Heraclides and Proclus,' Philo and Origen, have lost sight of their usual good sense, when they have allowed themselves to depart from the obvious and literal meaning of the text, which they pretend to explain. Thus some have thought that the hero of the piece was intended to represent the parliament, especially that part of it which favoured the presbyterian discipline; when in the stocks, he personates the presbyterians after they had lost their power; his first exploit is against the bear,

The Allegoria Homericæ, Gr. Lat. published by Dean Gale, Amst. 1688, though usually ascribed to Heraclides Ponticus, the Platonist, must be the work of a more recent author, as the Dean has proved his real name seems to have been Heraclitus (not the philosopher), and nothing more is known of him, but that Eustathius often cites him in his comment on Homer: the tract, however, is elegant and agreeable, and may be read with improvement and pleasure.

Proclus, the most learned philosopher of the fifth century, left among other writings numerous comments on Plato's works still subsisting, so stuffed with allegorical absurdities, that few who have perused two periods, will have patience to venture on a third. In this, he only follows the example of Atticus, and many others, whose interpretations, as wild as his own, he carefully examines. He sneers at the famous Longinus with much contempt, for adhering too servilely to the literal meaning of Plato.

8 Philo, the Jew, discovered many mystical senses in the Pentateuch, and from him, perhaps, Origen learned his unhappy knack of allegorizing both Old and New Testament. This, in justice, however, is due to Origen, that while he is hunting after abstruse senses, he doth not neglect the literal, but is sometimes happy in his criticisms.

whom he routs, which represents the parliament getting the better of the king; after this great victory, he courts a widow for her jointure, that is, the riches and power of the kingdom; being scorned by her, he retires, but the revival of hope to the royalists draws forth both him, and his squire, a little before Sir George Booth's insurrection. Magnano, Cerdon, Talgol, &c. though described as butchers, coblers, tinkers, were designed as officers in the parliament army, whose original professions, perhaps, were not much more noble: some have imagined Magnano to be the duke of Albemarle, and his getting thistles from a barren land, to allude to his power in Scotland, especially after the defeat of Booth. Trulla his wife, Crowdero Sir George Booth, whose bringing in of Bruin alludes to his endeavours to restore the king: his oaken leg, called the better one, is the king's cause, his other leg the presbyterian discipline; his fiddle-case, which in sport they hung as a trophy on the whipping-post, the directory. Ralpho, they say, represents the parliament of independents, called Barebone's Parliament; Bruin is sometimes the royal person, sometimes the king's adherents: Orsin represents the royal partyTalgol the city of London-Colon the bulk of the people: all these joining together against the

knight, represent Sir George Booth's conspiracy, with presbyterians and royalists, against the parliament: their overthrow, through the assistance of Ralph, means the defeat of Booth by the assistance of the independents and other fanatics. These ideas are, perhaps, only the frenzy of a wild imagination, though there may be some lines that seem to favour the conceit.

Dryden and Addison have censured Butler for his double rhymes; the latter no where argues worse than upon this subject: "If," says he," the

66

thought in the couplet be good, the rhymes add "little to it; and if bad, it will not be in the

power of rhyme to recommend it; I am afraid "that great numbers of those who admire the "incomparable Hudibras, do it more on account "of these doggrel rhymes, than the parts that "really deserve admiration." This reflection affects equally all sorts of rhyme, which certainly can add nothing to the sense; but double rhymes are like the whimsical dress of Harlequin, which does not add to his wit, but sometimes encreases the humour and drollery of it: they are not sought for, but, when they come easily, are always diverting they are so seldom found in Hudibras, as hardly to be an object of censure, especially as

the diction and the rhyme both suit well with the character of the hero.

It must be allowed that our poet doth not exhibit his hero with the dignity of Cervantes; but the principal fault of the poem is, that the parts are unconnected, and the story not interesting: the reader may leave off without being anxious for the fate of his hero; he sees only disjecti membra poetæ ; but we should remember, that the parts were published at long intervals, and that several of the different cantos were designed as satires on different subjects or extravagancies. What the judicious Abbé du Bos has said respecting Ariosto, may be true of Butler, that, in comparison with him, Homer is a geometrician: the poem is seldom read a second time, often not a first in regular order; that is, by passing from the first canto to the second, and so on in succession. Spenser, Ariosto, and Butler, did not live in an age of planning; the last imitated the former poets-" his poetry is the careless exuberance of " a witty imagination and great learning."

Fault has likewise been found, and perhaps justly, with the too frequent elisions, the harshness of the numbers, and the leaving out the signs

The Epistle to Sidrophel, not till many years after the canto to which it is annexed.

of our substantives; his inattention to grammar and syntax, which, in some passages, may have contributed to obscure his meaning, as the perplexity of others arises from the amazing fruitfulness of his imagination, and extent of his reading. Most writers have more words than ideas, and the reader wastes much pains with them, and gets little information or amusement. Butler, on the contrary, has more ideas than words, his wit and learning crowd so fast upon him, that he cannot find room or time to arrange them; hence his periods become sometimes embarrassed and obscure, and his dialogues are too long. Our poet has been charged with obscenity, evil-speaking, and profaneness; but satirists will take liberties. Juvenal, and that elegant poet Horace, must plead his cause, so far as the accusation is well founded.

Some apology may be necessary, or expected, when a person advanced in years, and without the proper qualifications, shall undertake to publish, and comment upon, one of the most learned and ingenious writers in our language; and, if the editor's true and obvious motives will not avail to excuse him, he must plead guilty. The frequent pleasure and amusement he had received from the perusal of the poem, naturally bred a respect