, the genius and taste,\nif there happen to be any pretensions to them, will be found shocking\nand unnatural. NERO would be nothing less than a poet; but his\nverses were what one may call most _villainously_ bad. His taste\nof magnificence and luxury was horribly glaring, extravagant and\nunnatural to the last degree.\n\nCALIGULA's taste was so outragiously wrong, that he detested the works\nof the sweet MANTUAN poet more passionately than ever MOECENAS admired\nthem; and if VIRGIL had unfortunately lived down to those times in\nwhich that monster appeared, he would probably have been tortured\nto death for no other crime but that he wrote naturally, and like an\nhonest man.\n\nTrue genius may be said to consist of a perfect polish of soul, which\nreceives and reflects the images that fall upon it, without warping\nor distortion. And this fine polish of soul is, I believe, constantly\nattended with what philosophers call the moral truth.\n\nThere are minds which receive objects truly, and feel the impressions\nthey ought naturally to make, in a very lively manner, but want the\nfaculty of reflecting them; as there are people who, I suppose, feel\nall the charms of poetry without being poets themselves.\n\n\n\n\nOF TASTE.\n\n\nOur notion of taste may be easily understood by what has been said\nupon the subject of genius; for mere good taste is nothing else but\ngenius without the power of execution.\n\nIt must be born; and is to be improved chiefly by being accustomed,\nand the earlier the better, to the most exquisite objects of taste in\nits various kinds. For the taste in writing and painting, and in every\nthing else, is insensibly formed upon what we are accustomed to; as\nwell as taste in eating and drinking. One who from his youth has been\nused to drink nothing but heavy dismal port, will not immediately\nacquire a relish for claret or burgundy.\n\nIn the most stupid ages there is more good taste than one would at\nfirst sight imagine. Even the present, abuse it with what contemptuous\nepithets you please, cannot be totally void of it. As long as there\nare noble humane and generous dispositions amongst mankind, there must\nbe good taste. For in general, I do not say always, the taste will be\nin proportion to those moral qualities and that sensibility of mind\nfrom which they take their rise. And while many, amongst the great and\nthe learned, are allowed to have taste for no better reason than that\nit is their own opinion, it is often possessed by those who are not\nconscious of it, and dream as little of pretending to it as to a star\nand garter. An honest farmer, or shepherd, who is acquainted with no\nlanguage but what is spoken in his own county, may have a much truer\nrelish of the _English_ writers than the most dogmatical pedant that\never erected himself into a commentator, and from his _Gothic_ chair,\nwith an ill-bred arrogance, dictated false criticism to the gaping\nmultitude.\n\nBut even those who are endued with good natural taste, often judge\nimplicitly and by rote, without ever consulting their own taste.\nInstances of this passive indolence, or rather this unconsciousness of\none's own faculties, appear every day; not only in the fine arts, but\nin cases where the mere _taste_, according to the original meaning\nof the word, is alone concerned. For I am positive there are many\nthousands who, if they were to bring their own palate to a severe\nexamination, would discover that they really find a more delicious\nflavour in mutton than in venison, in flounder than in turbut, and yet\nprefer middling or bad venison to the best mutton; that is, what is\nscarcest and dearest, and consequently what is, from the folly of\nmankind, the most in vogue, to what is really the most agreeable to\ntheir own private taste.\n\nIn matter of taste, the public, for the most part, suffers itself to\nbe led by a few who perhaps are really no judges; but who, under the\nfavour of some advantages of title, place, or fortune, set up for\njudges, and are implicitly followed even by those who have taste.\nThese washy dictators have learnt at school to admire such authors as\nhave for ages been possessed of an indisputed renown: but they would\nnever have been the first to have discovered strokes of true genius in\na co-temporary writer, though they had lived at the court of AUGUSTUS\nor of Q. ELIZABETH.\n\nSo undistinguishing is our taste, that if the most torpid dunce this\nfruitful age can boast of, could by some artful imposture prepossess\nthe public, that the most insipid of all his own bread-sauce\ncompositions, to be published next winter, was a piece MILTON's, or\nany other celebrated author, recovered from dust and obscurity, it\nwould be received with universal applause; and perhaps be translated\ninto _French_ before the town had doated six weeks upon it. One might\nventure to say too, that if a work of true spirit and genius was to\nbe introduced into the world, under the name of some writer of low\nreputation, it would be rejected even by the greatest part of those\nwho pretend to lead the taste. And no wonder, while an eminent vintner\nhas mistaken his own old hock at nine shillings the bottle for that at\nfive.\n\n\n\n\nOF WRITING TO THE TASTE OF THE AGE.\n\n\nWhatever some have pretended, one may reasonably enough doubt whether\never an author wrote much below himself from any cause but the\nnecessity of writing too fast. When this happens to a writer who,\nwith the advantages of leisure and easy circumstances, is capable of\nproducing such works as might charm succeeding ages, it is a disgrace\nto the nation and the times wherein such a genius had the misfortune\nto appear.\n\nIt belongs to true genius to indulge its own humour; to give a loose\nto its own sallies; and to be curbed, restrained and directed by that\nsound judgment alone which necessarily attends it. It belongs to it\nto improve and correct the public taste; not to humour or meanly\nprostitute itself to the gross or low taste which it finds. And\nyou may depend upon it, that whatever author labours to accommodate\nhimself to the taste of his age--suppose it, if you please, this\npresent age--the sickly wane, the impotent decline of the eighteenth\ncentury: which from a hopeful boy became a most insignificant man;\nand for any thing that appears at present will die a very fat drowsy\nblock-head, and be damned to eternal infamy and contempt: every such\nauthor I say, though he may thrive as far as an author can in the\npresent age, will by degrees languish into obscurity in the next.\nFor though naked and bare-faced vanity; though an active exertion of\nlittle arts, and the most unremitting perseverance in them; though\nparty, cabal, and intrigue; though accidental advantages, and even\nwhimsical circumstances; may conspire to make a very moderate genius\nthe idol of the implicit multitude: works that lean upon such fickle\nprops, that stand upon such a false foundation, will not be long able\nto support themselves against the injuries of time. Such buildings\nbegin to totter almost as soon as their scaffolding is struck.\n\nBut if you find it necessary to comply with the humour of your age;\nthe writing best calculated to please a false taste is what has\nsomething of the air of good writing, without being really so. For\nto the vulgar eye the specious is more striking than the genuine. The\nbest writing is apt to be too plain, too simple, too unaffected, and\ntoo delicate to stir the callous organs of the generality of critics,\nwho see nothing but the tawdry glare of tinsel; and are deaf to every\nthing but what is shockingly noisy to a true ear. They are struck\nwith the fierce glaring colours of old _Frank_; with attitudes and\nexpressions violent, distorted, and unnatural: while the true, just\nand easy, the graceful, the moving, the sublime representations of\n_Raphael_ have not the least power to attract them. The bullying,\nnoisy march in _Judas Macchabeus_ has perhaps more sincere admirers\nthan that most pathetic one in _Saul_: and in conversation pertness\nand mere vivacity is more felt by the general run of company than easy\nunaffected wit; as flashy, bouncing, flatulent cyder boasts of more\nspirit than the still vigour of reserved _Madeira_.\n\nBut the easiest, as well as the most effectual way of writing to the\nbad taste of your age, is to set out while your genius is yet upon a\nlevel with it. Accordingly, if you have a son who begins to display\na hopeful bloom of imagination, be sure to publish, with all the\nadvantages that can be procured, the very first essays of his genius.\nThey will hardly be too good to please; and besides, they have a\nchance to be received with particular favour and admiration as the\nproductions of a young muse. When he has thus taken possession of the\npublic ear, he may venture, as his genius ripens, to do his best; he\nmay write as well as he can, perhaps without much danger of sinking in\nreputation. The renown of his first crude essays will be sufficient\nto prejudice the mobility, great and small, in favour of the most\nexquisite pieces he can produce afterwards. But if he must live by his\nwit, the best thing you can do for him is to transplant him, as\nearly as possible, to PARIS; where in the worst of days, in the most\n_Gothic_ muse-detesting age, there is still some shelter afforded to\nthe most delicate as well as the most uncommon flower that blossoms\nin the human mind. In that gay serene and genial climate the muses\nare still more or less cultivated, though not with the same ardour and\npassion in every age; as appears from the following passage translated\nfrom a[A] _French_ author, who wrote about the beginning of the\npresent century. \"Almost all the arts have in their turns experienced\nthat disgust and love of change which is natural to mankind. But I\ndon't know that any one of them has felt it more than Poetry; which\nin some ages has been exalted to a triumphal heighth, in others\nneglected, discouraged and despised. About sixty years ago, under\nthe administration of one of the greatest geniuses that ever _France_\nproduced, poetry found itself amongst us at its highest pitch of\nglory. Those who cultivated the muses were regarded with particular\nfavour: this art was the road to fortune and dignified stations. But\nin these days this ardour seems to be considerably abated. We do not\nappear to be extremely sensible to poetical merit, &c.\"\n\n[Footnote A: Defense de la Poesie; par M. l'Abb\u00e9 _Messieu. Memo\u00edres de\nLiterature, Tome_ 2de.]\n\n\n\n\nTHE TASTE OF THE PRESENT AGE.\n\n\nAmongst many other distinguishing marks of a stupid age, a bad crop of\nmen, I have been told that the taste in writing was never so false\nas at present. If it is really so, it may perhaps be owing to a\nprodigious swarm of insipid trashy writers: amongst whom there are\nsome who pretend to dictate to the public as critics, though they\nhardly ever fail to be mistaken. But their dogmatic impudence, and\nsomething like a scientific air of talking the most palpable\nnonsense, imposes upon great numbers of people, who really possess a\nconsiderable share of natural Taste; of which at the same time they\nare so little conscious as to suffer themselves passively to be misled\nby those blundering guides.\n\nA Taste worth cultivating is to be improved and preserved by reading\n_only_ the best writers. But whoever, after perusing a satire of\nHorace, even in the dullest English translation, can relish the\nstupid abuse of a blackguard rhymster, may as well indulge the natural\ndepravity of his Taste, and riot for life upon distiller's grains.\n\nBut the Taste in writing is not, cannot be worse, than it is in music,\nas well as in all theatrical entertainments. In architecture indeed\nthere are some elegant and magnificent works arising, at a very proper\ntime to restore the nation to some credit with its neighbours in this\narticle; after its having been exposed to such repeated disgraces by\na triumvirate of awkward clumsey piles, that are not ashamed to shew\ntheir stupid heads in the neighbourhood of Whitehall: and one more,\nthat ought to be demolished; if it was for no other reason but to\nrestore the view of an elegant church, which has now for many years\nbeen buried alive behind the Mansion-house.\n\nIt is indeed some comfort, that while Taste and Genius happen to be\nvery false and impotent in most of the fine arts, they are not so in\nall. The arts of Gardening particularly, and the elegant plan of\na farm, have of late years displayed themselves in a few spots to\ngreater advantage in England, than perhaps ever before in any part\nof Europe. This is indeed very far from being universal; and some\ngardens, admired and celebrated still, are so smoothly regular, so\nover-planted, and so crowded with affected, impertinent, ridiculous\nornaments of temples, ruins, pyramids, obelisks, statues, and a\nthousand other contemptible whims, that a continuation of the same\nground in its rude natural state, is infinitely more delightful. You\nmust often have seen fine situations ruined with costly pretences to\n_improvement_. The most noble and romantic situation of any gardens\nI have seen, is near Chepstow; and the gentleman who possesses\nthat delightful spot, has shewn great judgment and a true taste, in\nmeddling so little with Nature where she wanted so little help.\n\nThis is one happy instance of an admirable situation, where Nature\nis modestly and judiciously improved, not hurt, by art. An opposite\ninstance of what art, skill, and taste may produce, without any\nparticular advantages of ground or situation, is most agreeably\ndisplayed in the royal gardens at Kew. There you find an extent of\nflat ground, so easily, agreeably, and unaffectedly broken, that\nyou would think it impossible to alter it but to the worse. To\npass without any notice the agreeable and the elegant pieces of\narchitecture, which without crowding adorn those delightful gardens;\nperhaps there is not a physick garden in Europe where any botanist can\nbe more agreeably entertained, as to the variety of curious plants.\nBut there is something new as far as I know, and particularly\ningenious here in the disposition and management of them. Those that\nnaturally delight in the rocks, and the dry hungry soil, are here\nplanted upon ridges of artificial rock-work; where they shew all\nthe luxuriance of vegetation that they could amongst the Alps, the\nPyrenees or the Andes. While a very different tribe, the Aquatics,\ndisplay themselves in a large cistern, where they are constantly\nsupplied with their best and most natural nourishment the rain water,\nconveyed to them from the eves of the richest greenhouse I have ever\nseen.\n\n\n\n\nWilliam Andrews Clark Memorial Library: University of California\n\nTHE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY\n\n_General Editors_\n\n  H. RICHARD ARCHER\n    William Andrews Clark Memorial Library\n\n  R.C. BOYS\n    University of Michigan\n\n  E.N. HOOKER\n    University of California, Los Angeles\n\n  JOHN LOFTIS\n    University of California, Los Angeles\n\n\nThe society exists to make available inexpensive reprints (usually\nfacsimile reproductions) of rare seventeenth and eighteenth century\nworks.\n\nThe editorial policy of the Society continues unchanged. As in the\npast, the editors welcome suggestions concerning publications.\n\nAll correspondence concerning subscriptions in the United States\nand Canada should be addressed to the William Andrews Clark\nMemorial Library, 2205 West Adams Blvd., Los Angeles 18, California.\nCorrespondence concerning editorial matters may be addressed to any of\nthe general editors. Membership fee continues $2.50 per year. British\nand European subscribers should address B.H. Blackwell, Broad Street,\nOxford, England.\n\n\nPublications for the fifth year [1950-1951]\n\n(_At least six items, most of them from the following list, will be\nreprinted_.)\n\nFRANCES REYNOLDS (?): _An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Taste,\nand of the Origin of Our Ideas of Beauty, &c._ (1785). Introduction by\nJames L. Clifford.\n\nTHOMAS BAKER: _The Fine lady's Airs_ (1709). Introduction by John\nHarrington Smith.\n\nDANIEL DEFOE: _Vindication of the Press_ (1718). Introduction by Otho\nClinton Williams.\n\nJOHN EVELYN: _An Apologie for the Royal Party_ (1659); _A Panegyric to\nCharles the Second_ (1661). Introduction by Geoffrey Keynes.\n\nCHARLES MACKLIN: _Man of the World_ (1781). Introduction by Dougald\nMacMillan.\n\n_Prefaces to Fiction_. Selected and with an Introduction by Benjamin\nBoyce.\n\nTHOMAS SPRAT: _Poems_.\n\nSIR WILLIAM PETTY: _The Advice of W.P. to Mr. Samuel Hartlib for the\nAdvancement of some particular Parts of Learning_ (1648).\n\nTHOMAS GRAY: _An Elegy Wrote in a Country Church Yard_ (1751).\n(Facsimile of first edition and of portions of Gray's manuscripts of\nthe poem).\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n  To the Augustan Reprint Society     _Subscriber's Name and Address:_\n  _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library\n  2205 West Adams Boulevard\n  Los Angeles 18, California_\n\n  _As_ MEMBERSHIP FEE _I enclose for the years marked:_\n  The current year                         $ 2.50\n  The current & the 4th year                 5.00\n  The current, 3rd, & 4th year               7.50\n  The current, 2nd, 3rd, & 4th year         10.00\n  The current, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, & 4th year    11.50\n    (_Publications no. 3 & 4 are out of print_)\n\nMake check or money order payable to THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY\nOF CALIFORNIA.\n\nNOTE: _All income of the Society is devoted to defraying cost of\nprinting and mailing_.\n\n\n\n\nPUBLICATIONS\n\n\nFirst Year (1946-1947)\n\n1. Richard Blackmore's _Essay upon Wit_ (1716), and Addison's\n_Freeholder_ No. 45 (1716).\n\n2. Samuel Cobb's _Of Poetry_ and _Discourse on Criticism_ (1707).\n\n3. _Letter to A.H. Esq.; concerning the Stage_ (1698), and Richard\nWillis' _Occasional Paper No. IX_ (1698). (OUT OF PRINT)\n\n4. _Essay on Wit_ (1748), together with Characters by Flecknoe, and\nJoseph Warton's _Adventurer_ Nos. 127 and 133. (OUT OF PRINT)\n\n5. Samuel Wesley's _Epistle to a Friend Concerning Poetry_ (1700) and\n_Essay on Heroic Poetry_ (1693).\n\n6. _Representation of the Impiety and Immorality of the Stage_(1704)\nand _Some Thoughts Concerning the Stage_ (1704).\n\n\nSecond Year (1947-1948)\n\n7. John Gay's _The Present State of Wit_ (1711); and a section on Wit\nfrom _The English Theophrastus_ (1702).\n\n8. Rapin's _De Carmine Pastorali_, translated by Creech (1684).\n\n9. T. Hanmer's (?) _Some Remarks on the Tragedy of Hamlet_ (1736).\n\n10. Corbyn Morris _Essay towards Fixing the True Standards of Wit,\netc_. (1744).\n\n11. Thomas Purney's _Discourse on the Pastoral_ (1717).\n\n12. Essays on the Stage, selected, with an Introduction by Joseph Wood\nKrutch.\n\n\nThird Year (1948-1949)\n\n13. Sir John Falstaff (pseud.), _The Theatre_ (1720).\n\n14. Edward Moore's _The Gamester_ (1753).\n\n15. John Oldmixon's _Reflections on Dr. Swift's Letter to Harley_\n(1712); and Arthur Mainwaring's _The British Academy_ (1712).\n\n16. Nevil Payne's _Fatal Jealousy_ (1673).\n\n17. Nicholas Rowe's _Some Account of the Life of Mr. William\nShakespear_ (1709).\n\n18. Aaron Hill's Preface to _The Creation_; and Thomas Brereton's\nPreface to _Esther_.\n\n\nFourth Year (1949-1950)\n\n19. Susanna Centlivre's _The Busie Body_ (1709).\n\n20. Lewis Theobald's _Preface to The Works of Shakespeare_ (1734).\n\n21. _Critical Remarks on Sir Charles Gradison, Clarissa, and Pamela_\n(1754).\n\n22. Samuel Johnson's _The Vanity of Human Wishes_ (1749) and Two\n_Rambler_ papers (1750).\n\n23. John Dryden's _His Majesties Declaration Defended_ (1681).\n\n24. Pierre Nicole's _An Essay on True and Apparent Beauty in Which\nfrom Settled Principles is Rendered the Grounds for Choosing and\nRejecting Epigrams_, translated by J.V. Cunningham.","title":"Essays on Taste","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":8990}