Their  metaphors  are  taken  from  things  of  the  same
class,  not  from  things  of  different  classes ;  the  general
analogy,  not  the  individual  feeling,  directs  them  in
their  choice.  Hence,  as  Dr.  Johnson  observed,  their
similes  are  either  repetitions  of  the  same  idea,  or  so
obvious  and  general  as  not  to  lend  any  additional
force  to  it ;  as  when  a  huntress  is  compared  to  Diana,
or  a  warrior  rushing  into  battle  to  a  lion  rushing  on
his  prey.  Their  forte  was  exquisite  art  and  perfect
imitation.  Witness  their  statues  and  other  things  of


ON  THE  CHARACTER  OF  BURKE    171

the  same  kind.  But  they  had  not  that  high  and
enthusiastic  fancy  which  some  of  our  own  writers
have  shown.  For  the  proof  of  this,  let  any  one
compare  Milton  and  Shakspeare  with  Homer  and
Sophocles,  or  Burke  with  Cicero.
It  may  be  asked  whether  Burke  was  a  poet.  He
was  so  only  in  the  general  vividness  of  his  fancy,  and
in  richness  of  invention.  There  may  be  poetical
passages  in  his  works,  but  I  certainly  think  that  his
writings  in  general  are  quite  distinct  from  poetry ;  and
that  for  the  reason  before  given,  namely,  that  the
subject-matter  of  them  is  not  poetical.  The  finest
part  of  them  are  illustrations  or  personifications  of
dry  abstract  ideas;1  and  the  union  between  the  idea
and  the  illustration  is  not  of  that  perfect  and  pleasing
kind  as  to  constitute  poetry,  or  indeed  to  be  admis-
sible, but  for  the  effect  intended  to  be  produced  by
it;  that  is,  by  every  means  in  our  power  to  give
animation  and  attraction  to  subjects  in  themselves
barren  of  ornament,  but  which  at  the  same  time  are
pregnant  with  the  most  important  consequences,  and
in  which  the  understanding  and  the  passions  are
equally  interested.
