798 
POE 
Coleridge produced a tragedy called “Retnorfe,” which 
raifed him to a much higher pitch of fame than any of his 
former productions. In language it would be impofiible 
to furpafs it. It was natural, free, forcible blank verfe, 
equal in forne parts to Shakefpeare, and iitferfperfed with 
a multitude of fublime thoughts, which are evidently 
traceable to a German fource, though ftill only as their 
caufe, not their aCtual birth-place; that is to fay, though 
he borrowed hints, he did not purloin conceptions ready 
formed. This play is a poetical ftudy ; but we cannot 
forget that it is as deficient in conftruClion of plot, and 
in full defcription of charaCler, as it is excellent in 
thought and expreflion. To poflefs the latter qualities 
is however the greater triumph. Afterwards Mr. Cole¬ 
ridge fell to “ Chriftabel.” He had feveral times before 
given fymptoms of the faft that we did not know menfu- 
rated rhymed profe from verfe ; and he now, “ bolder 
grown,” aflerted himfelf to be a member of a new fchool, 
which did not confine itfelf to the number of fyllables in 
a line, but to the number of emphatic fyllables. There 
are, however, fome very pretty verfes, to which Byron, 
who faw the MS. expreffed himfelf indebted in the com- 
pofition of his “ Siege of Corinth.” There was the ufual 
inawkifh attempts at intenfity. In “ The Pains of Sleep,” 
the poet kneels to pray, but fays and thinks nothing : he 
undergoes 
Only a fenfe of fupplication, 
A fenfe o’er all my foul impreft 
That I am weak, yet not unbleft. 
His Kublea Khan, which appeared with the two prece¬ 
ding works, is a drama, truly ; but why doth a poet 
expofe to daylight the dull creations of Morpheus ? 
Campbell has the merit of fome originality in his de- 
feriptions ; but is on the whole, though commonly ad¬ 
mired, very irregular, at times harfh and obfcure; nor is 
he ever fublime. In his “Pleafuresof Hope,” the ob¬ 
jection of obfcurity and fo on cannot juftly be made; 
but his “ Gertrude of Wyoming” muft be allowed by 
all to merit them moll completely. The ode or ballad 
is perhaps his forte: witnefs his “ Hohenlinden,” “ Lo- 
chiel,” and “ Mariners of England.” His “ Theodric” 
(juft publifhed, 1824) is a great failure. The tale is not 
clearly told by a firlt perufal, is not very interefting in 
itfelf; and many of the molt beautiful thoughts are not 
diftinCl. Again; there are fome over-ftrained metaphors ; 
as “ Her lips feemed to kifs the foul in fong ;” w hich is 
hyper beautiful. We give alfo an example of a very beau¬ 
tiful and original thought nearly ruined by the abl'ur- 
dity it is expreffed with : 
Earth’s features fo harmonioujly were link'd, 
She feemed one great glad form with life inftinCl, 
That felt heaven’s ardent breath, and fmiled below 
Its flufh of love with confentaneous glow. 
Where is the fequence between the harmonious linking 
of Earth’s features and her life? 
Crabbe is the poet of life in its true and coarfe colours, 
of feelings in the aCtual bur painful ft.’te. Though fuch 
coarfe fubjeCts are perhaps his forte, and confequently his 
verfe is nervous and energetic, yet, when he indulges in 
the gentle and the mild, he begets a fmoothnefs and ele¬ 
gance truly refined. In all too that lie does, Crabbe has 
a clearnefs that makes him intelligible to all ; and hence, 
as much as to the choice of his fubjeCis, does he owe his 
popularity. 
Rogers is, in refpeCt to his views of nature, the reverfe 
of Crabbe. He loves to exhibit nature only in her faireft 
lights. The fimplicity which borders on fillinefs in 
Wordfworth, is in this author kept within fome though 
not its proper bounds ; and his piety, of a lefs fombre 
calf, is fo finely mixed with human feeling and pafiion, 
that it is never dull. Who has ever deferibed connubial 
delights with the purity and elegance, yet intenfity, of 
Rogers’s mufe. His “Pleafures of Memory” is a work 
TRY. 
fo much and fo generally admired, that all panegyric is 
ufelefs, and criticifm might be deemed unjuft. 
The three poets who have been the moft general favo¬ 
rites with the public, and who feem deftined for the moft 
durable fame, are Scott, Moore, and Byron. 
The opinion of modern critics is perhaps oppofed to us 
in this refpeCf, as far as regards Scott; and we cannot but 
think, that the extraordinary luccefs of his Romances 
has chiefly been the caufe of the temporary neglefl that 
has fallen on his poetry; and that his verfe could never 
have been held cheap, if it had not been already com¬ 
pared with the fublime effufions of Byron. For Scott 
pofieffes all the requifites for poetry ; a very great com¬ 
mand of verfe, dole obfervation of nature, knowledge of 
the world, feelings of every kind. If he be compared to 
Byron, it fliould be as we compare Ariolto with Taffo, 
where indeed the refpeCtive merits are quite of a different 
kind. As no one can of courfe compare the dramas and 
Childe Harold of Byron with Scott’s poems, the only 
comparifon we have to examine is that which has been 
inftituted between the narrative pieces of the authors irt 
queftion. In the firft place, both of them poflefs a facility 
of narrating unprecedented; both have abundance of 
beautiful deferiptions to adorn the narrative; attention 
therefore never flags in reading either. Both have a 
great command of language : but here perhaps the palm 
may be conceded to Byron, fince he betrays no bad fortd- 
nefs for obfolete words, and has more uniform fweetnefs. 
In the management of their ftory, Byron’s events 
feem to flow more naturally ; but it is to be remembered 
that he always choofes fuch as are very Ample, while, on 
the other hand, Scott fele&s often fuch as are more com¬ 
plicated. In his chara&ers, Scott is more dramatic and 
more natural, though Byron is perhaps more fublime, 
But the Corfair, Lara, Selim, Ulric, &c. have fcarce any 
diftinguifhing traits; while Marmion, Fitz-James, and 
Roderick Dhu, are all diftinCl, both in language and fen- 
timent. The minute attention Scott pays to coftume, 
defcription of places and circumftances, give a vividnefs 
and reality to his creations, whicli Byron’s often want. 
The number of perfonages introduced, gives affo to 
Scott’s poems a variety of intereft very delightful. What a 
perfeCl, Ample, and elegant, narration, is the “ Lady of the 
Lake!’’ how bold, martial, and Shakefperian, is “ Mar¬ 
mion!” and where do we find fuch continual variety of ftory 
and of thought as .in “ Rokeby ?” With all this, Scott is 
evidently a poet of art; but this art is theaClual prototype 
of nature—the picture he draws is as beauteous as its 
refemblance. The Lady of the Lake is perhaps a perfeCi 
model of narrative fkill. It rivets the attention through¬ 
out; and the plot is to be anticipated by no ftretch of 
the imagination on the part of the reader. When the 
chieftain fays, 
Thefeare Clan-Alpine’s warriors true; 
And, Saxon—I am Roderick Dhu! 
We are quite eleClrified by fo unexpected a denouement. 
Again; the fame furprife awaits us when Fitz-James, 
Handing unbonnetted amidft the nobles, turns out to be 
“Scotland’s King.” 
In Marmion, a greater degree of fublimity was at¬ 
tempted than in the preceding poem, and accomplifhed. 
Thegreateft fault of Marmion is, that the good character 
Wilton is a Sawney, fo that we cannot help feeling forry 
at the fall of Marmion, who is only conquered by his rival 
when under the influence of a fupernatural terror. Poets 
are often troubled for fome mode of Ihifting the feene. 
A curious example of this occurs at the beginning of 
the fecond canto of Marmion. The poet, having told us 
How on the air the thunder broke. 
And all the loud artillery fpoke, 
As Marmion left the hold, 
deferibes the rolling of the fmoke of the cannon over the 
water till it arrives at an abbey; and this forms an ex¬ 
cuse 
