by Lord Byron
[Footnote 2: Walter Rodwell Wright, author of ‘Horae Ionicae, a Poem descriptive of the Ionian Islands, and part of the adjacent coast of Greece,’ (1809), had been Consul-General of the Seven Islands. On his return he became Recorder of Bury St. Edmund’s. He was subsequently President of the Court of Appeals in Malta, where he died in 1826. (See Byron’s address to him in ‘English Bards, and Scotch Reviewers’, lines 877-880.)]
[Footnote 3: Henry Kirke White (1785-1806) published ‘Clifton Grove’ and other poems in 1803. He died at Cambridge in 1806. His ‘Remains’ were published by Southey in 1807. (See ‘English Bards’, and Scotch Reviewers’, lines 831-848, and note 2.)]
[Footnote 4: The three brothers, George Bloomfield, a shoemaker,
Nathaniel, a tailor, and Robert, also a shoemaker, were the sons of a
tailor at Honington, in Suffolk, whose wife kept the village school.
(For further details as to George and Nathaniel, see ‘English Bards, and
Scotch Reviewers’, lines 765-798, and ‘notes’.)
Robert Bloomfield (1766-1823) achieved a success with his ‘Farmer’s Boy’ (1800), of which thousands of copies were sold in England, and which was translated into French and Italian. But however creditable the lines may have been to the author, Byron’s opinion of the merits of the poet was the true one. Bloomfield’s subsequent volumes, of which there were seven, were inferior to ‘The Farmer’s Boy’. ‘Good Tidings, or News from the Farm’ (1804), is perhaps the best known. A collected edition of Bloomfield’s ‘Works’ was published in 1824.]
[Footnote 5: Capel Lofft (1751-1824), educated at Eton and Cambridge, was called to the Bar in 1775. Succeeding in 1781 to the family estates near Bury St. Edmund’s, he lived for some years at Troston Hall. Crabb Robinson (‘Diary’, vol. i. p. 29) describes him, in 1795, as
“a gentleman of good family and estate — an author on an infinity of subjects; his books were on Law, History, Poetry, Antiquities, Divinity, and Politics. He was then an acting magistrate, having abandoned the profession of the Bar. He was one of the numerous answerers of Burke; and, in spite of a feeble voice and other disadvantages, was an eloquent speaker.”
His boyish figure, slovenly dress, and involved sentences were well known on the platforms where he advocated parliamentary reform. On May 17, 1784, Johnson dined at Mr. Dilly’s. Among the guests was
“Mr. Capel Lofft, who, though a most zealous Whig, has a mind so full of learning and knowledge, and so much in exercise in various exertions, and withal so much liberality, that the stupendous powers of the literary Goliath, though they did not frighten this little David of popular spirit, could not but excite his admiration.”
Lofft held strong opinions in favour of the French Revolution, which he admired. He, “Godwin, and Thelwall are the only three persons I know (except Hazlitt) who grieve at the late events;” so writes Crabb Robinson, after the battle of Waterloo (‘Diary’, vol. i. p. 491). He published numerous works on law and politics, besides four volumes of poetry: ‘The Praises of Poetry, a Poem’ (1775); ‘Eudosia, or a Poem on the Universe’ (1781); ‘The first and second Georgics of Virgil’ (in blank verse, 1803); ‘Laura, or an Anthology of Sonnets’ (1814). He also edited Milton’s ‘Paradise Lost’. In November, 1798, Lofft read the manuscript of ‘The Farmer’s Boy’, written by Robert Bloomfield in a London garret, where he worked as a shoemaker. Interested in the poem and the Suffolk poet, Lofft had it published in 1800, with cuts by Bewick, and a preface by himself.]
168. — To Francis Hodgson.
Newstead Abbey, August 22, 1811.
You may have heard of the sudden death of my mother, and poor Matthews, which, with that of Wingfield (of which I was not fully aware till just before I left town, and indeed hardly believed it,) has made a sad chasm in my connections. Indeed the blows followed each other so rapidly that I am yet stupid from the shock; and though I do eat, and drink, and talk, and even laugh, at times, yet I can hardly persuade myself that I am awake, did not every morning convince me mournfully to the contrary. — I shall now wave the subject, — the dead are at rest, and none but the dead can be so.
You will feel for poor Hobhouse, — Matthews was the “god of his idolatry;” and if intellect could exalt a man above his fellows, no one could refuse him preeminence. I knew him most intimately, and valued him proportionably; but I am recurring — so let us talk of life and the living.
If you should feel a disposition to come here, you will find “beef and a sea-coal fire,” and not ungenerous wine. Whether Otway’s two other requisites for an Englishman or not, I cannot tell, but probably one of them . — Let me know when I may expect you, that I may tell you when I go and when return. I have not yet been to Lancs. Davies has been here, and has invited me to Cambridge for a week in October, so that, peradventure, we may encounter glass to glass. His gaiety (death cannot mar it) has done me service; but, after all, ours was a hollow laughter.
You will write to me? I am solitary, and I never felt solitude irksome before. Your anxiety about the critique on — — ’s book is amusing; as it was anonymous, certes it was of little consequence: I wish it had produced a little more confusion, being a lover of literary malice. Are you doing nothing? writing nothing? printing nothing? why not your Satire on Methodism? the subject (supposing the public to be blind to merit) would do wonders. Besides, it would be as well for a destined deacon to prove his orthodoxy. — It really would give me pleasure to see you properly appreciated. I say really, as, being an author, my humanity might be suspected.
Believe me, dear H., yours always.
[Footnote 1:
”Give but an Englishman his whore and ease,
Beef and a sea-coal fire, he’s yours for ever.”
‘Venice Preserved’, act ii. sc. 3]
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I — REVIEW OF WORDSWORTH’S POEMS, 2 VOLS. 1807.
(From ‘Monthly Literary Recreations’ for July, 1807.)
The volumes before us are by the author of Lyric Ballads, a collection which has not undeservedly met with a considerable share of public applause. The characteristics of Mr. Wordsworth’s muse are simple and flowing, though occasionally inharmonious verse; strong, and sometimes irresistible appeals to the feelings, with unexceptionable sentiments. Though the present work may not equal his former efforts, many of the poems possess a native elegance, natural and unaffected, totally devoid of the tinsel embellishments and abstract hyperboles of several contemporary sonneteers. The last sonnet in the first volume, p. 152, is perhaps the best, without any novelty in the sentiments, which we hope are common to every Briton at the present crisis; the force and expression is that of a genuine poet, feeling as he writes —
Another year! another deadly blow!
Another mighty empire overthrown!
And we are left, or shall be left, alone —
The last that dares to struggle with the foe.
’Tis well! — from this day forward we shall know
That in ourselves our safety must be sought,
That by our own right-hands it must be wrought;
That we must stand unprop’d, or be laid low.
O dastard! whom such foretaste doth not cheer!
We shall exult, if they who rule the land
Be men who hold its many blessings dear,
Wise, upright, valiant, not a venal band,
Who are to judge of danger which they fear,
And honour which they do not understand.
The song at the Feast of Brougham Castle, the Seven Sisters, the Affliction of Margaret — — of — — , possess all the beauties, and few of the defects, of the writer: the following lines from the last are in his first style: —
”Ah! little doth the young one dream,
When full of play and childish cares,
What power hath e’en his wildest scream,
Heard by his mother unawares:
He knows it not, he cannot
guess:
Years to a mother bring distress,
But do not make her love the less.”
The pieces least worthy of the author are those entitled “Moods of my own Mind.” We certainly wish these “Moods” had been less frequent, or not permitted to occupy a place near works which only make their deformity more obvious; when Mr. W. ceases to please, it is by “abandoning” his mind to the most commonplace ideas, at the same time clothing them in language not simple, but puerile. What will any reader or auditor, out of the nursery, say to such namby-pamby as “Lines written at the Foot of Brother’s Bridge”?
”The cock is crowing,
The stream is flowing,
The small birds twitter,
The lake doth glitter,
The green field sleeps in the sun;
The oldest and youngest,
Are at work with the strongest;
The cattle are grazing,
Their heads never raising,
There are forty feeding like one.
Like an army defeated,
The snow hath retreated,
And now doth fare ill,
On the top of the bare hill.”
“The ploughboy is whooping anon, anon,” etc., etc., is in the same exquisite measure. This appears to us neither more nor less than an imitation of such minstrelsy as soothed our cries in the cradle, with the shrill ditty of
”Hey de diddle,
The cat and the fiddle:
The cow jump’d over the moon,
The little dog laugh’d to see such sport,
And the dish ran away with the spoon.”
On the whole, however, with the exception of the above, and other INNOCENT odes of the same cast, we think these volumes display a genius worthy of higher pursuits, and regret that Mr. W. confines his muse to such trifling subjects. We trust his motto will be in future “Paulo majora canamus.” Many, with inferior abilities, have acquired a loftier seat on Parnassus, merely by attempting strains in which Wordsworth is more qualified to excel.
APPENDIX II — ARTICLE FROM THE EDINBURGH REVIEW, FOR JANUARY, 1808.
‘Hours of Idleness; a Series of Poems, original and translated.’
By George Gordon, Lord Byron, a Minor. 8vo, pp. 200. Newark, 1807.
The poesy of this young lord belongs to the class which neither gods nor men are said to permit. Indeed, we do not recollect to have seen a quantity of verse with so few deviations in either direction from that exact standard. His effusions are spread over a dead flat, and can no more get above or below the level, than if they were so much stagnant water. As an extenuation of this offence, the noble author is peculiarly forward in pleading minority. We have it in the title-page, and on the very back of the volume; it follows his name like a favourite part of his ‘style’. Much stress is laid upon it in the preface; and the poems are connected with this general statement of his case, by particular dates, substantiating the age at which each was written. Now, the law upon the point of minority we hold to be perfectly clear. It is a plea available only to the defendant; no plaintiff can offer it as a supplementary ground of action. Thus, if any suit could be brought against Lord Byron, for the purpose of compelling him to put into court a certain quantity of poetry, and if judgment were given against him, it is highly probable that an exception would be taken, were he to deliver ‘for poetry’ the contents of this volume. To this he might plead ‘minority’; but, as he now makes voluntary tender of the article, he hath no right to sue, on that ground, for the price in good current praise, should the goods be unmarketable.
This is our view of the law on the point; and, we dare to say, so will it be ruled. Perhaps, however, in reality, all that he tells us about his youth is rather with a view to increase our wonder than to soften our censures. He possibly means to say, “See how a minor can write! This poem was actually composed by a young man of eighteen, and this by one of only sixteen!” But, alas! We all remember the poetry of Cowley at ten, and Pope at twelve; and so far from hearing, with any degree of surprise, that very poor verses were written by a youth from his leaving school to his leaving college, inclusive, we really believe this to be the most common of all occurrences; that it happens in the life of nine men in ten who are educated in England; and that the tenth man writes better verse than Lord Byron.
His other plea of privilege our author rather brings forward in order to waive it. He certainly, however, does allude frequently to his family and ancestry — sometimes in poetry, sometimes in notes; and, while giving up his claim on the score of rank, he takes care to remember us of Dr. Johnson’s saying, that when a nobleman appears as an author, his merit should be handsomely acknowledged. In truth, it is this consideration only that induces us to give Lord Byron’s poems a place in our review, beside our desire to counsel him, that he do forthwith abandon poetry, and turn his talents, which are considerable, and his opportunities, which are great, to better account.
With this view, we must beg leave seriously to assure him, that the mere rhyming of the final syllable, even when accompanied by the presence of a certain number of feet, — nay, although (which does not always happen) those feet should scan regularly, and have been all counted accurately upon the fingers, — is not the whole art of poetry. We would entreat him to believe, that a certain portion of liveliness, somewhat of fancy, is necessary to constitute a poem, and that a poem in the present day, to be read, must contain at least one thought, either in a little degree different from the ideas of former writers, or differently expressed. We put it to his candour, whether there is any thing so deserving the name of poetry in verses like the following, written in 1806; and whether, if a youth of eighteen could say any thing so uninteresting to his ancestors, a youth of nineteen should publish it; —
”Shades of heroes, farewell! your descendant, departing
From the seat of his ancestors, bids you adieu!
Abroad or at home, your remembrance imparting
New courage, he’ll think upon glory and you.
”Though a tear dim his eye at this sad separation,
’Tis nature, not fear, that excites his regret;
Far distant he goes, with the same emulation;
The fame of his fathers he ne’er can forget.
”That fame, and that memory, still will he cherish;
He vows that he ne’er will disgrace your renown;
Like you will he live, or like you will he perish;
When decay’d, may he mingle his dust with your own.”
Now, we positively do assert, that there is nothing better than these stanzas in the whole compass of the noble minor’s volume.
Lord Byron should also have a care of attempting what the greatest poets have done before him, for comparisons (as he must have had occasion to see at his writing-master’s) are odious. Gray’s Ode on Eton College should really have kept out the ten hobbling stanzas “On a distant View of the Village and School of Harrow.”
”Where fancy yet joys to retrace the resemblance
Of comrades, in friendship and mischief allied,
How welcome to me your ne’er-fading remembrance,
Which rests in the bosom, though hope is denied.”
In like manner, the exquisite lines of Mr. Rogers, “On a Tear,” might have warned the noble author off those premises, and spared us a whole dozen such stanzas as the following: —
”Mild Charity’s glow, to us mortals below,
Shows the soul from barbarity clear;
Compassion will melt where this virtue is felt,
And its dew is diffused in a Tear.
”The man doom’d to sail with the blast of the gale,
Through billows Atlantic to steer,
As he bends o’er the wave, which may soon be his grave,
The green sparkles bright with a Tear.”
And so of instances in which former poets have failed. Thus we do not think Lord Byron was made for translating,
during his nonage, “Adrian’s Address to his Soul,” when Pope succeeded so indifferently in the attempt. If our readers, however, are of another opinion, they may look at it.
”Ah! gentle, fleeting, wavering sprite,
Friend and associate of this clay!
To what unknown region borne
Wilt thou now wing thy distant flight?
No more with wonted humour gay,
But pallid, cheerless, and forlorn.”
However, be this as it may, we fear his translations and imitations are great favourites with Lord Byron. We have them of all kinds, from Anacreon to Ossian; and, viewing them as school exercises, they may pass. Only, why print them after they have had their day and served their turn? And why call the thing in p. 79 (see p. 380) a translation, where ‘two’ words [Gr.](‘thelo legein’) of the original are expanded into four lines, and the other thing in p. 81 (see ‘ibid’.) where [Gr.] ‘mesonuktiais poth horais’ is rendered by means of six hobbling verses? As to his Ossianic poesy, we are not very good judges, being in truth, so moderately skilled in that species of composition, that we should, in all probability, be criticizing some bit of the genuine Macpherson itself, were we to express our opinion of Lord Byron’s rhapsodies. If, then, the following beginning of a “Song of Bards” is by his lordship, we venture to object to it, as far as we can comprehend it. “What form rises on the roar of clouds? whose dark ghost gleams on the red stream of tempests? His voice rolls on the thunder; ‘tis Orla, the brown chief of Oithona. He “was,” etc. After detaining this “brown chief” some time, the bards conclude by giving him their advice to “raise his fair locks;” then to “spread them on the arch of the rainbow;” and to “smile through the tears of the storm.” Of this kind of thing there are no less than nine pages; and we can so far venture an opinion in their favour, that they look very like Macpherson; and we are positive they are pretty nearly as stupid and tiresome.
It is a sort of privilege of poets to be egotists; but they should “use it as not abusing it;” and particularly one who piques himself (though indeed at the ripe age of nineteen) on being “an infant bard,” — (“The artless Helicon I boast is youth”) — should either not know, or should seem not to know, so much about his own ancestry. Besides a poem above cited, on the family seat of the Byrons, we have another of eleven pages, on the self-same subject, introduced with an apology, “he certainly had no intention of inserting it,” but really “the particular request of some friends,” etc., etc. It concludes with five stanzas on himself, “the last and youngest of a noble line.” There is a good deal also about his maternal ancestors, in a poem on Lachin y Gair, a mountain where he spent part of his youth, and might have learnt that pibroch is not a bagpipe, any more than duet means a fiddle.