_On the honourable_ SIMON HARCOURT, _only son of the lord chancellor_ HARCOURT, _at the church of Stanton-Harcourt, in Oxfordshire_, 1720. To this sad shrine, whoe'er thou art, draw near, Here lies the friend most lov'd, the son most dear: Who ne'er knew joy, but friendship might divide, Or gave his father grief but when he died. How vain is reason, eloquence how weak! If Pope must tell what Harcourt cannot speak. Oh! let thy once-lov'd friend inscribe thy stone, And with a father's sorrows mix his own! This epitaph is principally remarkable for the artful introduction of the name, which is inserted with a peculiar felicity, to which chance must concur with genius, which no man can hope to attain twice, and which cannot be copied but with servile imitation. I cannot but wish that, of this inscription, the two last lines had been omitted, as they take away from the energy what they do not add to the sense. IV. ON JAMES CRAGGS, ESQ. _In Westminster Abbey._ JACOBVS CRAGGS, REGI MAGNAE BRITANNIAE A SECRETIS ET CONSILIIS SANCTIORIBVS PRINCIPIS PARITER AC POPVLI AMOR ET DELICIAE VIXIT TITVLIS ET INVIDIA MAJOR, ANNOS HEV PAVCOS, XXXV. OB. FEB. XVI. MDCCXX. Statesman, yet friend to truth! of soul sincere, In action faithful, and in honour clear! Who broke no promise, serv'd no private end, Who gain'd no title, and who lost no friend; Ennobled by himself, by all approv'd, Prais'd, wept, and honour'd, by the muse he lov'd. The lines on Craggs were not originally intended for an epitaph; and, therefore, some faults are to be imputed to the violence with which they are torn from the poem that first contained them. We may, however, observe some defects. There is a redundancy of words in the first couplet: it is superfluous to tell of him, who was _sincere, true_, and _faithful_, that he was _in honour clear_. There seems to be an opposition intended in the fourth line, which is not very obvious: where is the relation between the two positions, that he _gained no title_ and _lost no friend_? It may be proper here to remark the absurdity of joining, in the same inscription, Latin and English, or verse and prose. If either language be preferable to the other, let that only be used; for no reason can be given why part of the information should be given in one tongue, and part in another, on a tomb, more than in any other place, or any other occasion; and to tell all that can be conveniently told in verse, and then to call in the help of prose, has always the appearance of a very artless expedient, or of an attempt unaccomplished. Such an epitaph resembles the conversation of a foreigner, who tells part of his meaning by words, and conveys part by signs. V. INTENDED FOR MR. ROWE. _In Westminster Abbey_[154].