29. In 1824 Richard Mant, bishop of Down and Connor, published a metrical version of the Psalms, with notes. The metres are various, designed to be accommodated to the subject or the nature of the Psalm; but it being an entire version, it is not adapted for church psalmody. Many of his rhymes also are not to be tolerated; as "foot, not; bird, spared; brute, wrought; art, subvert; come, fume; ages, blazes; sun, moon; prest, feast; ruling, controlling; ceas'd, cast; debt, seat; swell, peal; rear, war ; feet, set; hear them, fear him." He sometimes fails in adapting the metre to the subject; as he employs the rapid anapestic measure in the sublime 29th Psalm,"O give to the Lord, ye kings of mankind, &c." 30. In 1832 two metrical versions of the Psalms were published in England. One by Mr. E. G. Marsh, which may be ranked with that of bishop Mant. The other version was by W. Gahagan, barrister, being a version of the "Liturgy" Psalms, and is scarcely superior to Sternhold and Hopkins. In 1833 Mr. Joseph P. Bartrum of Cambridge, Massachusetts, published a metrical paraphrase of all the Psalms, but not of the whole of each Psalm. He complains of Watts, although having “the inspiration of poetry and piety," as chargeable with coarseness of diction, harsh elisions, and general negligence, and as introducing much from the Psalms, which is worthless, being seldom, if ever used in public worship. Mr. B. aims to introduce modern, poetic diction, and to fit his version for musical expression. He introduces marks of expression and annexes the names of tunes. With the high poetical powers of the author he has fallen into some inexcusable errors of rhyme, instances of which are the following:-"chaff, blast; sprung, Son; sacrifice, lives ; profane, name; groan, home; drag on, come; atone, comb; proclaims, reigns; gloom, noon; strain, fame; form, adorn; bliss, wish; sublime, divine; blaze, waves; esteem, mean; reproof, truth; beam, seen; fetters, banners." This version is not replete with the christian doctrines, embraced by Watts; it is also greatly deficient in simplicity, and the diction, though rich, is often too far removed from the habits of ordinary minds to be generally acceptable The author has thus mentioned more than fifty metrical versions of the Psalms, being all, that have come within his knowledge, and about thirty of them being entire versions in the English language. Besides these, there have been other versions of a few or a part of the Psalms. W. Hunnis, L. Shepherd, and J. Hall, about 1550, versified several; at the same period J. Mardi ley versified 24 Psalms; F. Seagar 19; Sir W. Forrest, 50; Sir F. Bacon 7; bishop Hall 10; J. B. Rousseau, and Herbert, and Donne a few; Milton 19 Psalms. Addison and Pitt versified a few; C. Wesley, and Doddridge, several; Mrs. Steele, about 1780, 47 Psalms; J. Barlow versified 12 or 15; Dr. Dwight as many or more; Mr. Wrangham a considerable number; and in 1822 Montgomery published a version of 55 Psalms, which are found in collections of his Poems. Having thus finished the proposed historical account of metrical versions of the Psalms of David, the author will now return to the consideration of that of Dr. Watts. Of the excellences of many of his admirable versifications of the Psalms, which are now and have been for ages written in the hearts of the pious, the author need not speak. He has endeavored to preserve in this book all those unequalled pieces, with little alteration. The question is, whether many of his Psalms also are not unsuitable for lyrical purposes, and unfit to be retained; and whether there is not occasion for a new, entire, lyrical version, suited for public worship, not indeed to exclude what is valuable in Watts, but to be used in connexion with it? Let it then be considered, that Dr. Watts has entirely omitted twelve of the Psalms; nor can it be pretended, that it was, because they are unsuitable for lyrical purposes, for most of them were addressed by David to the chief musician, and one of them, Ps. 137, is one of the most beautiful and lyrical in the book of David. In the next place, a considerable number of Watts' Psalms are so destitute of poetical beauty and so chargeable with poetical deformity, that at the present day, in the present improved state of the public taste, they ought not to be retained in a book of Psalms for public worship. If he sometimes fell into vulgarity of language, and if his images and illustrations were sometimes of a humble nature; if some of his pieces do not present any claims to consideration for dignity, and purity, and elevation of style; yet he himself was not unconscious of his faults. He says in his Preface to his Psalms, "I am sensible, I have often subdued my style below the esteem of the critics, because I would neither indulge any bold metaphors, nor admit of hard words, nor tempt any ignorant worshipper to sing without understanding." In his Preface to his Hymns he also says,— "the metaphors are generally sunk to the level of vulgar capacities. Some of the beauties of poetry are neglected and some wilfully defaced.—I have given an alloy to my verse, lest a more exalted turn of thought or language should disturb the devotion." In this Dr. Watts fell into a great error, for devo tion is not promoted by grovelling thoughts, low images, or vulgarity of language. It is true, that when he wrote,―more than a hundred years ago, the common people among the English were far less enlightened and refined, than the great body of American citizens now are; but even then, among the English, he would have done better for the honor of God, had he imitated more the purity, dignity, and sublimity of the original; and this could have been done without obscuring the sense even to the comprehension of the illiterate. In the author's judgment there is a beauty and glory in the Psalms of David, requiring the utmost efforts of the first of poets to versify them in a style most honorable to God, and most useful to man. He has thought, that if a book of English metrical Psalms should come to us in the same pure, lofty, lyrical form, in which the Psalms of David were written by inspiration of Jehovah; if such a book should bring to us the most beautiful and delightful strains of the sweet Psalmist of Israel, his thrilling out-bursts of emotion, his sublime anthems of praise to God, his rapturous joys, his glorious hopes ;—if we could have a just transcript of his odes, which, as a mirror, reflect upon the eye all the beautiful and sublime scenery of Judea and the wonders of creation, and which hold up to view the astonishing works and providences of God towards his chosen people, all emblematical of his present works of power and love towards his saints ;-if his songs, soft as the flowing waters, sweet as the stores, which the bee lays up in his cell, richer than treasured gems and gold, more melodious, than the voice of the lute or the harp, bursting out, at times, like lightning, with sudden brightness, and deep-toned and awful, like the voice, speaking from the dark cloud;-he has thought, that if the Psalms of David were given to us, in English, in the same elevated style of poetry, in which they were given to the Hebrews, there would be no occasion to imagine, that the book would be made more useful and more subservient to the purposes of devotion by wilfully defacing its beauty and degrading its sublimity. Fixing their attention on the prominent faults of Watts, some writers seem unwilling to assign him his just rank as a poet, which is the first rank among religious, lyrical poets. Dr. V. Knox speaks of "the humble poetry of the good Watts ;" and says, that saint often sung sweetly; but there was something wanting to make his songs generally acceptable to the lovers of classical poetry." Another English writer says,"Watts was an excellent man, a strong reasoner, of undoubted piety, and, perhaps a rarer virtue, of true Christian charity; but in our opinion he labored under an irreparable deficiency C for the task, he undertook,-he was no poet. He had a great command of scriptural language, and an extraordinary facility of versification; but, though his piety may induce us to make excuses for his poetry, his poetry will do little to excite dormant piety. Yet, if we are dissatisfied with the rude, homely, and unequal strains of Watts, we have still less taste for the trim and smooth-dressed stanzas, into which Merrick has softened down all the daring, the grandeur, the lyric luxuriance of the Hebrew poets."-Dr. Johnson also says of Watts, "his devotional poetry, like that of others, is unsatisfactory.' It were an irksome task to produce specimens of the humbler poetry of Dr. Watts. If among his productions there are whole Psalms, and many stanzas and lines, written in a tame and homely manner, which the improved taste of the present age cannot tolerate; then unquestionably they ought to be omitted in every book of Psalms, designed for public worship. In respect to Rhyme, which is an essential part of modern lyrical poetry, Watts was inexcusably careless. Dr. Johnson remarked concerning his poetry generally, "his rhymes are not always sufficiently correspondent." Besides introducing bad rhymes, Watts also often neglected them altogether in parts of his stanzas, for which by way of apology he inserts the following note in his 2d book of Hymns, "from the 70th to the 108th Hymn I hope the reader will forgive the neglect of rhyme in the first and third lines of the stanza. Besides these Hymns, other Hymns and Psalms, and some of them in Long metre, have the same fault. In thus rhyming only half the lines of a stanza in Common metre Watts followed the slovenly manner, in which much of Sternhold's and Tate's versions were written. Were such stanzas printed properly, they should be in two lines, instead of four, which was the case with some editions of the New England Psalms. Still more unsatisfactory are the irregularly rhymed Psalms of Watts, in which, in some of the stanzas of the same piece, all the lines rhyme, and in others only two of the lines. Thus his 2d Ps., Short metre, is perfectly rhymed in 4 stanzas, and only half-rhymed in 6 stanzas. Such pieces have the appearance of an elegant structure, half-built and left unfinished. It were better to abolish altogether the occasional, interrupted rhyming of the first and third lines, and thus leave a structure of verse, rude indeed in plan, but complete, like the old measure of Sternhold. Mr. Montgomery, the first lyrical and devotional poet of the age, and whose rhymes and rhythm have an unequalled excellence, will be heard with deference on a subject, on which he is perfectly qualified to judge. In speaking of Watts' Psalms and Hymns, he says, "The faults are principally prosaic phraseology, rhymes worse than none, and none where good ones are absolutely wanted to raise the verse upon its feet, and make it go, according to the saying, "on all-fours ;" though the metre is generally free and natural, when his lines want every other qualification of poetry." He adds, "these blemishes were far less offensive, when he flourished, than they are in the present more fastidious age, which requires exacter versification, with pure, perfect rhymes;-for bad rhymes are much more obtrusive, than good ones;-these form a running harmony through the verse, which is felt without being remarked, and yet so essential to the music of the whole, that the occasional flatness or absence of one is instantly recognized, and produces a sense of wrong. It is a great temptation to the indolence of hymn-writers, that the quartain measures have been so often used by Dr. Watts without rhyme in the first and third lines." Rev. Tho. Milner, in his recently published valuable Life of Dr. Watts, says, in speaking of his Hymns,—and his remarks will apply to the Psalms,-"His most frequent failings are defective rhythm and prosaic phraseology; the want of rhymes between the first and third lines in the quartain measure is sensibly perceived, and occasions the hymn sometimes to halt and stumble."-"The period, when he flourished, was not so nicely critical as the present; pure and perfect harmony was not so rigidly required; what would now be regarded as false versification was practised by the mighty masters of the lyre." Rhyme is indeed not essential to metre, or rhythm, and consequently not essential to music. If we regard the ode or sacred song in reference only to its being sung, or to the music, the rhyme is of no consequence whatever. Anthems 'do not lose their musical power by the absence of rhyme. Dr. Mather, as has been seen, wrote the whole book of Psalms in blank verse, adapted to be sung. Music might be adapted to our prose translation of the Psalms. We may take any stanzas of Watts and destroy the rhymes, and still leave them with all the other characters of lyrical poetry. For instance we might read his 92d Psalm thus, Sweet is the work, O Lord, my God, To praise thy name, give thanks and sing, And talk at eve of all thy truth. Why then did not Dr. Watts write his Psalms in this way, especially as, some will conceive, he could thus, unshackled, |