Phillips, cursorily dismissing Herrick in his THEATRUM: not
suspecting how inevitably artifice and mannerism, if fashionable
for awhile, pass into forgetfulness, whilst the simple cry of
Nature partake in her permanence.

Donne and Marvell, stronger men, leave also no mark on our poet.
The elaborate thought, the metrical harshness of the first, could
find no counterpart in Herrick; whilst Marvell, beyond him in
imaginative power, though twisting it too often into contortion
and excess, appears to have been little known as a lyrist then:--
as, indeed, his great merits have never reached anything like
due popular recognition. Yet Marvell's natural description is
nearer Herrick's in felicity and insight than any of the poets
named above. Nor, again, do we trace anything of Herbert or
Vaughan in Herrick's NOBLE NUMBERS, which, though unfairly judged
if held insincere, are obviously far distant from the intense
conviction, the depth and inner fervour of his high-toned
contemporaries.

It is among the great dramatists of this age that we find the
only English influences palpably operative on this singularly
original writer. The greatest, in truth, is wholly absent: and
it is remarkable that although Herrick may have joined in the
wit-contests and genialities of the literary clubs in London soon
after Shakespeare's death, and certainly lived in friendship with
some who had known him, yet his name is never mentioned in the
poetical commemorations of the HESPERIDES. In Herrick, echoes
from Fletcher's idyllic pieces in the FAITHFUL SHEPHERDESS are
faintly traceable; from his songs, 'Hear what Love can do,' and
'The lusty Spring,' more distinctly. But to Ben Jonson, whom