p. 225; Lane's translation, ii. p. 349. Whether the whole was originally composed as a love-song or a devotional hymn, does not appear from the parts of it which Mr. Lane gives us. If in the parts omitted there is any clear reference to the Deity, it is unlike any of the Canticles. If there is no such reference, the meaning of the hymn is too doubtful to allow any inference to be drawn from it. For we might as well allow the singing of Dr. Watts's version of the Canticles to be an argument for their original design, as to admit the singing of the mystic dervishes to be an evidence of the original design of the hymns.
"Before making some general remarks on this whole subject of attempting to show the character of the Canticles by reference to the pantheistic poetry of the Mahometan Sufis, it may be well to mention that reference has been made even to the poets of Hindostan for the same purpose; especially to the Gitagovinda, the production of a celebrated Hindoo poet, named Jayadeva. This appears to be a mystical poem, designed to celebrate the loves of Crishna and Radha, or the reciprocal attraction between the divine goodness and the human soul. Now, whatever may be the resemblance between the Gitagovinda and Canticles in some of their imagery, there is this essential difference, that, in the former, Crishna was the chief incarnate god of the Hindoos,[1] and that there are references to other gods, and to various superstitions of the Hindoo mythology; whilst in the Canticles there is no reference to any but human characters. Besides, the author of the Gitagovinda clearly intimates its religious character in the conclusion of the poem.
"We have seen, then, that there are material differences between the Canticles and the religious love-songs to which
- ↑ Crishna continues to this hour the darling god of the Indian women. The sect of Hindoos, who adore him with enthusiastic and almost exclusive devotion, have broached a doctrine which they maintain with eagerness, and which seems general in those provinces, that he was distinct from all the Avatars, who had only an ansa, or portion of his divinity; while Crishna was the person of Vishnu himself in a human form.—Sir W. Jones, Asiatic Researches, vol. i. p. 260.
