i 9 4 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



of poetic fire rather than of a taste for the delights of the country. 

 His " Botanic Garden " is a dreary, mechanical affair, several degrees 

 worse and more unreadable than Cowley's " Plants," a century earlier. 

 Both are constructed on an altogether erroneous principle. Science is 

 science, and poetry is poetry; and while, as is well illustrated in " The 

 Princess " and " In Memoriam," the scientific spirit may be distinctly 

 present, yet any thing like a formal, didactic attempt at amalgamation 

 is certain to prove a failure. 



Although belonging to an earlier date than the sterile period re- 

 ferred to, George Herbert might also be quoted here as a case of 

 poetic talent of a very genuine kind, yet unaccompanied by much 

 perception of natural beauty or picturesqueness. He has sometimes 

 been likened to Keble, a brother churchman and clergyman, but be- 

 tween the two, in their feeling and apprehension of the wonders of 

 creation, the difference is singular and complete. Herbert's strong 

 point was spiritual anatomy. His probing and exposure of the deceits 

 and vanities of the human heart, and his setting forth of the dangers 

 of the world to spirituality of mind, are at once quaint and incisive. 

 But of any love or special knowledge of the physical world there is 

 scarcely a trace. 1 Keble's poetry, on the other hand, quite as un- 

 worldly as that of the author of " The Temple," is redolent every- 

 where of the sights and sounds of Nature. The seasons with their 

 endless changes, the motions of the heavenly bodies, the fragrance of 

 the field, trees, rivers, mountains, and all material things, are assimi- 

 lated, so to speak, into the very essence of his verse. That very world 

 which to Herbert was only base and utterly indifferent, seemed to 

 Keble, to use his own words, " ennobled and glorified," and awakened 

 in his soul poetical emotions of the highest and purest kind. 



It is unnecessary to enter into much detail in order to show how, 

 much more truly than himself, Pope's predecessors, and especially 

 those of the Elizabethan era, were entitled to the designation of poets 

 of Nature. Shakespeare, Spenser, the two Fletchers, Milton, and 

 many others, might be adduced in confirmation. With reference to 

 botany, it is evident that the greatest of the tribe, in his universality 

 of knowledge, flowing over into every region of human research, was 

 well acquainted with the subject in its twofold aspect — trees and 

 flowers. Many beautiful floral descriptions occur in the plays, and 

 although the arboricultural allusions are less frequent, they are suffi- 

 ciently numerous to justify the belief that his knowledge was both 

 extensive and accurate. Perhaps the most important passage of the 

 kind is where Cranmer, " dilating on a wind of prophecy," portrays, 

 under the figure of a " mountain-cedar," the future glories of the reigns 

 of Elizabeth and her successor. a Milton has many striking and appro- 



1 One of his biographers has discovered a solitary verse, on the faith of which he com- 

 placently assumes that Herbert " was thoroughly alive to the sweet influences of Nature." 

 3 Commentators affirm Ben Jonson to be the author of the lines referred to. 



