Arkadie; poteroi Pater epseusanto
Kretes aei pseustai; kai gar taphon, ho ana seio
Kretes etektenanto; su d' ou thanes; essi gar aiei.+
Callim. p. 4.]

It appears likewise from these shreds of antiquity, that the subjects of
the Hymn were not sufficiently limited, as we sometimes find one of them
addressed to several Deities, whose different functions recurring
constantly to the mind must have occasioned unavoidable obscurity[35].
The Poet by this means was led into numberless digressions, in which the
remote points of connection will be imperceptible to the reader, who
cannot place himself in some situation similar to that of the Writer,
and attend particularly to the character and manners of the period at
which he wrote.

[Footnote 35: Thus Theocritus.

+Humneomes Ledas. Te kai aigiocho Dios Huio,
Kastora kai phoberon Poludeukea pux erethizen
Humneomes kai Dis, kai to Triton.+]

Your Lordship, without the testimony of experience, would hardly believe
that a species of composition which derived its origin from, and owed
its peculiarities to the circumstances we have mentioned, could have
been considered in an happier aera as a pattern worthy the imitation of
cultivated genius, and the perusal of a polished and civilized people.
One is indeed ready to conclude, at the first view, that a mode of
writing which was assumed for a particular purpose, and was adopted to
the manners of an illiterate age, might at least have undergone
considerable alterations in succeeding periods, and might have received
improvements proportioned to those which are made in other branches of
the same art. But the fact is, that while the other branches of poetry
have been gradually modelled by the rules of criticism, the Ode hath
only been changed in a few external circumstances, and the enthusiasm,
obscurity and exuberance, which characterised it when first introduced,
continue to be ranked among its capital and discriminating excellencies.

To account for this phenomenon, my Lord, I need only remind your
Lordship of a truth which reflexion has, no doubt, frequently
suggested;--that the rules of criticism are originally drawen, not from
the speculative idea of perfection in an art, but from the work of that
Artist to whom either merit or accident hath appropriated the most
established character. From this position it obviously follows, that
such an art must arrive at once to its highest perfecti