I then shall view the cheerless earth As one dark desert wide. My soul may feel full many a care Though none should sadden thee, But save what thy dear breast may share No joy can smile for me! II. Ah, sweet one, e'en when thou wert nigh And fate had less of fear, Thy radiant features in mine eye, 'Tis strange how fitfully a crowd Of thoughts have crossed my brain, That made thy fairy form, a cloud, Thy voice, a sound of pain. III. The dreary darkness of despair My wayward bosom now! IV. Amid the gay deceitful throng Whose smiles insult the sad, I soon shall know each bitter wrong Oh! 'tis a fearful thing to feel In this cold world alone! V. And yet this wild and weary state To mix with those I scorn and hate, May'st smile on fashion's train, Who'll watch thee as men watch the star That lights them o'er the main. VI. Though reason bids me trust thy truth, At times rebellious fears Will tremble for thy guileless youth Besieged by sighs and tears; Be faithful and the same, When others breathe thy name. VII. The vows so fondly interchanged Each happy hour we met, But yet if we may meet again SONNET-THE PARTING*. SHE sees her lover yet!-From yon high tower, She knew not how she loved! Her soul was blind To half her hero's worth, and now can find Nor words nor signs to wreak her passion's power. The last embrace is o'er. Where yet she stands The lovers met and parted. Near her feet His empty sheath was thrown-a token meet * Written to illustrate an engraving in the Bengal Annual. ON FALSE CRITICISM BY TRUE POETS. THAT good poets are sometimes bad judges of excellence in their own art, may seem at first thought an untenable position, but it can easily be maintained by a reference to the history of literature. They sing with the tongues of angels, but they speak like mortals. When they quit their ethereal elevation and alight upon the common ground of criticism, they often stumble upon errors that are avoided by ordinary men. They are safer on their wings than on their feet. Notwithstanding their occasional inspiration, they are made of the same flesh and blood as other people, and are liable to the same prejudices and infirmities. Jealousy, envy, self-conceit, an exclusive cultivation of some particular department of his art, or a strong idiosyncracy of mind, or some early association, may as easily occasion an obliquity of judgment in the poet as in the mechanic. An author has an open or secret bias towards that branch of composition which he has most practised himself, and in which he is conscious that he best succeeds. This feeling too often influences his judgment upon the works of writers whose style and subject are essentially different from his own. To support his preferences, he invents or adopts certain theories or canons that would confine all literary merit within the narrow limits of his own sect or school. It is thus that the natural brotherhood of poets has been divided into innumerable parties which regard each other with avowed hostility and contempt. They are blinded to all excellence that is not in some degree akin to their own. When called upon for their judgment upon the poetry that is opposite to their favorite style, they are by no means to be trusted*. It is only when the production to be criticised is congenial to their own peculiar taste that they are ready to observe and appreciate the minutest beauties. "Fondly they think they honour merit then, When they but praise themselves in other men." It is this spirit of exclusiveness that is the besetting sin of poetcritics, as it is indeed of all men in their own particular arts. In this respect the poets are not worse than others. I am not now waging a war against those inspired benefactors of mankind. I should be ashamed indeed to be guilty of any thing so contrary to my nature. I merely wish to show that we must not too confidently adopt a poet's criticism upon poetry, though the world in general are apt to regard it as an authority that is no more to be disputed than a Papal Bull. In support of the foregoing remarks, I shall proceed to notice some of the most glaring mistakes of poetical critics ;-of the similar errors and absurdities of distinguished prose-writers, I shall say nothing upon this occasion. It would lead me into too wide a field. One of the most celebrated of the poet-critics of modern times was Doctor Samuel Johnson, who displayed extraordinary sagacity and acuteness in analysing the merits of the kind of poetry that was most allied to his own, but who could never pass beyond that limit, with any degree of safety or success. He could dis * The following passage respecting Darwin in one of Anna Seward's letters is very characteristic of the jealousy of poets. "Since he commenced poet professed, Darwin is become notoriously guilty of the narrow-souled jealousy. Till then he was a warm admirer and generous encomiast of poetic effluence, in whatever form it might appear-now he dislikes odes-now he cannot endure sonnetsnow he will not read blank-verse-all this because the "Botanic Garden" is in the couplet measure;-and because it is every where picture and nothing but picture, sentiment and passion are, according to his decision, out of the province of the Muses, and are best expressed in prose.' |