Writers who have been unsuccessful in original composition have their
other productions immediately decried, whatever merit they might once
have been allowed to possess. Yet this is very unjust; an author who has
given a wrong direction to his literary powers may perceive, at length,
where he can more securely point them. Experience is as excellent a
mistress in the school of literature as in the school of human life.
Blackmore's epics are insufferable; yet neither Addison nor Johnson
erred when they considered his philosophical poem as a valuable
composition. An indifferent poet may exert the art of criticism in a
very high degree; and if he cannot himself produce an original work, he
may yet be of great service in regulating the happier genius of another.
This observation I shall illustrate by the characters of two French
critics; the one is the Abbé d'Aubignac, and the other Chapelain.
Boileau opens his Art of Poetry by a precept which though it be common
is always important; this critical poet declares, that "It is in vain a
daring author thinks of attaining to the height of Parnassus if he does
not feel the secret influence of heaven, and if his natal star has not
formed him to be a poet." This observation he founded on the character
of our Abbé; who had excellently written on the economy of dramatic
composition. His _Pratique du Théâtre_ gained him an extensive
reputation. When he produced a tragedy, the world expected a finished
piece; it was acted, and reprobated. The author, however, did not
acutely feel its bad reception; he everywhere boasted that he, of all
the dramatists, had most scrupulously observed the _rules_ of Aristotle.
The Prince de Guemené, famous for his repartees, sarcastically observed,
"I do not quarrel with the Abbé d'Aubignac for having so closely
followed the precepts of Aristotle; but I cannot pardon the precepts of
Aristotle, that occasioned the Abbé d'Aubignac to write so wretched a
tragedy."
The _Pratique du Théâtre_ is not, however, to be despised, because the
_Tragedy_ of its author is despicable.
Chapelain's unfortunate epic has rendered him notorious. He had gained,
and not undeservedly, great reputation for his critical powers. After a
retention of above thirty years, his _Pucelle_ appeared. He immediately
became the butt of every unfledged wit, and his former works were
eternally condemned; insomuch that when Camusat published, after the
death of our author, a little volume of extracts from his manuscript
letters, it is curious to observe the awkward situation in which he
finds himself. In his preface he seems afraid that the very name of
Chapelain will be sufficient to repel the reader.
Camusat observes of Chapelain, that "he found flatterers, who assured
him his _Pucelle_ ranked above the Æneid; and this Chapelain but feebly
denied. However this may be, it would be difficult to make the bad
taste which reigns throughout this poem agree with that sound and exact
criticism with which he decided on the works of others. So true is it,
that _genius_ is very superior to a justness of mind which is
_sufficient to judge_ and to advise others." Chapelain was ordered to
draw up a critical list of the chief living authors and men of letters
in France, for the king. It is extremely impartial, and performed with
an analytical skill of their literary characters which could not have
been surpassed by an Aristotle or a Boileau.
The _talent of judging_ may exist separately from the _power of
execution_. An amateur may not be an artist, though an artist should be
an amateur; and it is for this reason that young authors are not to
contemn the precepts of such critics as even the Abbé d'Aubignac and
Chapelain. It is to Walsh, a miserable versifier, that Pope stands
indebted for the hint of our poetry then being deficient in correctness
and polish; and it is from this fortunate hint that Pope derived his
poetical excellence. Dionysius Halicarnassensis has composed a lifeless
history; yet, as Gibbon observes, how admirably has _he_ judged the
masters, and defined the rules, of historical composition! Gravina, with
great taste and spirit, has written on poetry and poets, but he composed
tragedies which give him no title to be ranked among them.