When  the  reader  looks  at  my  words  he  will
think  so  too,  and  be  convinced  that  they  were
omitted  purposely.  I  will  not  say  here,  as  in  some
other  passages,  Oh!  Te9  Dermotte,  cerebri!  but

*  See  that  delectable  History,  "  Sir  Andrew  Wylie."


ask,  Where,  in  the  words  of  that  arch  wag,  FOOTE,
do  you  think  you  shall  go  when  you  die,  Martin?
Further,  if  one  subject  be  not,  per  se,  more  poe-
tical than  another,  I  would  at>k  Mr.  CAMPBELI/S
oracle  this  question,  Which  does  his  sapience
suppose  to  be  the  finest  subject  for  tragedy,  Mac-
beth, or  "  a  mouse-trap  ?"  If  you  say  the  mouse-
trap, the  boys,  as  JOHNSON  says,  "  would  throw
"  stones  at  you!"  If  you  say  that  Macbeth,  as  a
subject  is,  per  se,  more  poetical  than  the  other,  we
agree!  You  will  reply,  "  Yes,"  but  one  man  can
write  better  on  the  subject  of  a,  mouse-trap,  than  the
other  on  Macbeth!  Good!  So  say  I,  otherwise
BLACKMORE  would  be  a  greater  poet  than  POPE!

Stop  a  minute,  and  do  not  leave  out  what  I  am
going  to  add ;  "  Suppose  SHAKESPEARE  himself
"  had  made  a  tragedy  on  the  mouse-trap,  executed
14  as  perfectly  as  such  a  pathetic  subject  of  trans-
"  cendental  art  could  be  executed  by  mortal  poet,
"  do  you  think  it  would  be  equally  poetical  as
"  Macbeth?"  Why  not  ?  Because  the  subject  of
one  is  "  more  adapted  to  the  highest  orders  of
"poetry"  than  the  other:  so  I  think,

Nisi  quid  tu,  docte  Trebate,

Dissentis !

I  have  quoted  a  specimen  of  the  veracity  and
ingenuity  of  this  "  wonderful"  oracle  of  the  New

•  "  What  do  you  call  the  play  J

"  The  Mouse-trap  i"  HamUt.
