Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER IX.

WHY should not the truth, so far as the poets are concerned, be told on this as upon other subjects! If the true is also the good, according to the declaration of poets and philosophers and no less of divines, why do writers perseveringly seek to mystify and hide it? Is it because it is a gift, and must be found or received by each one for himself? Let this be granted, and then we must ask, Are we aided in the pursuit of an obscure truth by books purposely written to hide that truth, and make it still more obscure? Are men more likely to find it by accident when it is purposely hid under a bushel?

This is not according to the teaching of old, if we may credit an ancient record, where we read: "neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick, and it giveth light unto all that are in the house."

Yet here, again, we meet with this very instruc

tion in one of the most mystical of books, where the "Strange Shepherd" forms the very subject of a mystical history, to unveil which is held by many to be a most dangerous if not an unpardonable sin.

In view of so many difficulties, one is almost tempted to believe that all the books in the world, on one particular subject, have become, instead of helps to the truth, but so many hindrances, making the natural wilderness of the world darker in a tenfold degree than it otherwise would be, insomuch that it becomes ten times a truth, that Truth itself is a divine gift, to which the natural or unassisted man can by no means attain: yet as despair is said to be the devil's bait, the student must, on no account, give over his search, but should rather follow the example of Colin by taking a seat at the foot of Old Mole, that is, of Great Nature, on the ground, (by which so many writers figure humility,) and there, by a true practice upon his oaten reed, or Spirit of Truth, endeavor to bring to his assistance the Strange Shepherd, who may in due time make himself known as the only friend of man, not subject to be actually changed by being falsely written about; and if he should prove to be the bridegroom of Cynthia herself, let him be received, and honored

with her as the sacred double nature in one, of which man himself, and woman no less, is the "image humane" referred to in line 351 of the poem we have had under examination.

In the treatment we have given this subject, we consider that we have made an effort to rescue certain of the hermetic poets from the imputation of what ought to be regarded as an impious perversion of the divine gift, by many of the class, if the edge of criticism be not thus turned aside; for the simple reason, that where the whole power of the poet is exhausted in doing honor to human love, there can be no religious sentiment in the soul to be honored.

We urge that the entire vocabulary of Love is exhausted by the poets; and if woman was the sole object there could have been no object of religious love in the mind of the devotees; but let it be supposed that the poets had religious love in view, (we refer to those poets who were the authors of what must be called the love-literature of the middle age, and the period just following it, when Petrarch does not hesitate to compare Laura to Jesus Christ,) and we discover, by a very simple process of observation, the element in which the opposition to the visible church nursed itself until it ripened into the

Reformation. Love, as treated by this class of poets, was a form of religious devotion, carried on in a hermetic method as a protection against the persecutions of the Church. A religious sentiment was the animating spirit which easily became personified in lovely woman, because, next to God, she is in reality the true object of worship on earth; but if woman becomes first in the order of the affections, love itself must soon become unlovely even in the eyes of its votaries. Hence the beauty of the declaration of one who perfectly understood the meaning of the word:

"I could not love thee, dear! so much,

Lov'd I not honor more."

We say then, that, among the poets who have given us what we think is best defined as love-literature, we must suppose that truth, the spirit of truth, in the sense of religion, must be considered as the object; and the poems of those ages, embracing numberless sonnets, must be regarded as religious studies or contemplations, expressing more or less insight into nature, the nature of God; for nature is the nature of God.

A thoughtful student will find some confirmation

of this view by contrasting the metaphysical character of the literature of which we speak, its solemnity, reserve and stateliness, with the acknowledged lovewritings of Burns, Moore, Byron, and other recent writers, who indeed, if we may credit public report, endangered their own salvation by sacrificing only at the altar of human beauty, in forgetfulness of what Sidney calls the "unspeakable and everlasting Beauty," to which his own Sonnets were addressed under the figure of Stella.

We understand, therefore, that when Colin Clouts is led to speak of his individual love, as in lines from 464, the poet is not speaking of woman; but he is declaring his devotion to certain principles which represent to him immortal truth (line 257), and these also as they express a unity in the highest sense, that of the divine nature.

"Far be it (quoth Colin Clouts) from me,
That I of gentle maids should ill deserve:
For that myself I do profess to be
Vassal to one, whom all my days I serve;
The beam of beauty sparkled from above,
The flower of virtue and pure chastity,
The blossom of sweet joy and perfect love,
The pearl of peerless grace and modesty :

« ZurückWeiter »