"Reptiles" 5 



their frogs obscene. Their chameleons are turncoats, 

 and their scorpions traitors. Their snakes are utterly 

 abominable. 



Now I fail to see any justification for this. It strikes me 

 as thoroughly immoral. Even snakes, against which human 

 prejudice cites Scriptural authority, are admirable. They 

 are one of the most splendid parables in all nature. Nothing 

 that breathes less deserves the title of reptile meaning by 

 that word a despicable cowardly thing than the creature 

 that stands in Holy Writ itself as the semblance of a power 

 that could defy Heaven and challenge terms with Omni- 

 potence. I would even go further and venture to say that 

 this, the poet's treatment of a large order of creatures, shows 

 a deficiency of sympathy with nature which is not in accord- 

 ance with the poetical tradition. For example, take the 

 following from Montgomery : 



1 ' Reptiles were quickened into various birth, 

 Loathsome, unsightly, swoln to obscene bulk, 

 Lurk'd the dank toad beneath the infected turf; 

 The slow-worm crawl'd, the light chameleon climb'd 

 And changed his colour as his place he changed ; 

 The nimble lizard ran from bough to bough, 

 Glancing through light, in shadow disappearing ; 

 The scorpion, many-eyed, with sting of fire, 

 Bred there, the legion-fiend of creeping things." 



But worse than this, as expressing a wider range of 

 unsympathetic prejudice, are such sweeping lines as these 

 of Coleridge : 



" What if one reptile sting another reptile? 

 Where is the crime ? the goodly face of nature 

 Hath one disfeaturing stain the less upon it." 



The philosophy here is thoroughly bad-hearted and 

 reprehensible. 



Another poetical liberty which I consider only indiffe- 

 rently justified is to call insects "reptiles." Thus Thomson 



