"His pond'rous shield

Hung on his shoulders like the moon, whose orb
"Through optic glass the Tuscan artist views
"At EVENING, FROM THE TOP OF FESOLE,

"Or in VALDARNO, to DESCRY NEW LANDS,
"RIVERS, OF MOUNTAINS, IN HER SPOTTY GLOBE."

Who does not perceive the art of the poet in introducing, besides the telescope, as if conscious how unpoetical it was in itself, all the circumstances from NATURE, external nature,-the eveningthe top of Fesole-the scenes of Valdarno-and the LANDS, MOUNTAINS, and RIVERS, in the moon's orb? It is these which make the passage poetical, and not the telescope!!"

Whilst I am on this subject, let me point out a grand and sublime passage of this great poet, in which images from art are most successfully introduced, and made most highly poetical. The passage I allude to is in the Paradise Regainedthe picture of Imperial Rome.

“On each side an Imperial city stood,

"With Tow'RS and TEMPLES proudly elevate
"On seven small hills, with PALACES adorn'd,
"PORCHES, and THEATRES, BATHS, AQUEDUCTS,
"STATUES, and TROPHIES, and TRIUMPHAL ARCS,
"GARDENS, and GROVES, presented to his eyes,
“Above the height of mountains interpos'd," &c.-
"The CITY which thou see'st, no other deem

"Than GREAT and GLORIOUS Rome, QUEEN of the EARTH "So far renowned, and with the spoils enrich'd

"Of nations; there the CAPITOL thou see'st,

"Above the rest, lifting his stately head

"On the Tarpeian rock, her citadel

Impregnable, and there Mount Palatine,

"The Imperial palace, compass huge, and high, "The structure, skill of noblest architects,

"With GILDED BATTLEMENTS, CONSPICUOus far,

"TURRETS, and TERRACES, and GLITTERING SPIRES," &c. "Thence to the gates cast round thine eye, and see

"What conflux issuing forth, or ent'ring in, "PRÆTORS, PROCONSULS to their provinces

46

Hasting, or on return, in robes of state,

LICTORS, and RODS, the ensigns of their power, "Legions, and cohorts, Turms of horse and wings, "Or embassies from regions far remote,

"In various habits on the Appian road,

"Or on th' Emilian," &c.

This truly grand and most poetical picture I here gratuitously set before you, convinced as you must now, I think, be, of the

weakness of your

And with the im

telescope, and admiral's mast! pression left on the imagination by this lofty and beautiful assemblage, drawn chiefly from art, but mixed up in a grand and impressive picture, by MILTON'S consummate powers of painting, I will still contend, that "images drawn from what is <s BEAUTIFUL and SUBLIME in NATURE, are more "poetical than images drawn from art."

I cannot dismiss this part of the subject, and the "launching of the ship," which I have already touched on, without quoting your own animated description.

66

"Those who have ever witnessed the spectacle "of the launching of a ship of the line, will, perhaps, forgive me for adding this to the examples of the sublime objects of artificial life. Of "that spectacle I can never forget the impression.

"When the vast bulwark sprung from her cra"dle, the CALM WATER on which she swung “MAJESTICALLY round, gave the IMAGINATION "a contrast of the STORMY ELEMENT, on which "she was soon to ride. All the days of battle, "and nights of danger, she had to encounter; all "the ENDS of the EARTH which she had to visit ; "and all that she had to do and suffer for her "country, rose in awful presentiment before the "mind; and when the heart gave her a benedic"tion, it was like one pronounced on a living

being!!" Now let me ask you, when you so beautifully described this ship, why was it necessary to describe its LAUNCHING at all? If images derived from art are as beautiful and sublime as those derived from nature, why was it necessary to bring your ship off the stocks? It was complete, as far as art was concerned, before; it had the same sails, the same streamers, and the same tackle. But surely your own illustration is decidedly in my favour, when it appears, from this animated description, to make the object of art so poetically interesting, you are obliged to have recourse to NATURE!

This circumstance, confirms my doubt, whether you ever really read my estimate of POPE'S Poetical Character. Even if I had been less explicit, could you suppose that, when I used the expression of

general nature, I meant to confine the idea that expression conveyed, to external nature alone?

You observe, in page 264 of your first volume of Specimens of British Poets,that "Nature is "the poet's goddess; but by nature no one rightly "understands her mere inanimate face, however "charming it may be; or the simple landscape " painting of trees, clouds, precipices, and flowers"Why then try POPE, or any other poet EXCLU<< SIVELY BY HIS POWERS OF DESCRIBING inani"mate phænomena? Nature, in the wide and

proper sense of the word, means life in all its "circumstances-nature MORAL as well as ex"ternal."-Campbell's Specimens.

Have I ever tried POPE by the exclusive power of painting inanimate phænomena? Have I ever denied that Nature, in the proper sense of the word, means Nature moral as well as external! Have I not, in the very first sentences of the observations on POPE's Poetical Character, said nearly the same thing? Could this utterly escape your notice, if you had (I will not say read the criticism, but only looked at the two first sentences? To set before you, in one view, your palpable perversions of my positions, I will briefly state the course of my argument, and your representation of it. The plain course of my argument was simply this:-1st. Works of Nature, speaking of those more beautiful and sublime, are more sublime and

beautiful than works of Art; therefore more poetical.-2d. The passions of the human heart, which are the same in all ages, and which are the causes of the sublime and pathetic in sentiment, are more poetical than artificial manners.-3d. The great poet of human passions is the most consummate master of his art; and the heroic, the lofty, and the pathetic, as belonging to this class, are distinguished.-4th. If these premises be true, the descriptive poet, who paints from an intimate knowledge of external nature, is more poetical, supposing the fidelity and execution equal, not than the painter of human passions, but the painter of external circumstances in artificial life; as COWPER paints a morning walk, and POPE a game of cards!

This is the ground of my argument; and your representation, leaving out the most essential part, is this: "He alone is a poet who paints from works "of external nature; and his knowledge of exter"nal nature must be as minute as that of a bota

"nist and Dutch painter !"* I appeal to your book; and if this were not the mutilated representation of my argument, you would never have thought it necessary to say that SOPHOCLES was a GREAT POET, notwithstanding there is no minute painting of "leaves," &c. in Philoctetes! I have here given a short analysis of my argument, and *Yet Mr. Campbell has not misrepresented me! he says.