Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

But in magnanimous meekness. France, 'tis strange
Has brought forth no such souls as we had then.
Perpetual emptiness! unceasing change!
No single volume paramount, no code,
No master spirit, no determined road;
But equally a want of books and men !

Of the Miscellaneous Sonnets, two-thirds of which are pure gold, we quote only the beautiful sonnet on the departure of Sir Walter Scott from Abbotsford, for Naples :

A trouble, not of clouds, or weeping rain,
Nor of the setting Sun's pathetic light
Engender'd, hangs o'er Eildon's triple height.
Spirits of power, assembled there, complain
For kindred power departing from their sight;
While Tweed, best pleased in chanting a blithe strain,
Saddens his voice again, and yet again.

Lift up your hearts, ye mourners! for the might
Of the whole world's good wishes with him goes:
Blessings and prayers in nobler retinue

Than sceptred king or laurelled conqueror knows,
Follow this wondrous potentate. Be true,

Ye winds of ocean and the midland sea,

Wafting your charge to soft Parthenope!

Coleridge wrote but few sonnets, but they are among the most admirable of the fragments of his poetic genius. Most of them are political, celebrating some one of his favorite heroes, Burke, Priestley, Erskine, Sheridan, Kosciusko, Lafayette. The remainder are of a wholly personal nature, full either of early aspiration, or maturer despondency; cheerful and ardent, or instinct with a mild yet manly melancholy. The two we extract, are typical of the different traits we have mentioned.

Here is that noble address,

TO THE AUTHOR OF THE ROBBERS.

Schiller! that hour I would have wished to die,
If through the shuddering midnight I had sent
From the dark dungeon of the tower time-rent,
That fearful voice, a famished father's cry-
Lest in some after moment, aught more mean
Might stamp me mortal! A triumphant shout
Black horror screamed, and all her goblin rout
Diminished shrunk from the more withering scene!
Ah, bard! tremendous in simplicity!

Could I behold thee in thy loftier mood
Wandering at eve with finely-frenzied eye

Beneath some vast old tempest-swinging wood?
Awhile with mute awe gazing I would brood:
Then weep aloud in a wild ecstasy.

This in a different vein. It is in reply "to a friend who asked how I felt when the nurse first presented my infant to me."

Charles! my slow heart was only sad, when first

I scanned that face of feeble infancy :

For dimly on my thoughtful spirit burst
All I had been, and all my child might be !

But when I saw it on its mother's arm,

And hanging at her bosom (she the while

Bent o'er its features with a tearful smile),

Then I was thrilled, and melted, and most warm
Impressed a father's kiss; and all beguiled
Of dark remembrance and presageful fear,
I seemed to see an angel form appear-
"Twas even thine, beloved woman mild!
So for the mother's sake the child was dear,
And dearer was the mother for the child.

With Keats we close our very slight sketch of writers of the sonnet. A late article in Arcturus Magazine (Dec., 1841), has done him true poetic justice. To this delicate appreciation of the young English Poet, as Hunt affectionately calls him, we can add nothing, but only contribute a hearty assent. The hour has come at last for Keats, that always comes to the true poet. A brother bard (J. R. Lowell) whose first volume contains passages and poems Keats would have been willing to acknowledge, and whose own delicate genius enables him to appreciate a cognate talent, has done honor to the English bard in stanzas, that put to the blush all prose criticisms. Poets should criticise each other, or rather be the most intelligent admirers of their respective talents. A critic is "of understanding all compact," and wants imagination to relish the finest touches. "The words of Mercury are harsh after the songs of Apollo."

IX.

JEREMY TAYLOR, THE SPENSER OF DIVINITY.

A POET should be the critic of Jeremy Taylor, for he was one himself, and hence needs a poetic mind for his interpreter and eulogist. Bald criticism becomes still more barren (by contrast) when exercised on the flowery genius of the prince of pulpit orators. Taylor thought in pictures, and his ideas were shadowed out in lively images of beauty. His fancy colored his understanding, which rather painted elaborate

metaphors, "long drawn out," than analyzed the complexity of a problem, or conducted the discussion of a topic, by logical processes. The material world furnished his stock of similes. He drew on it for illustrations, rather than seek them in the workings of his own mind. His descriptions are almost palpable. They have an air of reality. His landscape is enveloped in a warm and glowing atmosphere; his light is "from heaven." His style is rich and luxuriant. He is all grace, beauty, melody. He does not appear so anxious to get at the result of an argument, to fix the certainty of a proposition, as to give the finest coloring to a received sentiment. He is more descriptive and less speculative. He reposes on the lap of beauty. "He revels in her creations. The thirst of his soul was for the beautiful. This was with him almost synonymous with the good-" the first good and the first fair." Is it not so? Is not the highest truth the highest form of beauty? Our common idea of beauty is more sensual and tinged with earthliness. But the platonic and spiritual conception is nobler and truer.

There was a period when the volumes of Taylor lay comparatively neglected: when the Blair taste was dominant. This sensible but cold critic does not even refer to Taylor in his lecture on pulpit eloquence. The present race of critics' unlike Blair, are for elevating Taylor as the very first of orators. Of pulpit orators, he is, indeed, the Chrysostom; but Burke holds the first, the highest place of all orators. With the poet's imagination, he had also the logician's art and the deep reflection of the philosopher. Burke had less multifarious acquisition, and his intellect worked all the better. Taylor had a vast quantity of useless learning, which had the ill-effect of inducing a certain laxity of belief. I mean laxity in a good sense. He was too credulous. His faith as well as

his memory was equally tenacious of all statements, whether well or ill-founded. Bishop Heber notices this individual character of Taylor in his life.

Undoubtedly, Taylor is a first-rate genius of the descriptive kind. His strength lay in that; and his range, too, was universal. He painted every scene and every varying phase of any one. He is Claude, Rubens, Rembrandt and Raphael combined. He unites softness, richness, depth of shadow, and pure beauty.

Taylor has been called the "Shakspeare of Divinity"- a parallel that requires some limitation. If, by this, it be meant that, compared with other preachers, he had a richer fancy, greater copiousness of poetic sentiment, and an unequalled profusion of beautiful metaphor, the praise is just; but if it be intended to express that, like Shakspeare, he was gifted with an union of wonderful and various powers, almost superhuman, the criticism is extravagant, if not absurd. For, in his printed works, we can find not a gleam of wit or humor -scarcely any talent for portrait-painting-no profound depth of reflection-no nice observation of real life. We say this with no intention of undervaluing Taylor; but only to show the folly of any close comparison between him and Shakspeare. We would rather say, Taylor was the Spenser of Divinity. With Spenser, Taylor is eminently a descriptive writer. His imagination is pictorial; and, although without the allegory of Spenser, he has the same bland amenity of sentimentthe same untiring particularity of description-the same angelic purity of thought-the same harmonious structure of composition.

Taylor is the painter: inferior to Barrow in point of reason, and to Clark in reasoning; without a tithe of South's wit or epigrammatic smartness: less ingenious than Donne: he has

« PředchozíPokračovat »