_On_ JAMES CRAGGS, _Esq._, _in Westminster Abbey_.
JACOBVS CRAGS,
REGI MAGNAE BRITANNIAE A SECRETIS
ET CONSILIIS SANCTIORIBVS,
PRINCIPIS PARITER AC POPVLI AMOR ET DELICIAE:
VIXIT TITLIS ET INVIDIA MAJOR
ANNOS HEV PAVCOS, XXXV.
OB. FEB. XVI. MDCCXX.
Statesman, yet friend to truth; of soul sincere,
In action faithful, and in honour clear!
Who broke no premise, served no private end,
Who gained no title, and who lost no friend;
Ennobled by himself, by all approved,
Praised, wept, and honoured by the Muse he loved.
The lines on Craggs were not originally intended for an epitaph; and
therefore some faults are to be imputed to the violence with which they
are torn from the poems that first contained them. We may, however,
observe some defects. There is a redundancy of words in the first
couplet: it is superfluous to tell of him, who was _sincere_, _true_, and
_faithful_, that he was _in honour clear_. There seems to be an
opposition intended in the fourth line, which is not very obvious: where
is the relation between the two positions, that he _gained no title_ and
_lest no friend_?
It may be proper here to remark the absurdity of joining in the same
inscription Latin and English or verse and prose. If either language be
preferable to the other, let that only be used; for no reason can be
given why part of the information should be given in one tongue, and part
in another on a tomb, more than in any other place, or any other
occasion; and to tell all that can be conveniently told in verse, and
then to call in the help of prose, has always the appearance of a very
artless expedient, or of an attempt unaccomplished. Such an epitaph
resembles the conversation of a foreigner, who tells part of his meaning
by words, and conveys part by signs.