make when we are writing proſe, we make ſuch verſe in common converſation.’
One of the reaſons Mr. Dennis aſſigns for Shakeſpear’s want of learning, is, that Julius Cæſar, in the play which goes by his name, makes but a third rate figure, and had he (ſays the author) conſulted the Latin writers, he could net have been guilty of ſuch an error; but this is far from being concluſive, which might as well be owing to his having a contempt for Cæſar’s character, and an enthuſiaſtic admiration for thoſe of Brutus and Caſſius.
Another proſe Eſſay of Mr. Dennis’s, which does him very great honour, is his Grounds of Criticiſm in Poetry. Amongſt many maſterly things, which he there advances, is the following. ‘The antient poets (ſays he) derived that advantage which they have over the moderns, to the conſtituting their ſubjects after a religious manner; and from the precepts of Longinus, it appears that the greateſt ſublimity is to be derived from religious ideas.’
Mr. Dennis then obſerves, that one of the principal reaſons, that has made the modern poetry ſo contemptible, if, that by diverting itſelf of religion, it is fallen from its dignity, and its original nature and excellence; and from the greateſt production in the mind of man, it is dwindled to an extravagant, and vain amuſement. When ſubjects are in themſelves great, the ideas of the writer muſt likewiſe be great; and nothing is in its nature ſo dignified as religion. This he illuſtrates by many examples from Milton, who when he raiſes his voice to heaven, and ſpeaks the language of the divinity, then, does he reach the true ſublime; but when he deſcends to the more trifling conſideration of human things, his wing is neceſſarily depreſſed, and his ſtrains are leſs tranſporting.
