'Of Genius', in The Occasional Paper, and Preface to The Creation by Aaron Hill


Main
- books.jibble.org



My Books
- IRC Hacks

Misc. Articles
- Meaning of Jibble
- M4 Su Doku
- Computer Scrapbooking
- Setting up Java
- Bootable Java
- Cookies in Java
- Dynamic Graphs
- Social Shakespeare

External Links
- Paul Mutton
- Jibble Photo Gallery
- Jibble Forums
- Google Landmarks
- Jibble Shop
- Free Books
- Intershot Ltd

books.jibble.org

Previous Page | Next Page

Page 3

In Aaron Hill's preface to the paraphrase of Genesis, published
in 1720, we find no preoccupation with the fatality of
temperament and style. But we do find a rising discontent with
the emptiness and restraint of much contemporary verse, and a
very real preference for a more meaningful and a more emotional
and imaginative poetry. We find, in fact, a genuine appreciation
for the poetry of the Old Testament--a poetry which Biblical
scholars like Le Clerc were already viewing as the product of
untrained primitives.

Hill was not alone in his admiration for Biblical style, for the
praise of the "unclassical" poetry of the Bible, which had begun
in the Renaissance, had swelled rather than diminished during the
neoclassical age. By the second decade of the 18th century such
Augustans as Dennis, Gildon, and Pope were crying up its
beauties. Not all agreed, of course, on just what those beauties
were. And still less did they agree on the extent to which
contemporary poetry should imitate them.

One thing upon which almost all would have agreed, however, was
the adoption of the historical point of view in the approach to
Hebrew poetry. Yet many of Hill's predecessors had stopped short
with the historical justification. Blackmore, for instance, had
condemned as bigots and sectarians all those who denied that the
Hebrew way was as great as the classical. He had pronounced it a
mere accident of fate that modern poetry of Western Europe was
modeled on that of Greece and Rome rather than on that of ancient
Israel. But he had been perfectly willing to accept that
fate--and to remodel the form and style of the book of Job on
what he considered the pattern of the classical epic.

Hill is as far as most of his contemporaries from appreciating
such a literal translation as the King James Version. On the
other hand, he is one of a small group of critics who were
beginning to see that at least certain aspects of Biblical style
were of universal appeal; that they might be as effective
psychologically for the modern Englishman as for the ancient Jew.
And he sees in this collection of ancient Oriental literature a
corrective for some of the worst tendencies of a degenerate
contemporary poetry.

Hill's attack upon the current preoccupation with form and
polish, and his contempt for mere smoothness, for the padded
redundancy of Addison and the elaborate rhetoric of Trapp, are
all part of a campaign waged by a small group of critics to make
poetry once again a vehicle of the very highest truth. He
insists, too, that great thought cannot be contained within the
untroubled cadences of the heroic couplet. His own preference led
to the freer, though currently unfashionable, Pindaric, the
irregularity of which seemed justified by Biblical example, for
despite a century and a half of study and speculation the secret
of Biblical verse had not been solved and to most critics even
the Psalms appeared devoid of any pattern. Indeed, Cowley had
declared that in their freedom of structure and abruptness of
transition the odes of Pindar were like nothing so much as the
poetry of Israel.

In addition, Hill would have the modern poet profit by another
quality of Biblical style: its magic combination of a
"magnificent Plainness" with the "Spirit of Imagery." This is the
Hebrew virtue of concrete suggestiveness, so highly prized by
20th-century critics and so alien to the generalized abstractions
and the explicit clarity of much 18th-century poetry.

In consonance with those who believed poetry best communicated
truth because it appealed to man's senses and emotions as well as
to his logical faculty, Hill praises those "pictur'd Meanings of
Poetry" which "enflame a Reader's Will, and bind down his
Attention." Yet his analysis of Trapp's metaphorical expansions
of Biblical imagery reveals that Hill does not like detailed
descriptions or long-drawn-out comparisons. Instead, he admires
the Hebrew ability to spring the imagination with a few vividly
concrete details. Prior to Hill one can find, in a few
paraphrasers and critics like Denham and Lamy, signs of an
appreciation of the concrete suggestiveness of the Bible, but
most of the hundreds of paraphrasers had felt it desirable to
expand Biblical images to beautify and clarify them. Hill was
apparently the first to prove the esthetic loss in such a
practice by an analysis of particular paraphrastic expansions.

Previous Page | Next Page


Books | Photos | Paul Mutton | Fri 29th Mar 2024, 10:36