Dr. Samuel Johnson’s criticism of hymns may be brushed aside as based on a wrong conception of poetry, which to his mind called not for simplicity, but for something near to that artificiality which he conceived of as art: “Contemplative piety, or the intercourse between God and the human soul, cannot be poetical.”... “The paucity of its topics enforces perpetual repetition, and the sanctity of its matter rejects the ornament of figurative diction.” In mitigation of the false judgment of the old literary dictator, it may be said that the golden age of English hymnody had not yet arrived. The later criticism of the hymn by Matthew Arnold represents more fully the attitude of the literary critic in our own day. The practical aspects of life were not ignored by him, but they did not bulk large in his mind. Hence it is not surprising that, while he fully comprehended the wide influence of the hymn, he had little or no sympathy with its spirit and even less with its purpose, so that he could write about it after this fashion: “Hymns, such as I know them, are a sort of composition which I do not at all admire.... I regret their prevalence and popularity among us.” Could anti-religious rationalism go further? Among more recent critics, Edmund Clarence Stedman speaks of the hymn as “the kind of verse which is, of all, the most common and indispensable.” But Professor Boynton in the _Cambridge History of American Literature_, gives as much space to “Yankee Doodle” as he does to American Hymnody and refers to its “sentimental ornateness,” “tawdry sentimentalism,” and “banalities of evangelistic song,” unconsciously drawing an unhappy portrait of his own spiritual condition.[4] The older criticism of the hymn had at least the merit of thoughtfulness and serious consideration of its value and of its shortcomings. The hymns that would have satisfied literary critics would have required a spiritual delicacy and refinement, an elegance and artistry of phrase, a vagueness of religious idea devoid of genuine feeling, that would shut them out from use in the workaday world in which we live. To set aside the “good and useful purpose” acknowledged by Matthew Arnold in the consideration of the hymn is to ignore its whole reason for being, and, what is vastly more important, to ignore the deepest needs of the human soul. III. THE WRITING OF HYMNS _The Handicap of Thought and Diction._ Alfred Tennyson clearly recognized the limitations that handicap the writer of hymns. “A good hymn is the most difficult thing in the world to write!” The hymn he did write, “Sunset and Evening Star,” beautiful as it is, failed in practicability for congregational use. Its unfitness for mass singing in its various phases is the chief stumblingblock.