Wouldn't it be nice if he were older? (with apologies to the Beach Boys)

The lament, "The kids're growin' up so fast these days," has become almost proverbial. It may be important to keep in mind that kids often seem to grow up fast "these days," no matter which century we live in. Below, I am reproducing the romantic/sexualized poem, "To Ethelinda, on her doing my Verses the honour of wearing them in her bosom," written by the eighteenth-century poet Christopher Smart.

"Happy verses! that were prest
In fair Ethelinda's breast!
Happy muse, that didst embrace
The sweet, the heav'nly-fragrant place!
Tell me, is the omen true,
Shall the bard arrive there too?

"Oft thro' my eyes my soul has flown,
And wanton'd on that ivory throne:
There with ecstatic transport burn'd,
And thought it was to heav'n return'd.
Tell me, is the omen true,
Shall the body follow too?

"When first at nature's early birth,
Heav'n sent a man upon the earth,
Ev'n Eden was more fruitful found,
When Adam came to till the ground:
Shall then those breasts be fair in vain,
And only rise to fall again?

"No, no, fair nymph--for no such end
Did heav'n to tee its bounty lend;
That breast was ne'er design'd by fate,
For verse, or things inanimate;
Then throw them from that downy bed,
And take the poet in their stead."

Yes, as you might immediately observe, the author is indeed somewhat obsessed about certain anatomical features. Despite some myopia in artistic vision, however, it's a very well-written poem: there's some nice playing with body/soul metaphors, space (poet and poems occupying the same place), etc.. While I might have picked a loftier theme, all in all, I'd have been pretty impressed by my own poetic ability if I wrote such a poem at the age of 29.

The weirdness factor is that Christopher Smart apparently did not write this poem at the age of 29, nor even at the hormonally-charged age of 18. At least according to him, he wrote it at 13. And Ethelinda, the subject of his poetic fancy, was 9! at the time. (Not 9! as in "9 factorial," which would be disturbing for the opposite reason; instead, I mean "9!" in the sense of "What are you thinking, this is a 9-year-old! There is no excuse for your eyes to be wantoning on her ivory throne!")

This leads to a strange aesthetic situation. Traditionally, we more highly respect an artistic work when we know the artist is younger: for example, some of Mozart's pieces are most noted not because of their craftsmanship and brilliance, but because Mozart was only five at the time he composed them. But in this case ... I just keep thinking, "Smart, couldn't you have at least waited to write this until you were 22? Then she'd at least be old enough to vote!" I don't want naively to presume that just because the age thing grosses me personally out, it's intrinsically icky--I recognize Smart was living in a different culture, and at a different time--but dang it, I want to say it conforms to objective standards of ickiness!