Coventry Patmore [pp. 415-419]

Coventry Patmore.
delicacy of feeling. Spenser in his
"iHymns" has attained more of this lat ter quality than any of his predecessors.
Yet in the first two, "An Hymne in hon our of Love," and "An Ilymne in hon our of Beautie," even he has not risen
above the beauty of mere form and fea ture. And when in contrition for the
production of these "lewd lays," he determined to write such as should be un exceptionable in sentiment, he took no
pure earthly love; his remaining IIymns
exhibit their subjects in their titles:
"An Iymne of Heavenly Love," "An
Hymne of Heavenly Beautie." Yet it
would be instructive to compare these
" Hymnes" with the poems of Mr. Pat more. They are short; they attempt no
very laborious description; they are not
remarkable among the works of Spenser;
but they exhibit more imagination, more
fancy, more heavenly frenzy, than are
to be found in all the others. We say
this, not in disparagement of the modern
poet, whose excellencies we have already
stated, but to illustrate the remark made
at the outset, that our modern rhythmical literature is remarkable rather for
justness of thought than for imagination.
But Mr. Patmore's poems, as contributions to literature, supply the defects
of preceding love-poetry. And while we
miss the thrilling conceptions of the
older poets, we recognize the purity and
religious devotion which were not theirs.
We must not, however, forget that philosophy can never take the place of poetry. It is not the business of the
" bard," we suggest, to instruct us. We
have not only minds to be developed.
We unfortunately need something more
than bare statements of duty. We are
apt to forget this when comparisons between ancient and modern poetry present
the superior scientific accuracy of the
latter. The divorce of the True and the
Beautiful is unfortunate, if it be necessary; but one is no less important to us
than the other.
The originality which we accord to
Mr. Patmore, lies in this chaste and aeon
curate analysis of Love. The older
poets addressed themselves to the God or
pure and gente ae feeling. They treat
th eir subject, love, with the utmost delicacy and highmindedness. They present a better analysis of the emotion
than we remember to have seen elsewh ere at all. They abound with useful
practical thought, tersely expr essed, and
the principles they develope are broad
and sound. And this is the extent of
the praise which can be accorded them.
We do not find the "thoughts that
breath and words that burn." We are
charmed with the neatness of the sentiment, but we are never carried away by
the divine fury. We are constantly compelled to acknowledge the justness, the
keenness of thought; we are never lifted
into the atmosphere of rapture. Indeed,
the poet seems to aspire to the praise
rather of an instructor.
If he has aimed to speak in high and
noble terms of Love, to develope its real
influence on our human nature, to divest
it of all unworthy accompaniments, to
quicken in men's hearts p ur e and ennobling ideas, then we cheerfully adjudge him the re w ard.
T he poems may ly a claim to a c ertain
amount of originality. The general subject, indeed, is h ardly new, since perhaps
not onl y eve ry poet in the world, but
every man, at some stage of his career,
has opened his soul to the inspirations of
the god. Sappho and Ferdusi, Ovid
and some famous Chinese poet, Catullus
and Tom Moore, h av e sever ally given utterance in their various tongues to what
is perhaps t he lowest presentation of the
subject. IHardly in a single case have
any of these risen above the merely
sensual passion. There is hence a remarkable similarity in their productions.
They have none of them attempted an
analysis of the passion. Thev have described its patent effects, and especially
mourned over its sorrows, but no more.
It is a pity that their glowing pictures
should be devoid of real depth and
416
[JUNP,
11 1, servai-it to the Truth in times
When gaudy words are more than wit,
And diligent in all my rliyi-nes,
The truth with truest phrase to fit," &c.