MAN CANNOT BE STATIONARY.--FATALISM AND PROVIDENCE.--SYMPATHY IN JOY.

If a man is not rising upwards to be an angel, depend upon it, he is

sinking downwards to be a devil. He cannot stop at the beast. The most

savage of men are not beasts; they are worse, a great deal worse.

* * * * *

The conduct of the Mohammedan and Western nations on the subject of

contagious plague illustrates the two extremes of error on the nature of

God's moral government of the world. The Turk changes Providence into

fatalism; the Christian relies upon it--when he has nothing else to rely

on. He does not practically rely upon it at all.

* * * * *

For compassion a human heart suffices; but for full and adequate sympathy

with joy an angel's only. And ever remember, that the more exquisite and

delicate a flower of joy, the tenderer must be the hand that plucks it.

_September_ 2. 1833.

CHARACTERISTIC TEMPERAMENT OF NATIONS.--GREEK PARTICLES.--LATIN COMPOUNDS.-

-PROPERTIUS.--TIBULLUS.--LUCAN.--STATIUS.--VALERIUS FLACCUS.--CLAUDIAN.--

PERSIUS.------PRUDENTIUS.--HERMESIANAX.

The English affect stimulant nourishment--beef and beer. The French,

excitants, irritants--nitrous oxide, alcohol, champagne. The Austrians,

sedatives--hyoscyamus. The Russians, narcotics--opium, tobacco, and beng.

* * * * *

It is worth particular notice how the style of Greek oratory, so full, in

the times of political independence, of connective particles, some of

passion, some of sensation only, and escaping the classification of mere

grammatical logic, became, in the hands of the declaimers and philosophers

of the Alexandrian era, and still later, entirely deprived of this

peculiarity. So it was with Homer as compared with Nonnus, Tryphiodorus,

and the like. In the latter there are in the same number of lines fewer

words by one half than in the Iliad. All the appoggiaturas of time are

lost.

All the Greek writers after Demosthenes and his contemporaries, what are

they but the leavings of tyranny, in which a few precious things seem

sheltered by the mass of rubbish! Yet, whenever liberty began but to hope

and strive, a Polybius appeared. Theocritus is almost the only instance I

know of a man of true poetic genius nourishing under a tyranny.

The old Latin poets attempted to compound as largely as the Greek; hence in

Ennius such words as _belligerentes_, &c. In nothing did Virgil show his

judgment more than in rejecting these, except just where common usage had

sanctioned them, as _omnipotens_ and a few more. He saw that the Latin was

too far advanced in its formation, and of too rigid a character, to admit

such composition or agglutination. In this particular respect Virgil's

Latin is very admirable and deserving preference. Compare it with the

language of Lucan or Statius, and count the number of words used in an

equal number of lines, and observe how many more short words Virgil has.

* * * * *

I cannot quite understand the grounds of the high admiration which the

ancients expressed for Propertius, and I own that Tibullus is rather

insipid to me. Lucan was a man of great powers; but what was to be made of

such a shapeless fragment of party warfare, and so recent too! He had fancy

rather than imagination, and passion rather than fancy. His taste was

wretched, to be sure; still the Pharsalia is in my judgment a very

wonderful work for such a youth as Lucan[1] was.

I think Statius a truer poet than Lucan, though he is very extravagant

sometimes. Valerius Flaccus is very pretty in particular passages. I am

ashamed to say, I have never read Silius Italicus. Claudian I recommend to

your careful perusal, in respect of his being properly the first of the

moderns, or at least the transitional link between the Classic and the

Gothic mode of thought.

I call Persius hard--not obscure. He had a bad style; but I dare say, if he

had lived[2], he would have learned to express himself in easier language.

There are many passages in him of exquisite felicity, and his vein of

thought is manly and pathetic.

Prudentius[3] is curious for this,--that you see how Christianity forced

allegory into the place of mythology. Mr. Frere [Greek: ho philokalos, ho

kalokagathos] used to esteem the Latin Christian poets of Italy very

highly, and no man in our times was a more competent judge than he.

[Footnote 1:

Lucan died by the command of Nero, A.D. 65, in his twenty-sixth year. I

think this should be printed at the beginning of every book of the

Pharsalia.--ED.]

[Footnote 2:

Aulus Persius Flaccus died in the 30th year of his age, A.D. 62.--ED.]

[Footnote 3:

Aurelius Prudentius Clemens was born A.D. 348, in Spain.--ED.]

* * * * *

How very pretty are those lines of Hermesianax in Athenaeus about the poets

and poetesses of Greece![1]

[Footnote 1:

See the fragment from the Leontium:--

[Greek: HOi_en men philos huios an_egagen Oiagrhoio

Agrhiop_en, THr_essan steilamenos kithar_en

Aidothen k. t. l.] _Athen_. xiii. s. 71--ED]

September 4. 1833.

DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM.--EPIC POEM.--GERMAN

AND ENGLISH.--MODERN TRAVELS.--PARADISE

LOST.

I have already told you that in my opinion the destruction of Jerusalem is

the only subject now left for an epic poem of the highest kind. Yet, with

all its great capabilities, it has this one grand defect--that, whereas a

poem, to be epic, must have a personal interest,--in the destruction of

Jerusalem no genius or skill could possibly preserve the interest for the

hero from being merged in the interest for the event. The fact is, the

event itself is too sublime and overwhelming.

* * * * *

In my judgment, an epic poem must either be national or mundane. As to

Arthur, you could not by any means make a poem on him national to

Englishmen. What have _we_ to do with him? Milton saw this, and with a

judgment at least equal to his genius, took a mundane theme--one common to

all mankind. His Adam and Eve are all men and women inclusively. Pope

satirizes Milton for making God the Father talk like a school divine.[1]

Pope was hardly the man to criticize Milton. The truth is, the judgment of

Milton in the conduct of the celestial part of his story is very exquisite.

Wherever God is represented as directly acting as Creator, without any

exhibition of his own essence, Milton adopts the simplest and sternest

language of the Scriptures. He ventures upon no poetic diction, no

amplification, no pathos, no affection. It is truly the Voice or the Word

of the Lord coming to, and acting on, the subject Chaos. But, as some

personal interest was demanded for the purposes of poetry, Milton takes

advantage of the dramatic representation of God's address to the Son, the

Filial Alterity, and in _those addresses_ slips in, as it were by stealth,

language of affection, or thought, or sentiment. Indeed, although Milton

was undoubtedly a high Arian in his mature life, he does in the necessity

of poetry give a greater objectivity to the Father and the Son, than he

would have justified in argument. He was very wise in adopting the strong

anthropomorphism of the Hebrew Scriptures at once. Compare the Paradise

Lost with Klopstock's Messiah, and you will learn to appreciate Milton's

judgment and skill quite as much as his genius.

[Footnote 1:

"Milton's strong pinion now not Heav'n can bound,

Now, serpent-like, in prose he sweeps the ground;

In quibbles angel and archangel join,

And God the Father turns a school divine."

Specimens of the Table Talk of Samuel Taylor Coleridge · 第 224 / 270 题