"contrarily blames him in harsh terms for having "vitiated his native speech by whole cartloads of "foreign words. But he that reads the works of "Gower will find smooth numbers and easy "rhymes, of which Chaucer is supposed to have "been the inventor, and the French words, whether "good or bad, of which Chaucer is charged as the "importer. Some innovations he might probably "make, like others, in the infancy of our poetry, "which the paucity of books does not allow us to "discover with particular exactness; but the works "of Gower and Lydgate sufficiently evince, that "his diction was in general like that of his con"temporaries: and some improvements he un"doubtedly made by the various dispositions of "his rhymes, and by the mixture of different "numbers, in which he seems to have been happy "and judicious."

This compendious piece of criticism contains a full refutation of Skinner's very absurd charge, at the same time that the severe and unnecessary censure on Dryden exhibits a strong instance of the very haste and inaccuracy which it condemns. It is scarcely credible that Dryden, while he was employed in paraphrasing the Knight's Tale, and the Flower and the Leaf, which are perhaps the most finished specimens of his poetry, and at the same time very faithful copies of his original,

should have intirely neglected to consult the con temporary poets whose works were necessary to the explanation of Chaucer's language. Perhaps he was likely to read them in search of those beauties which tradition reported them to contain, and which he might hope to appropriate without detection. Dryden, indeed, who was condemned to write in haste, had not leisure, perhaps he would not have had patience, to consult the various manuscripts of his author, and to compare Chaucer with himself and with the obscure versifiers who preceded him: his opinion, therefore, is inaccurate; but he is mistaken in his censure, not in his encomium.

The researches of Mr. Tyrwhitt have proved what Dryden denied, viz. that Chaucer's versification, wherever his genuine text is preserved, was uniformly correct; although the harmony of his lines has in many instances been obliterated by the changes that have taken place in the mode of accenting our language. But Chaucer's reputation as an improver of our versification principally rests on the invention (or at least on the first adoption) of the ten-syllable or heroic verse, of that verse which has been employed by every poet of eminence from Spenser to Dr. Johnson, and in which its original inventor has left many specimens, both in the Knight's Tale and in the Р

VOL. I.

Flower and the Leaf, which Dryden despaired of improving.

With respect to Chaucer's language, it is impossible not to feel some disappointment at the cautious and doubtful opinion delivered by the author of our national dictionary, and delivered in the introduction to that truly noble monument of his genius. That Chaucer "might probably make some innova"tions," and that "his diction was in general like "that of his contemporaries," we should have conjectured without Dr. Johnson's assistance; because a writer of genius and learning will be likely to make some innovations in a barbarous language, but, in so doing, will not choose to become quite unintelligible. From a critic so intimately acquainted with the mechanism of language we should have expected to learn, whether Chaucer had in any degree added to the precision of our English idiom by improvements of its syntax, or to its harmony by the introduction of more sonorous words; or whether he was solely indebted for the beauty and perspicuity of his style to that happy selection of appropriate expressions which distinguishes every writer of original thinking and real genius.

All Chaucer's immediate successors, those who studied him as their model, Hoccleve, Lydgate, King James I. &c. speak with rapture of the

elegance and splendour of his diction. He is "the "flower of eloquence;" "superlative in elo"quence;" his words are "the gold dew-drops of "speech." Such exaggerated praises certainly imply an enthusiastic though, perhaps, absurd admiration; and, as these poets would probably attempt to imitate what they considered as eminently beautiful, it seems likely that an examination of their style must enable us to discover what they considered as the improvements introduced by Chaucer.

Now the characteristics of our poetry during, the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries are an exuberance of ornament, and an affectation of Latinity, neither of which peculiarities are to be found in Robert of Gloucester, Robert de Brunne, Minot, Langland, or indeed in any of the poets anterior to Chaucer. This, therefore, may be supposed to be what Chaucer himself and his successors meant by what they called an ornate style, of which the following stanza, extracted from the Court of Love, is a curious specimen.

Honour to thee, celestial and clear,
Goddess of love, and to thy celsitude,

That giv'st us light so far down from thy sphere,
Piercing our heartes with thy pulchritude!

Comparison none of similitude

May to thy grace be made in no degree,
That hast us set with love in unity.

[St. 88. fol. 330. ed. 1602.]

It is not meant that this is an example of Chaucer's usual style; indeed no poet is, in general, more free from pedantry: but the attentive reader will find that in the use of words of Latin derivation, most of which are common to the French and Italian languages, he very generally prefers the inflections of the latter, either as thinking them more sonorous, or because they are nearer to the original; and that in his descriptive poetry he is very fond of multiplying his epithets, and of copying all the other peculiarities of the Italian poetry (from which his favourite metre is unquestionably derived), with the view of "refining our numbers, and improving our language, by words borrowed from "the more polished languages of the Continent."

With respect to his success in these endea vours there has been a considerable difference of opinion; but he has been most admired by those who were best qualified to appreciate his merit. Spenser, his warmest panegyrist, had studied him with very minute and particular attention; and though many readers will not concur with him in