COAST OF ATTICA-TEMPLE OF THESEUS, &c. "The beautiful but barren HYMETTUS, the "whole coast of Attica, her HILLS, and mountains, "Pentelicus, Anchesmus, Philopappus, &c. are in "themselves poetical, and would be so, if the name ❝ of Athens, of Athenians, and HER VERY RUINS "were swept from the earth."-Lord Byron. "But am I to be told, (you proceed) that the "nature" of Attica would be more poetical without the ART of the Acropolis? of the Temple of Theseus? of the still all great and glorious monuments of exquisitely artificial skill? Ask the traveller, which strikes him most as poetical, the Parthenon, or the hill on which it stands? The columns of Lake Colonna, or the lake itself; the rocks at the foot of it, or the recollection that Falconer's ship was bulged upon them? There are a thousand rocks and capes more picturesque than those of the Acropolis and Cape Sunium in themselves; what are they to a thousand scenes in the wilder parts of Greece, of Asia Minor, Switzerland, or even Cintra in Portugal, or to many scenes of Italy, and the Sierras of Spain? "But it is the art, the columns, the temples, the wrecked vessel, which give them their antique and their modern poetry, and not the spots themselves; without them, the spots of earth would be unnoticed and unknown; buried, like Babylon and Nineveh, in indistinct confusion, without poetry, as without existence; but to whatever spot of earth these ruins were transported, if they were capable of transportation, like the Obelisk, and the Sphinx, and the Memnon's Head, there they would still exist in the perfection of their beauty, and in the pride of their poetry." I here set before the reader the whole of this passage, because it is itself so beautiful. It is worthy Lord BYRON, and it is as forcible as it is eloquent, and picturesque as it is argumentative. I need not enter into an analysis to shew that I understand it, for I understand it in its full force; and though I have not seen these places but in Lord BYRON's descriptions, and even remarking this splendid assemblage, I hope I am not so insensible (such a "natural") as not to feel how poetical and affecting are those scattered columns, those temples, in those spots, where, nescio quomodo movemur, &c.; I can at least say, though I have not seen them, animum pictura pascit inani. I might add, non obtusa adeo gestamus pectora; and what I feel cannot better be described than in the vivid painting of kindred scenes by a poet whom I have quoted. "Behold the pride of pomp, "The throne of nations fall'n; obscur'd in dust, “E'en yet majestical: the solemn scene "ELATES THE SOUL, while now the RISING SUN "Flames on the ruins, in the purer AIR "Rent PALACES, crush'd COLUMNS, rifted moles, "Immense along the waste; minuter art, O'erwhelming; as the immense Leviathan, "Outstretch'd, unwieldy, his island length uprears ...... Grey mould'ring temples swell, and wide o'ercast "The solitary landscape, hills, and woods, "And boundless wilds, &c." Dyer's Ruins of Rome. With such thoughts, and affected by such images so distinctly set before us, where nature and art contend in what is most striking and affecting in the imagery of either, I admit that the "nature" of Attica would not be more poetical without the "art" of the Acropolis, or the Temple of Theseus, or the still great and glorious monuments of her exquisitely artificial genius. I admit this also; but I deny, that, abstractedly, as works of art, these works are as sublime, or therefore as poetical, as the sublimest images from nature. Of the rocks on which they stand, I know nothing: in sublimity or beauty they may bear as little compa rison, as a piece of Pentelican marble, such as it is in nature, and Pentelican marble formed into an august temple or statue. No one can deny this: but if you take the highest works of art, with all their poetical associations, and compare them with the "spots" of earth, where Babylon and Nineveh are buried; the spots, as spots, and the ruins, as ruins, cannot be compared; but compare the most sublime of the objects of art, either abstractedly, that is, without any poetical associations, or with associations, and I deny the major part of your arguments in toto; or that the sublimest works of art, be they where or what they may, are more sublime than the most sublime of the works of nature. And I again affirm, that what is sublime or beautiful, per se, in the works of nature, comparatis comparandis, is more sublime or beautiful than any works of art, and also in their associations, one leading the thought to GOD, and the other to man: and I and I answer, if you adduce the Temple of Theseus, give me the Temple of the Universe, not made with hands, and your temple will be as insignificant as the dust of the marble that composes it. But, without going so far at present, I will ask your Lordship (and no one is a better judge), whom you think the most sublime of all poets, living or dead, the most sublime, without exception ? Whom would POPE call so? One of those mighty terest. spirits, which has given these poetical scenes, with their temples and columns, half their poetical inShall I say HOMER? will you admit this ? Then I ask, if so, how comes it to pass, that the greatest poet the world has produced, wrote before the existence of any ARTS, at least in such perfection? Of rapidity and greatness of events, variety of character, wonderful invention, command of passions, and affecting incidents, we are not here. speaking. And I must beg you, my Lord, to remember this, lest I might be told, that I assert that descriptions of external Nature are those which give the chief sublimity to the poems of HOMER. Further, I say that all the illustrious images you have called up from the august remains of ancient art, are connected with poetical passions; ad these passions are the emotions of Nature, from a thousand affecting connections: and I contend, setting aside the passions, that, in description of external Nature, and of the gods themselves, without being indebted to any temples or statues of them, HOMER stands, with the exception of MILTON, the sole and mightiest master of his art (of which external nature makes a great part) in the world. Let the temples of art, and the statues of gods, be as beautiful or sublime as they may, how came HOMER, in his descriptions, (not of what is natural, his Jack-Ass and Boar similies,) but in the |