of construction such as would disgrace a school-boy's composition; and yet
how unworthily is he treated when we find some of his finest passages
vulgarised and degraded through misapprehensions arising from a mere want
of that attention due to the very least, not to say the greatest, of
writers. This want of attention (without attributing to it such fatal
consequences) appears to me evident in L.B.L.'s remarks, ably as he
analyses the passage. I give him credit for the faith that enabled him to
discover a sense in it as it stands; but when he says that it is perfectly
intelligible in its natural sense, it appears to me that he cannot be aware
of the innumerable explanations that have been offered of this very clear
passage. The source of his error is plainly referable to the cause I have
pointed out.

It is quite true that, in the passage referred to, the condition of the
body before and after death is contrasted, but this is merely incidental.
The natural antithesis of "a sensible warm motion" is expressed in "a
kneaded clod" and "cold obstruction;" but the terms of the other half of
the passage are not quite so well balanced. On the other hand, it is not
the contrasted condition of each, but the separation of the body and
spirit--that is, _death_--which is the object of the speaker's
contemplation. Now with regard to the meaning of the term _delighted_,
L.B.L. says it is applied to the spirit "_not_ in its state _after death_,
but _during life_." I must quote the lines once more:--

"Ay, but to die, and go we know not where;
To lie in cold obstruction, and to rot;
This sensible warm motion to become
A kneaded clod; _and_ the delighted spirit
To bathe in fiery floods," &c.