Rückert threw out in rapid succession, in 1844 and 1815, several dramas, or rather dramatic poems, for they are incapable of theatrical representation. These did not find any great favor. They are Herod the Great, in two parts; The Emperor Henry the Fourth, also in two parts; Christopher Columbus, in three parts; and Saul and David. Dialogue and the preparation for scenic effects, we believe it is conceded, are not within his best range; however they may abound with good poetic . points. We confess that we have read as yet only the last one of the above-mentioned series. It labors under defects that must attach to all undertakings of a similar kind. They scarcely should be undertaken at all. You cannot help out by any art the great stories of either Testament. They are best in their prosaic and more than poetic simplicity. The finer they are, the less do they bear to have any freedoms taken with them. The grandest of all the tales ever told, that of the "Monarch Minstrel," - greatest both as prince and bard; the ruddy shepherd lad, the outlaw captain, the psalmist for the world; who bearded the lion, and rent the bear, and smote the giant, and danced before the ark of God, and then in the night of his decrepitude (O poor mortal life!) could get no heat; - the noble lip, that refused to slake its most burning thirst with the water that was brought at the peril of the lives of his companions; the royal heart, that made its contrition deeper than its sin had been, and poured it out as a libation of tears for our whole struggling humanity;- such a story, we say, cannot be told in two ways, or in any words but its own. Fanciful decorations would only demean it. We exculpate our poet, however, from every meretricious fault of this kind. He is severely simple, and never departs from the propriety of his theme. Not only was his taste too strict to do otherwise, but the nature of a dramatic composition was in some degree a protection against it. Rückert ventured further than this when he wrote a poem called "The Life of Jesus"; a history of the Saviour in rhyme. It was received with disapprobation, as might have been expected. But the complaint made against it was that it was vapid, and not that it ran into any vicious excess. We might be sure that so earnest a man would avoid the offensive mistake, so common among us, of dressing up the scenes of the sacred history with sentimentalisms out of place, and tawdry accompaniments. The last work of our poet that we have seen is a new edition of his selected verses, published in 1847. From that we will offer two pieces as sufficiently characteristic, and which we had not before seen. The first is BETHLEHEM AND GOLGOTHA. In Bethlehem he first arose, From whom we draw our true life's breath; Where his cross broke the power of Death. As Bethlehem and Golgotha. The ancient wonders of the world Here rose aloft, the mighty Seven; The toil that built you never gave The faintest thought of Death's great peace, - The riddle Life an unread one O Rocknabad, earth-paradise, Of all Shiraz the sweetest flower! Thou Caaba! black stone of the waste, The conquering Prince: "Victoria!" O Thou, who in a shepherd-stable And through the cross's pain wert able To pride the manger seems disgrace, But what shall bring this pride down? Say! The Magi Kings went forth to see The Shepherd Stock, the Paschal Lamb; The pilgrimage of nations came. O, march we not in martial band, As Christ himself subdued the world. With pilgrim staff and scallop-shell Through Eastern climes I sought to roam; Let him within thee find his birth; And do thou die to things of earth, And live Him; — let this be for aye Thy Bethlehem and Golgotha. The last extract that we shall make will illustrate further, not only one of our poet's favorite forms of thought, but his fondness for the same rhyme frequently repeated. In one of his "Gazelles," translated in Mr. Brooks's "Ger 1851.] Note to Art. IV. in the September Number. 445 man Lyric Poets," the leading rhyme recurs more than twelve times. In The Old Man's Song, cited above, as well as in the piece immediately preceding, the recurrence is almost as frequent. NOTE TO ART. IV. IN THE SEPTEMBER NUMBER. THE author of the "Outlines of a System of Mechanical Philosophy," beliving that the review of his book in the last number of the Christian Examiner may create in some minds an impression against his theories, apart from their truth or falsity, asks the insertion of the following note. New theories have always been opposed by those who have devoted their lives to the teaching of the standard hypotheses. The proposed change, because it is a change, without reference to its character, has always been denounced. There is not one instance of progress in science which has not been stoutly resisted. The cultivators of science, indeed, permit additions and minor changes, but never encourage any speculations which endanger the foundation of their scientific faith. And it is curious to observe, that the attack upon new theories is ever of the same tone and character. They who question established opinions are denounced as “ lacking modesty, courtesy, and good temper," and "as incompetent in learning and talents" to write on such subjects. Of course, then, the theories of the "Outlines," true or false, would receive this treatment. The author had no reason to suppose that a teacher of the established scientific theories would at once become a convert to his speculations. He had no reason to expect that he would be considered by the reviewer as competent in learning and talents to question the received theories. A knowledge of human nature shows that the very fact of his placing his mind in antagonism to the reviewer's would give to the reviewer the impression that he was arrogant, and lacked modesty and courtesy. Calling to mind these principles, the intelligent reader will pass by the general declamation of the article against scientific sceptics, its sneers and sarcasms, as what was to be expected, and as not in the least affecting the questions at issue. The intelligent reader will also call to mind, that the reviewer is a man of great scientific attainments, that he has devoted his life to this branch of learning, and that his system, like those which preceded it, is fortified by general belief that his theories have been supported by the talents of many truly great men,and that, on the other hand, the new theories have been wrought upon by one mind only, and that they are presented merely in a rough outline. The author might be right in his philosophy, and yet appear altogether unsound when the whole strength of scientific talent and scientific learning is brought to bear upon his statements. But he does not complain of the strength of the arguments used against him. There is, however, one serious misstatement of a position taken in the "Outlines," to which he wishes particularly to call attention in this note, a misstatement arising probably from a misconception of the author's ideas, from a hasty reading of the passage in question. The reviewer asserts that the statement in regard to the decrease of areas on page twenty-one of the "Outlines" is "geometrically false." Undoubtedly it so appeared to him. But the idea intended to be conveyed by the words used, and which actually was conveyed to other minds, is geometrically true, not in the opinion of the author alone, but as decided by competent mathematical authority. We ought not to intrude any further on the courtesy of the editors. We ask that general declamation against scientific sceptics, general charges of arrogance and discourtesy, sneers, and sarcasm, applied to a class or an individual, which make up a large proportion of the pages of the article, may not prejudice the reader against our theories. What there is of argument in favor of the established theories and against our speculations, we honestly believe we shall be able to meet. S. E. C. |