Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

desire, and shedding a mild steadfast moonlight on the whole picture and scheme of things;—all this, and much more than all this, to be found in Roman Catholicism, is calculated to please the fancy or delight the taste, or to rouse and rivet the imagination. All this Milton, as well as Crashaw, understood and felt; but he had the intellectual strength and moral hardihood to resist their fascination. He entered the splendid Catholic temple, and he did not refuse his admiration, he bathed his brow in the “ dim religious light,” he praised the pictures, he was ravished with the music, but he did not remain to worship; he turned away in sorrow and in anger, saying, “It is iniquity, even the solemn meeting: your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.” Crashaw, on the other hand, seems, without a struggle, to have yielded to the soft seductions of the system, and was soon sighingly but luxuriously lost.

He is a strong man, but no Milton—nay, rather a strong man unnerved by perfumes and lulled with unhealthy opiates—who writes the following lines “in a prayer-book :".

“ Am'rous languishments, luminous trances,

Sights which are not seen with eyes,
Spiritual and soul-piercing glances,

Whose pure and subtle lightning flies
Home to the heart, and sets the house on fire,
And melts it down in sweet desire,

Yet doth not stay
To ask the windows' leave to pass that way.
Delicious deaths, soft exhalations
Of soul ! dear, and divine annihilations !

A thousand unknown rites

Of joys, and rarefied delights ;
An hundred thousand loves and graces,

And many a mystic thing,

Which the divine embraces

Of th' dear spouse of spirits with them will bring.” If our readers will turn to Shelley, and read his “Lines addressed to the noble and unfortunate Lady Emilia Vthey will find extremes meeting, and that the sceptical Shelley, and the Roman Catholic Crashaw, write, the one of earthly,

a

[ocr errors]

nay, illicit love, and the other of spiritual communion, in language marvellously similar both in beauty and extravagance. These two poets resembled each other in the weakness that was bound up with their strength. Their fault was an excess of the emotional—a morbid excitability and enthusiasm, which in Shelley, and probably in Crashaw too, sprung from a scrofulous habit and a consumptive tendency. Shelley's conception of love, however, is in general purer and more ideal than that of the other poet.

Crashaw's volume is a small one, and yet small as it is, it contains a good deal of that quaint and tricky conceit, which Johnson has called, by a signal misnomer, “ metaphysic." Crashaw, at least, has never mingled metaphysics with his poetry, although here and there he is as fantastic as Donne or Cowley, or any of the class. For instance, he writes thus on the text—" And he answered them nothing:"

“O mighty Nothing ! unto thee,
Nothing, we owe all things that be;
God spake once when he all things made,
He saved all when he nothing said.
The world was made by Nothing then;

'Tis made by Nothing now again. Johnson valued himself on his brief but vigorous account of the “Metaphysical Poets,” in his Life of Cowley. We think, however, with all deference to his high critical authority, that not only has he used the word "metaphysical” in an arbitrary and inapposite sense, but that he has besides confounded wit with perverted ingenuity, and very much under-rated the genius of the men. He calls them, after Dryden,"wits, not poets,” but if wit is almost always held to signify a sudden perception of analogies more or less recondite, along with a TENDENCY to the ludicrous, then these writers have very little of the quality indeed. They see and shew remote analogies, but the analogies are too remote or too grave to excite any laughable emotion. Coming from far—coming as captives—and coming violently chained together in pairs, they produce rather wonder, tinctured with melancholy, than that vivid delight which creates smiles, if it does not explode into laughter.

а

Sometimes, indeed, the conceits produce a ridiculous effect, but this arises rather from their absurdity than their wit. Who can laugh, however, at such lines as these describing God harmonising the chaos ? —

“ Water and air he for the Tenor chose,

Earth made the Base-the Treble flame arose."

But apart from their perverted ingenuity, their straining after effect, their profusion of small and often crooked points, and their desire to shew their learning, these writers had undoubtedly high imagination. Cowley, in his poetry and in his prose, has given undeniable evidences of a genius at once versatile, elegant, and powerful—nay, we venture to uphold the great poetical merit of some of the lines Johnson quotes from him to condemn—of the following for example :

“ His bloody eyes he hurls round ; his sharp paws
Tear up the ground—then runs he wild about,
Lashing his angry tail, and roaring out;
Beasts creep into their dens, and tremble there.
Trees, though no wind is stirring, shake for fear;
Silence and horror fill the place around,

Echo itself dares scarce repeat the sound. These are bold metaphors, but they are not conceits. We feel them to rise naturally out of, and exactly to measure the majesty of the theme, not like conceits, to be arbitrarily embossed upon the shield of a subject, without any regard to its size, proportions, or general effect. We are happy to find De Quincy coinciding in part with our opinion of Johnson's criticism. Let us hear him speaking with a special reference to Donne: “Dr Johnson inconsiderately calls him and Cowley, &c., metaphysical poets, but rhetorical would have been a more accurate designation. In saying that, however, we revert to the original use of the word rhetoric, as laying the principal stress upon the management of the thoughts, and only a secondary one upon the ornaments of style. Few writers have shewn a more extraordinary compass of powers than Donne, for he contbined the last sublimation of dialectical subtlety and address with the most impassioned majesty. Many diamonds compose the very substance of his poem on the Metempsychosis, thoughts and descriptions which have the fervent and gloomy sublimity of Ezekiel or Eschylus, whilst a diamond dust of rhetorical brilliance is strewed over the whole of his occasional verses and his prose. No criticism was ever more unhappy than that of Dr Johnson, which denounces all this artificial display as so much perversion of taste. There cannot be a falser thought than this, for upon that principle a whole class of compositions might be vicious by conforming to its own ideal. The artifice and machinery of rhetoric furnishes in its degree as legitimate a basis for intellectual pleasure as any other—that the pleasure is of an inferior order can no more attaint the idea or model of the composition, than it can impeach the excellence of an epigram that it is not a tragedy. Every species of composition is to be tried by its own laws.”

Here it will be noticed that De Quincy takes somewhat different ground from what we would take in reply to Johnson. He seems to think that Johnson principally objected to the manner of these writers, and he argues, very justly, that as professed rhetoricians they had a right to use the artifices of rhetoric, and none the less that they wrote in metre; and he might have maintained, besides, that finding a peculiar mode of writing in fashion, they were quite as justifiable in using it, If they did not caricature it, as in wearing the bag, sword, and ruffles of their day. But Johnson, besides, denied that these men were poets; he objected to the matter as well as the manner of their song; and here we join issue with him, nay, are ready to admit that they were often rhetorically faulty, even by their own standard, if it be granted that they possessed a real and sublime poetic genius. That De Quincy agrees with us in this belief, we are certain, but it was his part to defend them upon another and a lower basis of assault. The most powerful passage in Johnson's account of the Metaphysical Poets is that in which he denies their claims to sublimity. He says with great eloquence—“ The sublime was not within their reach--they never attempted that comprehension and expanse of mind, which at once filled the whole mind, and of which the first effect is sudden astonishment, and the second rational admiration. Sublimity is produced by aggregation, and littleness by dispersion. Great thoughts are always general, and consist in positions not limited by exceptions, and in descriptions not descending to minuteness. It is with great propriety that subtlety, which in its original import means exility of particles, is taken, in its metaphorical meaning, for nicety of distinction. Those writers who lay on the watch for novelty could have little hope of greatness; for great things cannot have escaped former observation. Their attempts were always analytic; they broke every image into fragments, and could no more represent, by their slender conceits

and laboured particularities, the prospects of nature or the scenes of life, than he who dissects a sunbeam with a prism can exhibit the wide effulgence of a summer's

noon."

a

In these remarks there is much truth as well as splendour; but Dr Johnson seems to forget that with all the elaborate pettiness of much in their writings—Cowley in portions of his “ Davideis;" Donne in his “ Metempsychosis; ” Crashaw in his “Sospetto d'Herode;" Quarles in a few of his “Emblems; and Herbert in certain parts of his “ Temple,” have, perhaps in spite of their own system, attained a rare grandeur of thought and language. He might have remembered, too, that in prose Jeremy Taylor and Sir Thomas Browne, who both sinned in over-subtlety and subdivision of thinking, and were “Metaphysical Prose Poets,” have both produced passages surpassed by nothing, even in Milton, for sublimity of imagination. He says “Great things cannot have escaped former observation;" but surely, although all men in all ages have seen the sun, theocean, the earth, and the stars, new aspects of them are often presenting themselves to the poetic eye: all men in all ages have seen the

but did all men from the beginning see him eclipsed at noonday in May 1836? all men have seen the stars, but have all looked through a Rossian telescope at the Moon, Mars, or Saturn? The truth is, Dr Johnson had great sympathy with the broad—the materially sublime and the colossally great; but, from a defect in eye

sun,

6

« AnteriorContinuar »