Speech, so are we by a cold Description, unless very concise.

But as those Poets whose Minds have delighted in Pastoral Images have
always been Men of Pleasurable Fancies, and who never would bring their
Minds under the Regulation of Art; all who have touch'd Pastoral the
finest have egregiously offended in this Particular. The only Writers, I
think, who have ever had Genius's form'd for Pastoral Images, are _Ovid_
and _Spencer_; which appear's from the _Metamorphoses_ of the first, and
the _Fairy-Queen_ of the latter. As for _Theocritus_, he seem's to me
to be better in the Pastoral Thought than Image; and as I rank together
_Ovid_ and _Spencer_, so I put _Theocritus_ in the same Class with
_Otway_. And I think any one of these Four, if he had form'd his Mind
aright by Art, (that is, had either thoroughly understood Criticism
in all it's Branches, or else never vitiated his natural Genius by any
Learning) was capable of giving the World a perfect Sett of Pastorals.
The former two would have run most upon beautiful Images, and the latter
two upon Agreeable Thoughts.

I need not instance in the tedious Descriptions of _Theocritus_, _Ovid_
and _Spencer_. But certainly, if long Descriptions are faulty in Epick
Poetry, as they prevent the Curiosity of the Reader, and leave him
nothing to invent, or to imploy his own Mind upon, they are in
Pastoral much more disagreeable. Tho' if any thing would excuse a
long Description, there is in _Ovid_ and _Spencer_, that inimitable
Delightfulness, which would make 'em pass. Virgil has no Descriptions in
his Pastorals so long as Spencer, and Heavens deliver us if he had; for
as 'tis, I can better read the longest of _Spencer_'s, than the shortest
of his, in his Pastorals.