REMARKS

BY

J. AIKIN, M.D.

DR. JOHNSON in his observations upon Cowley's poetry has put forth all his strength; and it would be difficult in the whole compass of critical writing to find an example of more acuteness and comprehension than he has displayed in his account of the Metaphysical Poets. The exact appropriation of the epithet (which he borrowed from Dryden) may, however, be called in question. Metaphysical notions exclusively belong to intellect, and stand in opposition to the images derived from sensible objects. But these writers, although they made great use of the abstract ideas and speculations of the schools -which was particularly the case with Donne, the most learned of the class-yet by no means rejected any object of similitude or illustration

that came in their way, whencesoever derived. The perpetual search after such objects was, indeed, their distinguishing characteristic, as Dr. Johnson has well observed; while he has at the same time fully remarked the baneful effect of this propensity in precluding every natural sentiment or image which their subjects might have suggested. In this enumeration of these poets, it seems extraordinary that the name of Milton should be inserted merely on account of his sportive lines upon Hobson. The catalogue might easily have been enlarged; and even Dryden might with justice have been included, since he was long under the dominion of a fondness for dazzling conceits and far-fetched imagery.

In his defence of Cowley from the charge brought against him by a rigid theologian, of having published "A book of profane and lasci"vious verses," the critic appears to have been somewhat swayed by that spirit of contradiction which at times influenced his argumentation. For he himself has afterwards censured the poet for a "light allusion to sacred things, by which

"readers far short of sanctity are frequently "offended, and which would not be borne in "the present age." This, surely, is justifying the epithet profane in the sense in which that writer probably used it. It may be added, that if the amorous poems of Cowley are too subtle and ingenious to be inflammatory, they are by no means free from licentious ideas and expressions.

The sentence Dr. Johnson has pronounced concerning the unfitness of scripture subjects for poetical embellishment, on account of the awe and submissive reverence with which the sacred writings are perused, seems rather to be dictated by the spirit of scrupulous and mistaken piety, than by just and philosophical thinking. It evidently adopts for its principle the notion of the full and equal divine inspiration of every part of the writings composing the canon of scripture, whether historical, preceptive, or prophetic; —a notion which few men of learning and liberal inquiry can now be supposed to hold. That all curiosity respecting these topics is suppressed, because there is already what is "sufficient for

"the purposes of religion," is surely a very singular and narrow sentiment. Who would not rejoice at the recovery of some of those historical records which are expressly mentioned as containing at large, facts only given in abridgment by the extant Jewish writers? And what reader of the Bible, not destitute of common feeling, will concur in the critic's assertion, that the effect of the theocratical system is to prevent us from readily sympathising in the joys and griefs of those who lived under it? That mind must indeed be strangely impressed with the character of theocracy, which is rendered incapable of being interested by the natural circumstances in the adventures of Joseph or David. That the intermixture of poetical fiction in such narrations is a matter of much delicacy, will readily be acknowledged; since if the additions are not perfectly conformable to the original ground-work, they will prove offensive to those who are firm believers in the authenticity and importance of the scriptural records. But there seems no reason why the amplifications and ornaments usual in sober epick poetry should not be as admissible in a subject of Jewish history,

as in one of any other. Dr. Johnson was not, perhaps, aware at the time of writing, what a sweeping clause in critical legislation he was propounding, and how many fine works were involved in his condemnation. The particular merit of the "Davideis" is quite another consideration; and it appears to have been estimated by the critic with his usual perspicacity. Cowley's genius was, indeed, altogether unsuitable to the epick. His place is among the ingenious poets, and he may justly rank the first in his class.