when writing of Dr. Watts, he

says,

"His devotional

poetry is, like that of all others, unsatisfactory. The paucity of the topics causes the necessity of perpetual repetition; while the sanctity of the matter rejects the ornaments of figurative diction." How this singularly acute and very learned man could bring himself to be satisfied with such views as are these of sacred, or rather devotional, poetry, I cannot

the fair inference from this fact would seem to be, that they really are what they so generally are thought to have been. And then comes the question as to the cause or reason of their acknowledged superiority over their successors. The learned and excellent Doctor gives several reasons for this, which, whether taken singly or collectively, do not, as I presume to think, properly meet the difficulty. Instead of referring the superiority of the "most ancient poets" to the fact of their purer morals and their greater simplicity of manners (which undoubtedly made them much the better qualified or fitted to receive "light from Heaven"), and then accounting for their poetical supremacy by the fact of their moral state being peculiarly favourable to the reception of divine illumination, he makes the following observations:-" Whether it be that every other kind of knowledge is an acquisition gradually attained, and poetry is a gift conferred at once; or that the first poetry of every nation surprised them as a novelty, and retained the credit by consent which it received by accident; or whether as the province of poetry is to describe nature and passion, which are always the same-the first writers took possession of the most striking objects for description, and the most probable occurrences for fiction, and left nothing to those that followed them but transcription of the same events, and new combinations of the same images-whatever be the reason, it is commonly observed that the early writers are in possession of Nature, and their followers, of Art: that the first excel in strength, and the latter in elegance and refinement."

66

With these conjectures the good and learned Doctor dismisses the subject in question. How far the reasons that he adduces for the admitted superiority of the earliest, or most ancient" poets, over their successors, may be acceptable to the reader, is not for me to determine. For myself, however, I am forced to state, that they do not seem to be of a satisfactory character; especially when I consider the vast mental powers and literary acquirements of the great man who advanced them.

understand, nor, indeed, so much as barely conjecture. Dr. Johnson was doubtless aware that poetry, in the earlier ages of the world, was applied almost exclusively to religious or devotional uses. He could not be ignorant that some of the noblest poetry extant, viz., that contained in the Bible, is on religious subjects; nor could he be unaware that some of the sublimest portions of this poetry are wholly of a devotional kind or character. In many of the Psalms, for example, there is a union of the most magnificent verse with the most fervent expression of devout feeling. There are also the songs of the blessed spirits in Heaven, to which I have already adverted, and these could hardly have escaped the Doctor's notice. But it is possible that, had he been reminded of this evidence, he would have turned aside or diminished its force, by saying that the poetry of the Scriptures was composed under the influence of a plenary inspiration, which influence has long ceased to be afforded. This answer, however, cannot be at all satisfactory, inasmuch as it assumes the very point in question-thus precluding all investigation or discussion, and dismissing the subject with a mere assertion. If, however, this question were allowed to be thus summarily settled, there would still remain sufficient cause to dissent from the Doctor's opinion concerning devotional poetry. For instance, it may fairly be questioned whether there really is that "paucity of topics" suited to this description of verse, of which the

66

venerable Doctor speaks; while it remains equally questionable that the "sanctity" of these topics rejects the ornaments of figurative diction." Holding the opinions which I do respecting the origin, the nature, and the uses of poetry, I should, without any previous reasoning or preparatory inquiry, be expecting to find that the devotional poet is peculiarly happy in regard both to the number and the variety of the topics suitable for his high and holy purposes; and that such is the fact is, as I venture to think, too evident to require any laboured proof. Devotional poetry embraces, as I believe, a greater variety of subjects than can readily be made available for the purposes of the merely secular poet. It includes all that is either elevating to the mind or purifying to the heart. For instance: the nature and the perfections of the Deity; the wonders of the visible universe; the character, the condition, and the destiny, of all sentient beings; the whole compass of human experience (whether of enjoyment or suffering) in time and in eternity; the entire scheme and conduct of the divine Providence (in reference both to all worlds and all creatures); together with the stupendous work of human redemption :-these are some, and but some, of the subjects pertaining to sacred poetry; and as each of them is almost-if not, indeed, quite-inexhaustible, it is evident that there can be no paucity of topics adapted to the purposes of the religious or devotional poet.

If, then, there be no such paucity, there can be no "necessity for perpetual repetition ;" and, therefore, if this repetition occurs more frequently in devotional or sacred poetry than in that of any other kind, it would seem to be the fault of the poet, and not of his subject. But it may fairly be questioned whether it does thus occur at all more frequently in any devotional or sacred compositions that either aspire to the rank, or deserve the name of, poetryfor, of course, no one who is capable of judging in this matter would think of including every religious composition bearing the shape of verse under this denomination. The truth of this assertion, might, perhaps, be proved by a comparison of the very poems which gave occasion for the Doctor's remark, with some others, to which he would probably have awarded the palm of considerable merit on account of their variety. I am fearful of seeming to be presumptuous in venturing to express an opinion upon such a subject; yet I cannot help thinking that there is far more of sameness-amounting sometimes to almost a positive repetition-in Homer's Iliad (especially in many of the similies, and in the descriptions of the manner in which the combatants were either wounded or killed), than is to be found in the devotional poetical compositions of Dr. Watts.

As to the other objection, viz., that devotional poetry "rejects the ornaments of figurative diction," it seems difficult to perceive on what grounds it is founded, or by what process of reasoning Dr. John

son arrived at such a conclusion. If, however, he refers only to that species of embellishment which is derived from the heathen mythology, I must concur with him; as there can be no question that the devotional poetry of Christianity both does, and evermore must, reject it; since its dignity and its sanctity would be alike compromised by being brought into contact with what are called classical images. These are far too puerile or too fanciful, and, not unfrequently, too impure, for so holy an association.

But, if the venerable Doctor means to affirm that religious poetry rejects either the magnificent or the beautiful illustrations which, in countless numbers and in endless variety, are derivable from both the material and the moral world, I not only question this altogether, but shall endeavour to establish a directly contrary opinion. In attempting this, I shall depend less upon abstract* reasoning than upon suitable examples, accompanied by such remarks as they may severally appear to require, in order to

Since writing these remarks, I have found, in Dr. Johnson's own words, an implied (if not, indeed, a direct) answer to what he has said elsewhere concerning devotional poetry. The passage to which I refer is in his very beautiful tale of "Rasselas" (chap. 10): "To a poet nothing can be useless. Whatever is beautiful, and whatever is dreadful, must be familiar to his imagination; he must be conversant with all that is awfully vast, or elegantly little. The plants of the garden--the animals of the wood-the minerals of the earth-and the meteors of the sky, must all concur to store his mind with inexhaustible variety; for every idea is useful for the enforcement or decoration of moral or religious truth; and he who knows most will have most power of diversifying his scenes, and of gratifying his reader with remote allusions and unexpected instruction."