Project Gutenberg Etext The Miscellaneous Writings and Speeches
of Lord Macaulay, Volume 1 [Knight's Quarterly Magazine] of 4

Sue Asscher  asschers@satcom.net.au

Copyright laws are changing all over the world, be sure to check
the copyright laws for your country before posting these files!!

Please take a look at the important information in this header.
We encourage you to keep this file on your own disk, keeping an
electronic path open for the next readers.  Do not remove this.


**Welcome To The World of Free Plain Vanilla Electronic Texts**

**Etexts Readable By Both Humans and By Computers, Since 1971**

*These Etexts Prepared By Hundreds of Volunteers and Donations*

Information on contacting Project Gutenberg to get Etexts, and
further information is included below.  We need your donations.


The Miscellaneous Writings and Speeches of Lord Macaulay.

Volume I.

May, 2000 [Etext #2167]


Project Gutenberg Etext The Miscellaneous Writings and Speeches
of Lord Macaulay:   Volume 1 [Knight's Quarterly Magazine] of 4
******This file should be named 1mwsm10.txt or 1mwsm10.zip*****

Corrected EDITIONS of our etexts get a new NUMBER, 1mwsm11.txt
VERSIONS based on separate sources get new LETTER, 1mwsm10a.txt


This etext was prepared by Dr Mike Alder and Sue Asscher
from the book made available by Dr Mike Alder.



Project Gutenberg Etexts are usually created from multiple editions,
all of which are in the Public Domain in the United States, unless a
copyright notice is included.  Therefore, we do NOT keep these books
in compliance with any particular paper edition, usually otherwise.


We are now trying to release all our books one month in advance
of the official release dates, for time for better editing.

Please note:  neither this list nor its contents are final till
midnight of the last day of the month of any such announcement.
The official release date of all Project Gutenberg Etexts is at
Midnight, Central Time, of the last day of the stated month.  A
preliminary version may often be posted for suggestion, comment
and editing by those who wish to do so.  To be sure you have an
up to date first edition [xxxxx10x.xxx] please check file sizes
in the first week of the next month.  Since our ftp program has
a bug in it that scrambles the date [tried to fix and failed] a
look at the file size will have to do, but we will try to see a
new copy has at least one byte more or less.


Information about Project Gutenberg (one page)

We produce about two million dollars for each hour we work.  The
fifty hours is one conservative estimate for how long it we take
to get any etext selected, entered, proofread, edited, copyright
searched and analyzed, the copyright letters written, etc.  This
projected audience is one hundred million readers.  If our value
per text is nominally estimated at one dollar then we produce $2
million dollars per hour this year as we release thirty-six text
files per month, or 432 more Etexts in 1999 for a total of 2000+
If these reach just 10% of the computerized population, then the
total should reach over 200 billion Etexts given away this year.

The Goal of Project Gutenberg is to Give Away One Trillion Etext
Files by the December 31, 2001.  [10,000 x 100,000,000=Trillion]
This is ten thousand titles each to one hundred million readers,
which is only ~5% of the present number of computer users.

At our revised rates of production, we will reach only one-third
of that goal by the end of 2001, or about 3,333 Etexts unless we
manage to get some real funding; currently our funding is mostly
from Michael Hart's salary at Carnegie-Mellon University, and an
assortment of sporadic gifts; this salary is only good for a few
more years, so we are looking for something to replace it, as we
don't want Project Gutenberg to be so dependent on one person.

We need your donations more than ever!


All donations should be made to "Project Gutenberg/CMU": and are
tax deductible to the extent allowable by law.  (CMU = Carnegie-
Mellon University).

For these and other matters, please mail to:

Project Gutenberg
P. O. Box  2782
Champaign, IL 61825

When all other email fails try our Executive Director:
Michael S. Hart <hart@pobox.com>

We would prefer to send you this information by email.

******

To access Project Gutenberg etexts, use any Web browser
to view http://promo.net/pg.  This site lists Etexts by
author and by title, and includes information about how
to get involved with Project Gutenberg.  You could also
download our past Newsletters, or subscribe here.  This
is one of our major sites, please email hart@pobox.com,
for a more complete list of our various sites.

To go directly to the etext collections, use FTP or any
Web browser to visit a Project Gutenberg mirror (mirror
sites are available on 7 continents; mirrors are listed
at http://promo.net/pg).

Mac users, do NOT point and click, typing works better.

Example FTP session:

ftp sunsite.unc.edu
login: anonymous
password: your@login
cd pub/docs/books/gutenberg
cd etext90 through etext99
dir [to see files]
get or mget [to get files. . .set bin for zip files]
GET GUTINDEX.??  [to get a year's listing of books, e.g.,
GUTINDEX.99]
GET GUTINDEX.ALL [to get a listing of ALL books]

***

**Information prepared by the Project Gutenberg legal advisor**

(Three Pages)


***START**THE SMALL PRINT!**FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN ETEXTS**START***
Why is this "Small Print!" statement here?  You know: lawyers.
They tell us you might sue us if there is something wrong with
your copy of this etext, even if you got it for free from
someone other than us, and even if what's wrong is not our
fault.  So, among other things, this "Small Print!" statement
disclaims most of our liability to you.  It also tells you how
you can distribute copies of this etext if you want to.

*BEFORE!* YOU USE OR READ THIS ETEXT
By using or reading any part of this PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm
etext, you indicate that you understand, agree to and accept
this "Small Print!" statement.  If you do not, you can receive
a refund of the money (if any) you paid for this etext by
sending a request within 30 days of receiving it to the person
you got it from.  If you received this etext on a physical
medium (such as a disk), you must return it with your request.

ABOUT PROJECT GUTENBERG-TM ETEXTS
This PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext, like most PROJECT GUTENBERG-
tm etexts, is a "public domain" work distributed by Professor
Michael S. Hart through the Project Gutenberg Association at
Carnegie-Mellon University (the "Project").  Among other
things, this means that no one owns a United States copyright
on or for this work, so the Project (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and
without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules, set forth
below, apply if you wish to copy and distribute this etext
under the Project's "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark.

To create these etexts, the Project expends considerable
efforts to identify, transcribe and proofread public domain
works.  Despite these efforts, the Project's etexts and any
medium they may be on may contain "Defects".  Among other
things, Defects may take the form of incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged
disk or other etext medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

LIMITED WARRANTY; DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES
But for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described below,
[1] the Project (and any other party you may receive this
etext from as a PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext) disclaims all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including
legal fees, and [2] YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE OR
UNDER STRICT LIABILITY, OR FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY OR CONTRACT,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

If you discover a Defect in this etext within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any)
you paid for it by sending an explanatory note within that
time to the person you received it from.  If you received it
on a physical medium, you must return it with your note, and
such person may choose to alternatively give you a replacement
copy.  If you received it electronically, such person may
choose to alternatively give you a second opportunity to
receive it electronically.

THIS ETEXT IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED TO YOU "AS-IS".  NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARE MADE TO YOU AS
TO THE ETEXT OR ANY MEDIUM IT MAY BE ON, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Some states do not allow disclaimers of implied warranties or
the exclusion or limitation of consequential damages, so the
above disclaimers and exclusions may not apply to you, and you
may have other legal rights.

INDEMNITY
You will indemnify and hold the Project, its directors,
officers, members and agents harmless from all liability, cost
and expense, including legal fees, that arise directly or
indirectly from any of the following that you do or cause:
[1] distribution of this etext, [2] alteration, modification,
or addition to the etext, or [3] any Defect.

DISTRIBUTION UNDER "PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm"
You may distribute copies of this etext electronically, or by
disk, book or any other medium if you either delete this
"Small Print!" and all other references to Project Gutenberg,
or:

[1]  Only give exact copies of it.  Among other things, this
     requires that you do not remove, alter or modify the
     etext or this "small print!" statement.  You may however,
     if you wish, distribute this etext in machine readable
     binary, compressed, mark-up, or proprietary form,
     including any form resulting from conversion by word pro-
     cessing or hypertext software, but only so long as
     *EITHER*:

     [*]  The etext, when displayed, is clearly readable, and
          does *not* contain characters other than those
          intended by the author of the work, although tilde
          (~), asterisk (*) and underline (_) characters may
          be used to convey punctuation intended by the
          author, and additional characters may be used to
          indicate hypertext links; OR

     [*]  The etext may be readily converted by the reader at
          no expense into plain ASCII, EBCDIC or equivalent
          form by the program that displays the etext (as is
          the case, for instance, with most word processors);
          OR

     [*]  You provide, or agree to also provide on request at
          no additional cost, fee or expense, a copy of the
          etext in its original plain ASCII form (or in EBCDIC
          or other equivalent proprietary form).

[2]  Honor the etext refund and replacement provisions of this
     "Small Print!" statement.

[3]  Pay a trademark license fee to the Project of 20% of the
     net profits you derive calculated using the method you
     already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  If you
     don't derive profits, no royalty is due.  Royalties are
     payable to "Project Gutenberg Association/Carnegie-Mellon
     University" within the 60 days following each
     date you prepare (or were legally required to prepare)
     your annual (or equivalent periodic) tax return.

WHAT IF YOU *WANT* TO SEND MONEY EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO?
The Project gratefully accepts contributions in money, time,
scanning machines, OCR software, public domain etexts, royalty
free copyright licenses, and every other sort of contribution
you can think of.  Money should be paid to "Project Gutenberg
Association / Carnegie-Mellon University".

*END*THE SMALL PRINT! FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN ETEXTS*Ver.04.29.93*END*





This etext was prepared by Dr. Mike Alder and Sue Asscher
from the book made available by Dr Mike Alder.




THE MISCELLANEOUS WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

OF

LORD MACAULAY.




VOLUME I.


PREFACE.

Lord Macaulay always looked forward to a publication of his
miscellaneous works, either by himself or by those who should
represent him after his death.  And latterly he expressly
reserved, whenever the arrangements as to copyright made it
necessary, the right of such publication.

The collection which is now published comprehends some of the
earliest and some of the latest works which he composed.  He was
born on 25th October, 1800; commenced residence at Trinity
College, Cambridge, in October, 1818; was elected Craven
University Scholar in 1821; graduated as B.A. in 1822; was
elected fellow of the college in October, 1824; was called to the
bar in February, 1826, when he joined the Northern Circuit; and
was elected member for Calne in 1830.  After this last event, he
did not long continue to practise at the bar.  He went to India
in 1834, whence he returned in June, 1838.  He was elected member
for Edinburgh, in 1839, and lost this seat in July, 1847; and
this (though he was afterwards again elected for that city in
July, 1852, without being a candidate) may be considered as the
last instance of his taking an active part in the contests of
public life.  These few dates are mentioned for the purpose
of enabling the reader to assign the articles, now and previously
published, to the principal periods into which the author's life
may be divided.

The admirers of his later works will probably be interested by
watching the gradual formation of his style, and will notice in
his earlier productions, vigorous and clear as their language
always was, the occurrence of faults against which he afterwards
most anxiously guarded himself.  A much greater interest will
undoubtedly be felt in tracing the date and development of his
opinions.

The articles published in Knight's Quarterly Magazine were
composed during the author's residence at college, as B.A.  It
may be remarked that the first two of these exhibit the
earnestness with which he already endeavoured to represent to
himself and to others the scenes and persons of past times as in
actual existence.  Of the Dialogue between Milton and Cowley he
spoke, many years after its publication, as that one of his works
which he remembered with most satisfaction.  The article on
Mitford's Greece he did not himself value so highly as others
thought it deserved.  This article, at any rate, contains the
first distinct enunciation of his views, as to the office of an
historian, views afterwards more fully set forth in his Essay,
upon History, in the Edinburgh Review.  From the protest, in the
last mentioned essay, against the conventional notions respecting
the majesty of history might perhaps have been anticipated
something like the third chapter of the History of England.  It
may be amusing to notice that in the article on Mitford, appears
the first sketch of the New Zealander, afterwards filled up in a
passage in the review of Mrs Austin's translation of Ranke, a
passage which at one time was the subject of allusion, two or
three times a week, in speeches and leading articles.  In this,
too, appear, perhaps for the first time, the author's views on
the representative system.  These he retained to the very last;
they are brought forward repeatedly in the articles published in
this collection and elsewhere, and in his speeches in parliament;
and they coincide with the opinions expressed in the letter to an
American correspondent, which was so often cited in the late
debate on the Reform Bill.

Some explanation appears to be necessary as to the publication of
the three articles "Mill on Government," "Westminster Reviewer's
Defence of Mill" and "Utilitarian Theory of Government."

In 1828 Mr James Mill, the author of the History of British
India, reprinted some essays which he had contributed to the
Supplement to the Encyclopaedia Britannica; and among these was
an Essay on Government.  The method of inquiry and reasoning
adopted in this essay appeared to Macaulay to be essentially
wrong.  He entertained a very strong conviction that the only
sound foundation for a theory of Government must be laid in
careful and copious historical induction; and he believed that Mr
Mill's work rested upon a vicious reasoning a priori.  Upon this
point he felt the more earnestly, owing to his own passion for
historical research, and to his devout admiration of Bacon, whose
works he was at that time studying with intense attention.  There
can, however, be little doubt that he was also provoked by the
pretensions of some members of a sect which then commonly went by
the name of Benthamites, or Utilitarians.  This sect included
many of his contemporaries, who had quitted Cambridge at about
the same time with him.  It had succeeded, in some measure, to
the sect of the Byronians, whom he has described in the review of
Moore's Life of Lord Byron, who discarded their neckcloths, and
fixed little models of skulls on the sand-glasses by which they
regulated the boiling of their eggs for breakfast.  The members
of these sects, and of many others that have succeeded, have
probably long ago learned to smile at the temporary humours.  But
Macaulay, himself a sincere admirer of Bentham, was irritated by
what he considered the unwarranted tone assumed by several of the
class of Utilitarians.  "We apprehend," he said, "that many of
them are persons who, having read little or nothing, are
delighted to be rescued from the sense of their own inferiority
by some teacher who assures them that the studies which they have
neglected are of no value, puts five or six phrases into their
mouths, lends them an odd number of the Westminster Review, and
in a month transforms them into philosophers;" and he spoke of
them as "smatterers, whose attainments just suffice to elevate
them from the insignificance of dunces to the dignity of bores,
and to spread dismay among their pious aunts and grand mothers."
The sect, of course, like other sects, comprehended some
pretenders, and these the most arrogant and intolerant among its
members.  He, however, went so far as to apply the following
language to the majority:--"As to the greater part of the sect,
it is, we apprehend, of little consequence what they study or
under whom.  It would be more amusing, to be sure, and more
reputable, if they would take up the old republican cant and
declaim about Brutus and Timoleon, the duty of killing tyrants
and the blessedness of dying for liberty.  But, on the whole,
they might have chosen worse.  They may as well be Utilitarians
as jockeys or dandies.  And, though quibbling about self-interest
and motives, and objects of desire, and the greatest happiness of
the greatest number, is but a poor employment for a grown man, it
certainly hurts the health less than hard drinking and the
fortune less than high play; it is not much more laughable than
phrenology, and is immeasurably more humane than cock-fighting."

Macaulay inserted in the Edinburgh Review of March, 1829, an
article upon Mr Mill's Essay.  He attacked the method with much
vehemence; and, to the end of his life, he never saw any ground
for believing that in this he had gone too far.  But before long
he felt that he had not spoken of the author of the Essay with
the respect due to so eminent a man.  In 1833, he described Mr
mill, during the debate on the India Bill of that year, as a
"gentleman extremely well acquainted with the affairs of our
Eastern Empire, a most valuable servant of the Company, and the
author of a history of India, which, though certainly not free
from faults, is, I think, on the whole, the greatest historical
work which has appeared in our language since that of Gibbon."

Almost immediately upon the appearance of the article in the
Edinburgh Review, an answer was published in the Westminster
Review.  It was untruly attributed, in the newspapers of the day,
to Mr Bentham himself.  Macaulay's answer to this appeared in the
Edinburgh Review, June, 1829.  He wrote the answer under the
belief that he was answering Mr Bentham, and was undeceived in
time only to add the postscript.  The author of the article in
the Westminster Review had not perceived that the question raised
was not as to the truth or falsehood of the result at which Mr
Mill had arrived, but as to the soundness or unsoundness of the
method which he pursued; a misunderstanding at which Macaulay,
while he supposed the article to be the work of Mr Bentham,
expressed much surprise.  The controversy soon became principally
a dispute as to the theory which was commonly known by the name
of The Greatest Happiness Principle.  Another article in the
Westminster Review followed; and a surrejoinder by Macaulay in
the Edinburgh Review of October, 1829.  Macaulay was irritated at
what he conceived to be either extreme dullness or gross
unfairness on the part of his unknown antagonist, and struck as
hard as he could; and he struck very hard indeed.

The ethical question thus raised was afterwards discussed by Sir
James Mackintosh, in the Dissertation contributed by him to the
seventh edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, page 284-313
(Whewell's Edition).  Sir James Mackintosh notices the part taken
in the controversy by Macaulay, in the following words:  "A
writer of consummate ability, who has failed in little but the
respect due to the abilities and character of his opponents, has
given too much countenance to the abuse and confusion of language
exemplified in the well-known verse of Pope,

'Modes of self-love the Passions we may call.'

'We know,' says he, 'no universal proposition respecting human
nature which is true but one--that men always act from self-
interest.'"  "It is manifest from the sequel, that the writer is
not the dupe of the confusion; but many of his readers may be so.
If, indeed, the word "self-interest" could with propriety be used
for the gratification of every prevalent desire, he has clearly
shown that this change in the signification of terms would be of
no advantage to the doctrine which he controverts.  It would make
as many sorts of self-interest as there are appetites, and it is
irreconcilably at variance with the system of association
proposed by Mr Mill."  "The admirable writer whose language has
occasioned this illustration, who at an early age has mastered
every species of composition, will doubtless hold fast to
simplicity, which survives all the fashions of deviation from it,
and which a man of genius so fertile has few temptations to for
sake."

When Macaulay selected for publication certain articles of the
Edinburgh Review, he resolved not to publish any of the three
essays in question; for which he assigned the following reason:--

"The author has been strongly urged to insert three papers on the
Utilitarian Philosophy, which, when they first appeared,
attracted some notice, but which are not in the American
editions.  He has however determined to omit these papers, not
because he is disposed to retract a single doctrine which they
contain, but because he is unwilling to offer what might be
regarded as an affront to the memory of one from whose opinions
he still widely dissents, but to whose talents and virtues he
admits that he formerly did not do justice.  Serious as are the
faults of the Essay on Government, a critic, while noticing those
faults, should have abstained from using contemptuous language
respecting the historian of British India.  It ought to be known
that Mr Mill had the generosity, not only to forgive, but to
forget the unbecoming acrimony with which he had been assailed,
and was, when his valuable life closed, on terms of cordial
friendship with his assailant."

Under these circumstances, considerable doubt has been felt as to
the propriety of republishing the three Essays in the present
collection.  But it has been determined, not without much
hesitation, that they should appear.  It is felt that no
disrespect is shown to the memory of Mr Mill, when the
publication is accompanied by so full an apology for the tone
adopted towards him; and Mr Mill himself would have been the last
to wish for the suppression of opinions on the ground that they
were in express antagonism to his own.  The grave has now closed
upon the assailant as well as the assailed.  On the other hand,
it cannot but be desirable that opinions which the author
retained to the last, on important questions in politics and
morals, should be before the public.

Some of the poems now collected have already appeared in print;
others are supplied by the recollection of friends.  The first
two are published on account of their having been composed in the
author's childhood.  In the poems, as well as in the prose works,
will be occasionally found thoughts and expressions which have
afterwards been adopted in later productions.

No alteration whatever has been made from the form in which the
author left the several articles, with the exception of some
changes in punctuation, and the correction of one or two obvious
misprints.

T.F.E.
London, June 1860.



CONTENTS.


CONTRIBUTIONS TO KNIGHT'S QUARTERLY MAGAZINE.

Fragments of a Roman Tale.  (June 1823.)

On the Royal Society of Literature.  (June 1823.)

Scenes from "Athenian Revels."  (January 1824.)

Criticisms on the Principal Italian Writers.  No. I. Dante.
(January 1824.)

Criticisms on the Principal Italian Writers.  No. II. Petrarch.
(April 1824.)

Some account of the Great Lawsuit between the Parishes of St
Dennis and St George in the Water.  (April 1824.)

A Conversation between Mr Abraham Cowley and Mr John Milton,
touching the Great Civil War.  (August 1824.)

On the Athenian Orators.  (August 1824.)

A Prophetic Account of a Grand National Epic Poem, to be entitled
"The Wellingtoniad," and to be Published A.D. 2824.  (November
1824.)

On Mitford's History of Greece.  (November 1824.)




MISCELLANEOUS WRITINGS OF LORD MACAULAY.


CONTRIBUTIONS TO KNIGHT'S QUARTERLY MAGAZINE.


FRAGMENTS OF A ROMAN TALE.

(June 1823.)


It was an hour after noon.  Ligarius was returning from the
Campus Martius.  He strolled through one of the streets which led
to the Forum, settling his gown, and calculating the odds on the
gladiators who were to fence at the approaching Saturnalia.
While thus occupied, he overtook Flaminius, who, with a heavy
step and a melancholy face, was sauntering in the same direction.
The light-hearted young man plucked him by the sleeve.

"Good-day, Flaminius.  Are you to be of Catiline's party this
evening?"

"Not I."

"Why so?  Your little Tarentine girl will break her heart."

"No matter.  Catiline has the best cooks and the finest wine in
Rome.  There are charming women at his parties.  But the twelve-
line board and the dice-box pay for all.  The Gods confound me if
I did not lose two millions of sesterces last night.  My villa at
Tibur, and all the statues that my father the praetor brought
from Ephesus, must go to the auctioneer.  That is a high price,
you will acknowledge, even for Phoenicopters, Chian, and
Callinice."

"High indeed, by Pollux."

"And that is not the worst.  I saw several of the leading
senators this morning.  Strange things are whispered in the
higher political circles."

"The Gods confound the political circles.  I have hated the name
of politician ever since Sylla's proscription, when I was within
a moment of having my throat cut by a politician, who took me for
another politician.  While there is a cask of Falernian in
Campania, or a girl in the Suburra, I shall be too well employed
to think on the subject."

"You will do well," said Flaminius gravely, "to bestow some
little consideration upon it at present.  Otherwise, I fear, you
will soon renew your acquaintance with politicians, in a manner
quite as unpleasant as that to which you allude."

"Averting Gods! what do you mean?"

"I will tell you.  There are rumours of conspiracy.  The order of
things established by Lucius Sylla has excited the disgust of the
people, and of a large party of the nobles.  Some violent
convulsion is expected."

"What is that to me?  I suppose that they will hardly proscribe
the vintners and gladiators, or pass a law compelling every
citizen to take a wife."

"You do not understand.  Catiline is supposed to be the author of
the revolutionary schemes.  You must have heard bold opinions at
his table repeatedly."

"I never listen to any opinions upon such subjects, bold or
timid."

"Look to it. Your name has been mentioned."

"Mine! good Gods!  I call Heaven to witness that I never so much
as mentioned Senate, Consul, or Comitia, in Catiline's house."

"Nobody suspects you of any participation in the inmost counsels
of the party.  But our great men surmise that you are among those
whom he has bribed so high with beauty, or entangled so deeply in
distress, that they are no longer their own masters.  I shall
never set foot within his threshold again.  I have been solemnly
warned by men who understand public affairs; and I advise you to
be cautious."

The friends had now turned into the Forum, which was thronged
with the gay and elegant youth of Rome.  "I can tell you more,"
continued Flaminius; "somebody was remarking to the Consul
yesterday how loosely a certain acquaintance of ours tied his
girdle.  'Let him look to himself;' said Cicero, 'or the state
may find a tighter girdle for his neck.'"

"Good Gods! who is it?  You cannot surely mean"--

"There he is."

Flaminius pointed to a man who was pacing up and down the Forum
at a little distance from them.  He was in the prime of manhood.
His personal advantages were extremely striking, and were
displayed with an extravagant but not ungraceful foppery.  His
gown waved in loose folds; his long dark curls were dressed with
exquisite art, and shone and steamed with odours; his step and
gesture exhibited an elegant and commanding figure in every
posture of polite languor.  But his countenance formed a singular
contrast to the general appearance of his person.  The high and
imperial brow, the keen aquiline features, the compressed mouth;
the penetrating eye, indicated the highest degree of ability and
decision.  He seemed absorbed in intense meditation.  With eyes
fixed on the ground, and lips working in thought, he sauntered
round the area, apparently unconscious how many of the young
gallants of Rome were envying the taste of his dress, and the
ease of his fashionable stagger.

"Good Heaven!" said Ligarius, "Caius Caesar is as unlikely to be
in a plot as I am."

"Not at all."

"He does nothing but game; feast, intrigue, read Greek, and write
verses."

"You know nothing of Caesar.  Though he rarely addresses the
Senate, he is considered as the finest speaker there, after the
Consul.  His influence with the multitude is immense.  He will
serve his rivals in public life as he served me last night at
Catiline's.  We were playing at the twelve lines.  (Duodecim
scripta, a game of mixed chance and skill, which seems to have
been very fashionable in the higher circles of Rome.  The famous
lawyer Mucius was renowned for his skill in it.--("Cic. Orat." i.
50.)--Immense stakes.  He laughed all the time, chatted with
Valeria over his shoulder, kissed her hand between every two
moves, and scarcely looked at the board.  I thought that I had
him.  All at once I found my counters driven into the corner.
Not a piece to move, by Hercules.  It cost me two millions of
sesterces.  All the Gods and Goddesses confound him for it!"

"As to Valeria," said Ligarius, "I forgot to ask whether you have
heard the news."

"Not a word.  What?"

"I was told at the baths to-day that Caesar escorted the lady
home.  Unfortunately old Quintus Lutatius had come back from his
villa in Campania, in a whim of jealousy.  He was not expected
for three days.  There was a fine tumult.  The old fool called
for his sword and his slaves, cursed his wife, and swore that he
would cut Caesar's throat."

"And Caesar?"

"He laughed, quoted Anacreon, trussed his gown round his left
arm, closed with Quintus, flung him down, twisted his sword out
of his hand, burst through the attendants, ran a freed-man
through the shoulder, and was in the street in an instant."

"Well done!  Here he comes.  Good-day, Caius."

Caesar lifted his head at the salutation.  His air of deep
abstraction vanished; and he extended a hand to each of the
friends.

"How are you after your last night's exploit?"

"As well as possible," said Caesar, laughing.

"In truth we should rather ask how Quintus Lutatius is."

"He, I understand, is as well as can be expected of a man with a
faithless spouse and a broken head.  His freed-man is most
seriously hurt.  Poor fellow! he shall have half of whatever I
win to-night.  Flaminius, you shall have your revenge at
Catiline's."

"You are very kind.  I do not intend to be at Catiline's till I
wish to part with my town-house.  My villa is gone already."

"Not at Catiline's, base spirit!  You are not of his mind, my
gallant Ligarius.  Dice, Chian, and the loveliest Greek singing
girl that was ever seen.  Think of that, Ligarius.  By Venus, she
almost made me adore her, by telling me that I talked Greek with
the most Attic accent that she had heard in Italy."

"I doubt she will not say the same of me," replied Ligarius.  "I
am just as able to decipher an obelisk as to read a line of
Homer."

"You barbarous Scythian, who had the care of your education?"

"An old fool,--a Greek pedant,--a Stoic.  He told me that pain
was no evil, and flogged me as if he thought so.  At last one
day, in the middle of a lecture, I set fire to his enormous
filthy beard, singed his face, and sent him roaring out of the
house.  There ended my studies.  From that time to this I have
had as little to do with Greece as the wine that your poor old
friend Lutatius calls his delicious Samian."

"Well done, Ligarius.  I hate a Stoic.  I wish Marcus Cato had a
beard that you might singe it for him.  The fool talked his two
hours in the Senate yesterday, without changing a muscle of his
face.  He looked as savage and as motionless as the mask in which
Roscius acted Alecto.  I detest everything connected with him."

"Except his sister, Servilia."

"True.  She is a lovely woman."

"They say that you have told her so, Caius"

"So I have."

"And that she was not angry."

"What woman is?"

"Aye--but they say"--

"No matter what they say.  Common fame lies like a Greek
rhetorician.  You might know so much, Ligarius, without reading
the philosophers.  But come, I will introduce you to little dark-
eyed Zoe."

"I tell you I can speak no Greek."

"More shame for you.  It is high time that you should begin.  You
will never have such a charming instructress.  Of what was your
father thinking when he sent for an old Stoic with a long beard
to teach you?  There is no language-mistress like a handsome
woman.  When I was at Athens, I learnt more Greek from a pretty
flower-girl in the Peiraeus than from all the Portico and the
Academy.  She was no Stoic, Heaven knows.  But come along to Zoe.
I will be your interpreter.  Woo her in honest Latin, and I will
turn it into elegant Greek between the throws of dice.  I can
make love and mind my game at once, as Flaminius can
tell you.

"Well, then, to be plain, Caesar, Flaminius has been talking to
me about plots, and suspicions, and politicians.  I never plagued
myself with such things since Sylla's and Marius's days; and then
I never could see much difference between the parties.  All that
I am sure of is, that those who meddle with such affairs are
generally stabbed or strangled.  And, though I like Greek wine
and handsome women, I do not wish to risk my neck for them.  Now,
tell me as a friend, Caius--is there no danger?"

"Danger!" repeated Caesar, with a short, fierce, disdainful
laugh: "what danger do you apprehend?"

"That you should best know," said Flaminius; "you are far more
intimate with Catiline than I.  But I advise you to be cautious.
The leading men entertain strong suspicions."

Caesar drew up his figure from its ordinary state of graceful
relaxation into an attitude of commanding dignity, and replied in
a voice of which the deep and impassioned melody formed a strange
contrast to the humorous and affected tone of his ordinary
conversation.  "Let them suspect.  They suspect because they know
what they have deserved.  What have they done for Rome?--What for
mankind?  Ask the citizens--ask the provinces.  Have they had any
other object than to perpetuate their own exclusive power, and to
keep us under the yoke of an oligarchical tyranny, which unites
in itself the worst evils of every other system, and combines
more than Athenian turbulence with more than Persian despotism?"

"Good Gods! Caesar.  It is not safe for you to speak, or for us
to listen to, such things, at such a crisis."

"Judge for yourselves what you will hear.  I will judge for
myself what I will speak.  I was not twenty years old when I
defied Lucius Sylla, surrounded by the spears of legionaries and
the daggers of assassins.  Do you suppose that I stand in awe of
his paltry successors, who have inherited a power which they
never could have acquired; who would imitate his proscriptions,
though they have never equalled his conquests?"

"Pompey is almost as little to be trifled with as Sylla.  I heard
a consular senator say that, in consequence of the present
alarming state of affairs, he would probably be recalled from the
command assigned to him by the Manilian law."

"Let him come,--the pupil of Sylla's butcheries,--the gleaner of
Lucullus's trophies,--the thief-taker of the Senate."

"For Heaven's sake, Caius!--if you knew what the Consul said"--

"Something about himself, no doubt.  Pity that such talents
should be coupled with such cowardice and coxcombry.  He is the
finest speaker living,--infinitely superior to what Hortensius
was, in his best days;-- a charming companion, except when he
tells over for the twentieth time all the jokes that he made at
Verres's trial.  But he is the despicable tool of a despicable
party."

"Your language, Caius, convinces me that the reports which have
been circulated are not without foundation.  I will venture to
prophesy that within a few months the republic will pass through
a whole Odyssey of strange adventures."

"I believe so; an Odyssey, of which Pompey will be the
Polyphemus, and Cicero the Siren.  I would have the state imitate
Ulysses: show no mercy to the former; but contrive, if it can be
done, to listen to the enchanting voice of the other, without
being seduced by it to destruction."

"But whom can your party produce as rivals to these two famous
leaders?"

"Time will show.  I would hope that there may arise a man, whose
genius to conquer, to conciliate, and to govern, may unite in one
cause an oppressed and divided people;--may do all that Sylla
should have done, and exhibit the magnificent spectacle of a
great nation directed by a great mind."

"And where is such a man to be found?"

"Perhaps where you would least expect to find him.  Perhaps he
may be one whose powers have hitherto been concealed in domestic
or literary retirement.  Perhaps he may be one, who, while
waiting for some adequate excitement, for some worthy
opportunity, squanders on trifles a genius before which may yet
be humbled the sword of Pompey and the gown of Cicero.  Perhaps
he may now be disputing with a sophist; perhaps prattling with a
mistress; perhaps" and, as he spoke, he turned away, and resumed
his lounge, "strolling in the Forum."

...

It was almost midnight.  The party had separated.  Catiline and
Cethegus were still conferring in the supper-room, which was, as
usual, the highest apartment of the house.  It formed a cupola,
from which windows opened on the flat roof that surrounded it.
To this terrace Zoe had retired.  With eyes dimmed with fond and
melancholy tears, she leaned over the balustrade, to catch the
last glimpse of the departing form of Caesar, as it grew more and
more indistinct in the moonlight.  Had he any thought of her?
Any love for her?  He, the favourite of the high-born beauties of
Rome, the most splendid, the most graceful, the most eloquent of
its nobles?  It could not be.  His voice had, indeed, been
touchingly soft whenever he addressed her.  There had been a
fascinating tenderness even in the vivacity of his look and
conversation.  But such were always the manners of Caesar towards
women.  He had wreathed a sprig of myrtle in her hair as she was
singing.  She took it from her dark ringlets, and kissed it, and
wept over it, and thought of the sweet legends of her own dear
Greece,--of youths and girls, who, pining away in hopeless love,
had been transformed into flowers by the compassion of the Gods;
and she wished to become a flower, which Caesar might sometimes
touch, though he should touch it only to weave a crown for some
prouder and happier mistress.

She was roused from her musings by the loud step and voice of
Cethegus, who was pacing furiously up and down the supper-room.

"May all the Gods confound me, if Caesar be not the deepest
traitor, or the most miserable idiot, that ever intermeddled with
a plot!"

Zoe shuddered.  She drew nearer to the window.  She stood
concealed from observation by the curtain of fine network which
hung over the aperture, to exclude the annoying insects of the
climate.

"And you too!" continued Cethegus, turning fiercely on his
accomplice; "you to take his part against me!--you, who proposed
the scheme yourself!"

"My dear Caius Cethegus, you will not understand me.  I proposed
the scheme; and I will join in executing it.  But policy is as
necessary to our plans as boldness.  I did not wish to startle
Caesar--to lose his co-operation--perhaps to send him off with an
information against us to Cicero and Catulus.  He was so
indignant at your suggestion that all my dissimulation was
scarcely sufficient to prevent a total rupture."

"Indignant!  The Gods confound him!--He prated about humanity,
and generosity, and moderation.  By Hercules, I have not heard
such a lecture since I was with Xenochares at Rhodes."

"Caesar is made up of inconsistencies.  He has boundless
ambition, unquestioned courage, admirable sagacity.  Yet I have
frequently observed in him a womanish weakness at the sight of
pain.  I remember that once one of his slaves was taken ill while
carrying his litter.  He alighted, put the fellow in his place
and walked home in a fall of snow.  I wonder that you could be so
ill-advised as to talk to him of massacre, and pillage, and
conflagration.  You might have foreseen that such propositions
would disgust a man of his temper."

"I do not know.  I have not your self-command, Lucius.  I hate
such conspirators.  What is the use of them?  We must have blood
--blood,-- hacking and tearing work--bloody work!"

"Do not grind your teeth, my dear Caius; and lay down the
carving-knife.  By Hercules, you have cut up all the stuffing of
the couch."

"No matter; we shall have couches enough soon,--and down to stuff
them with,--and purple to cover them,--and pretty women to loll
on them,--unless this fool, and such as he, spoil our plans.  I
had something else to say.  The essenced fop wishes to seduce Zoe
from me."

"Impossible!  You misconstrue the ordinary gallantries which he
is in the habit of paying to every handsome face."

"Curse on his ordinary gallantries, and his verses, and his
compliments, and his sprigs of myrtle!  If Caesar should dare--by
Hercules, I will tear him to pieces in the middle of the Forum."

"Trust his destruction to me.  We must use his talents and
influence--thrust him upon every danger--make him our instrument
while we are contending--our peace-offering to the Senate if we
fail--our first victim if we succeed."

"Hark! what noise was that?"

"Somebody in the terrace --lend me your dagger."

Catiline rushed to the window.  Zoe was standing in the shade.
He stepped out.  She darted into the room--passed like a flash of
lightning by the startled Cethegus--flew down the stairs--through
the court--through the vestibule--through the street.  Steps,
voices, lights, came fast and confusedly behind her; but with the
speed of love and terror she gained upon her pursuers.  She fled
through the wilderness of unknown and dusky streets, till she
found herself, breathless and exhausted, in the midst of a crowd
of gallants, who, with chaplets on their heads and torches in
their hands, were reeling from the portico of a stately mansion.

The foremost of the throng was a youth whose slender figure and
beautiful countenance seemed hardly consistent with his sex.  But
the feminine delicacy of his features rendered more frightful the
mingled sensuality and ferocity of their expression.  The
libertine audacity of his stare, and the grotesque foppery of his
apparel, seemed to indicate at least a partial insanity.
Flinging one arm round Zoe, and tearing away her veil with the
other, he disclosed to the gaze of his thronging companions the
regular features and large dark eyes which characterise Athenian
beauty.

"Clodius has all the luck to-night," cried Ligarius.

"Not so, by Hercules," said Marcus Coelius; "the girl is fairly
our common prize: we will fling dice for her.  The Venus (Venus
was the Roman term for the highest throw of the dice.) throw, as
it ought to do, shall decide."

"Let me go--let me go, for Heaven's sake," cried Zoe, struggling
with Clodius.

"What a charming Greek accent she has!  Come into the house, my
little Athenian nightingale."

"Oh! what will become of me?  If you have mothers--if you have
sisters"--

"Clodius has a sister," muttered Ligarius, "or he is much
belied."

"By Heaven, she is weeping," said Clodius.

"If she were not evidently a Greek," said Coelius, "I should take
her for a vestal virgin."

"And if she were a vestal virgin," cried Clodius fiercely, "it
should not deter me.  This way;--no struggling--no screaming."

"Struggling! screaming!" exclaimed a gay and commanding voice;
"You are making very ungentle love, Clodius."

The whole party started.  Caesar had mingled with them
unperceived.

The sound of his voice thrilled through the very heart of Zoe.
With a convulsive effort she burst from the grasp of her insolent
admirer, flung herself at the feet of Caesar, and clasped his
knees.  The moon shone full on her agitated and imploring face:
her lips moved; but she uttered no sound.  He gazed at her for an
instant--raised her--clasped her to his bosom.  "Fear nothing, my
sweet Zoe."  Then, with folded arms, and a smile of placid
defiance, he placed himself between her and Clodius.

Clodius staggered forward, flushed with wine and rage, and
uttering alternately a curse and a hiccup.

"By Pollux, this passes a jest.  Caesar, how dare you insult me
thus?"

"A jest!  I am as serious as a Jew on the Sabbath.  Insult you;
for such a pair of eyes I would insult the whole consular bench,
or I should be as insensible as King Psammis's mummy."

"Good Gods, Caesar!" said Marcus Coelius, interposing; "you
cannot think it worth while to get into a brawl for a little
Greek girl!"

"Why not?  The Greek girls have used me as well as those of Rome.
Besides, the whole reputation of my gallantry is at stake.  Give
up such a lovely woman to that drunken boy!  My character would
be gone for ever.  No more perfumed tablets, full of vows and
raptures.  No more toying with fingers at the circus.  No more
evening walks along the Tiber.  No more hiding in chests or
jumping from windows.  I, the favoured suitor of half the white
stoles in Rome, could never again aspire above a freed-woman.
You a man of gallantry, and think of such a thing!  For shame, my
dear Coelius!  Do not let Clodia hear of it."

While Caesar spoke he had been engaged in keeping Clodius at
arm's-length.  The rage of the frantic libertine increased as the
struggle continued.  "Stand back, as you value your life," he
cried; "I will pass."

"Not this way, sweet Clodius.  I have too much regard for you to
suffer you to make love at such disadvantage.  You smell too much
of Falernian at present.  Would you stifle your mistress?  By
Hercules, you are fit to kiss nobody now, except old Piso, when
he is tumbling home in the morning from the vintners."

Clodius plunged his hand into his bosom and drew a little dagger,
the faithful companion of many desperate adventures.

"Oh, Gods! he will be murdered!" cried Zoe.

The whole throng of revellers was in agitation.  The street
fluctuated with torches and lifted hands.  It was but for a
moment.  Caesar watched with a steady eye the descending hand of
Clodius, arrested the blow, seized his antagonist by the throat,
and flung him against one of the pillars of the portico with such
violence, that he rolled, stunned and senseless, on the ground.

"He is killed," cried several voices.

"Fair self-defence, by Hercules!" said Marcus Coelius.  "Bear
witness, you all saw him draw his dagger."

He is not dead--he breathes," said Ligarius.  " Carry him into
the house; he is dreadfully bruised."

The rest of the party retired with Clodius.  Coelius turned to
Caesar.

"By all the Gods, Caius! you have won your lady fairly.  A
splendid victory!  You deserve a triumph."

"What a madman Clodius has become!"

"Intolerable.  But come and sup with me on the Nones.  You have
no objection to meet the Consul?"

Cicero? None at all.  We need not talk politics.  Our old dispute
about Plato and Epicurus will furnish us with plenty of
conversation.  So reckon upon me, my dear Marcus, and farewell."

Caesar and Zoe turned away.  As soon as they were beyond hearing,
she began in great agitation:--

"Caesar, you are in danger.  I know all.  I overheard Catiline
and Cethegus.  You are engaged in a project which must lead to
certain destruction."

"My beautiful Zoe, I live only for glory and pleasure.  For these
I have never hesitated to hazard an existence which they alone
render valuable to me.  In the present case, I can assure you
that our scheme presents the fairest hopes of success."

"So much the worse.  You do not know--you do not understand me.
I speak not of open peril, but of secret treachery.  Catiline
hates you;--Cethegus hates you;--your destruction is resolved.
If you survive the contest, you perish in the first hour of
victory.  They detest you for your moderation; they are eager for
blood and plunder.  I have risked my life to bring you this
warning; but that is of little moment.  Farewell!--Be happy."

Caesar stopped her.  "Do you fly from my thanks, dear Zoe?"

"I wish not for your thanks, but for your safety;--I desire not
to defraud Valeria or Servilia of one caress, extorted from
gratitude or pity.  Be my feelings what they may, I have learnt
in a fearful school to endure and to suppress them.  I have been
taught to abase a proud spirit to the claps and hisses of the
vulgar;--to smile on suitors who united the insults of a
despicable pride to the endearments of a loathsome fondness;-- to
affect sprightliness with an aching head, and eyes from which
tears were ready to gush;--to feign love with curses on my lips,
and madness in my brain.  Who feels for me any esteem,--any
tenderness?  Who will shed a tear over the nameless grave which
will soon shelter from cruelty and scorn the broken heart of the
poor Athenian girl?  But you, who alone have addressed her in her
degradation with a voice of kindness and respect, farewell.
Sometimes think of me,--not with sorrow;--no; I could bear your
ingratitude, but not your distress.  Yet, if it will not pain you
too much, in distant days, when your lofty hopes and destinies
are accomplished,--on the evening of some mighty victory,
--in the chariot of some magnificent triumph,--think on one who
loved you with that exceeding love which only the miserable can
feel.  Think that, wherever her exhausted frame may have sunk
beneath the sensibilities of a tortured spirit,--in whatever
hovel or whatever vault she may have closed her eyes,--whatever
strange scenes of horror and pollution may have surrounded her
dying bed, your shape was the last that swam before her sight--
your voice the last sound that was ringing in her ears.  Yet turn
your face to me, Caesar.  Let me carry away one last look of
those features, and then "--He turned round.  He looked at her.
He hid his face on her bosom, and burst into tears.  With sobs
long and loud, and convulsive as those of a terrified child, he
poured forth on her bosom the tribute of impetuous and
uncontrollable emotion.  He raised his head; but he in vain
struggled to restore composure to the brow which had confronted
the frown of Sylla, and the lips which had rivalled the eloquence
of Cicero.  He several times attempted to speak, but in vain; and
his voice still faltered with tenderness, when, after a pause of
several minutes, he thus addressed her:

"My own dear Zoe, your love has been bestowed on one who, if he
cannot merit, can at least appreciate and adore you.  Beings of
similar loveliness, and similar devotedness of affection,
mingled, in all my boyish dreams of greatness, with visions of
curule chairs and ivory cars, marshalled legions and laurelled
fasces.  Such I have endeavoured to find in the world; and, in
their stead, I have met with selfishness, with vanity, with
frivolity, with falsehood.  The life which you have preserved is
a boon less valuable than the affection "--

"Oh! Caesar," interrupted the blushing Zoe, "think only on your
own security at present.  If you feel as you speak,--but you are
only mocking me,--or perhaps your compassion "--

"By Heaven!--by every oath that is binding "--

"Alas! alas! Caesar, were not all the same oaths sworn yesterday
to Valeria?  But I will trust you, at least so far as to partake
your present dangers.  Flight may he necessary:--form your plans.
Be they what they may, there is one who, in exile, in poverty, in
peril, asks only to wander, to beg, to die with you."

"My Zoe, I do not anticipate any such necessity.  To renounce the
conspiracy without renouncing the principles on which it was
originally undertaken,--to elude the vengeance of the Senate
without losing the confidence of the people,--is, indeed, an
arduous, but not an impossible, task.  I owe it to myself and to
my country to make the attempt.  There is still ample time for
consideration.  At present I am too happy in love to think of
ambition or danger."

They had reached the door of a stately palace.  Caesar struck it.
It was instantly opened by a slave.  Zoe found herself in a
magnificent hall, surrounded by pillars of green marble, between
which were ranged the statues of the long line of Julian nobles.

"Call Endymion," said Caesar.

The confidential freed-man made his appearance, not without a
slight smile, which his patron's good nature emboldened him to
hazard, at perceiving the beautiful Athenian.

"Arm my slaves, Endymion; there are reasons for precaution.  Let
them relieve each other on guard during the night.  Zoe, my love,
my preserver, why are your cheeks so pale?  Let me kiss some
bloom into them.  How you tremble!  Endymion, a flask of Samian
and some fruit.  Bring them to my apartments.  This way, my sweet
Zoe."

...


ON THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF LITERATURE.

(June 1823.)

This is the age of societies.  There is scarcely one Englishman
in ten who has not belonged to some association for distributing
books, or for prosecuting them; for sending invalids to the
hospital, or beggars to the treadmill; for giving plate to the
rich, or blankets to the poor.  To be the most absurd institution
among so many institutions is no small distinction; it seems,
however, to belong indisputably to the Royal Society of
Literature.  At the first establishment of that ridiculous
academy, every sensible man predicted that, in spite of regal
patronage and episcopal management, it would do nothing, or do
harm.  And it will scarcely be denied that those expectations
have hitherto been fulfilled.

I do not attack the founders of the association.  Their
characters are respectable; their motives, I am willing to
believe, were laudable.  But I feel, and it is the duty of every
literary man to feel, a strong jealousy of their proceedings.
Their society can be innocent only while it continues to be
despicable.  Should they ever possess the power to encourage
merit, they must also possess the power to depress it.  Which
power will be more frequently exercised, let every one who has
studied literary history, let every one who has studied human
nature, declare.

Envy and faction insinuate themselves into all communities.  They
often disturb the peace, and pervert the decisions, of benevolent
and scientific associations.  But it is in literary academies
that they exert the most extensive and pernicious influence.  In
the first place, the principles of literary criticism, though
equally fixed with those on which the chemist and the surgeon
proceed, are by no means equally recognised.  Men are rarely able
to assign a reason for their approbation or dislike on questions
of taste; and therefore they willingly submit to any guide who
boldly asserts his claim to superior discernment.  It is more
difficult to ascertain and establish the merits of a poem than
the powers of a machine or the benefits of a new remedy.  Hence
it is in literature, that quackery is most easily puffed, and
excellence most easily decried.

In some degree this argument applies to academies of the fine
arts; and it is fully confirmed by all that I have ever heard of
that institution which annually disfigures the walls of Somerset
House with an acre of spoiled canvas.  But a literary tribunal is
incomparably more dangerous.  Other societies, at least, have no
tendency to call forth any opinions on those subjects which most
agitate and inflame the minds of men.  The sceptic and the
zealot, the revolutionist and the placeman, meet on common ground
in a gallery of paintings or a laboratory of science.  They can
praise or censure without reference to the differences which
exist between them.  In a literary body this can never be the
case.  Literature is, and always must be, inseparably blended
with politics and theology; it is the great engine which moves
the feelings of a people on the most momentous questions.  It is,
therefore, impossible that any society can be formed so impartial
as to consider the literary character of an individual abstracted
from the opinions which his writings inculcate.  It is not to be
hoped, perhaps it is not to be wished, that the feelings of the
man should be so completely forgotten in the duties of the
academician.  The consequences are evident.  The honours and
censures of this Star Chamber of the Muses will be awarded
according to the prejudices of the particular sect or faction
which may at the time predominate.  Whigs would canvass against a
Southey, Tories against a Byron.  Those who might at first
protest against such conduct as unjust would soon adopt it on the
plea of retaliation; and the general good of literature, for
which the society was professedly instituted, would be forgotten
in the stronger claims of political and religious partiality.

Yet even this is not the worst.  Should the institution ever
acquire any influence, it will afford most pernicious facilities
to every malignant coward who may desire to blast a reputation
which he envies.  It will furnish a secure ambuscade, behind
which the Maroons of literature may take a certain and deadly
aim.  The editorial WE has often been fatal to rising genius;
though all the world knows that it is only a form of speech, very
often employed by a single needy blockhead.  The academic WE
would have a far greater and more ruinous influence.  Numbers,
while they increase the effect, would diminish the shame, of
injustice.  The advantages of an open and those of an anonymous
attack would be combined; and the authority of avowal would be
united to the security of concealment.  The serpents in Virgil,
after they had destroyed Laocoon, found an asylum from the
vengeance of the enraged people behind the shield of the statue
of Minerva.  And, in the same manner, everything that is
grovelling and venomous, everything that can hiss, and everything
that can sting, would take sanctuary in the recesses of this new
temple of wisdom.

The French academy was, of all such associations, the most widely
and the most justly celebrated.  It was founded by the greatest
of ministers:  it was patronised by successive kings; it numbered
in its lists most of the eminent French writers.  Yet what
benefit has literature derived from its labours?  What is its
history but an uninterrupted record of servile compliances--of
paltry artifices--of deadly quarrels--of perfidious friendships?
Whether governed by the Court, by the Sorbonne, or by the
Philosophers, it was always equally powerful for evil, and
equally impotent for good.  I might speak of the attacks by which
it attempted to depress the rising fame of Corneille; I might
speak of the reluctance with which it gave its tardy confirmation
to the applauses which the whole civilised world had bestowed on
the genius of Voltaire.  I might prove by overwhelming evidence
that, to the latest period of its existence, even under the
superintendence of the all-accomplished D'Alembert, it continued
to be a scene of the fiercest animosities and the basest
intrigues.  I might cite Piron's epigrams, and Marmontel's
memoirs, and Montesquieu's letters.  But I hasten on to another
topic.

One of the modes by which our Society proposes to encourage merit
is the distribution of prizes.  The munificence of the king has
enabled it to offer an annual premium of a hundred guineas for
the best essay in prose, and another of fifty guineas for the
best poem, which may be transmitted to it.  This is very
laughable.  In the first place the judges may err.  Those
imperfections of human intellect to which, as the articles of the
Church tell us, even general councils are subject, may possibly
be found even in the Royal Society of Literature.  The French
academy, as I have already said, was the most illustrious
assembly of the kind, and numbered among its associates men much
more distinguished than ever will assemble at Mr Hatchard's to
rummage the box of the English Society.  Yet this famous body
gave a poetical prize, for which Voltaire was a candidate, to a
fellow who wrote some verses about THE FROZEN AND THE BURNING
POLE.

Yet, granting that the prizes were always awarded to the best
composition, that composition, I say without hesitation, will
always be bad.  A prize poem is like a prize sheep.  The object
of the competitor for the agricultural premium is to produce an
animal fit, not to be eaten, but to be weighed.  Accordingly he
pampers his victim into morbid and unnatural fatness; and, when
it is in such a state that it would be sent away in disgust from
any table, he offers it to the judges.  The object of the
poetical candidate, in like manner, is to produce, not a good
poem, but a poem of that exact degree of frigidity or bombast
which may appear to his censors to be correct or sublime.
Compositions thus constructed will always be worthless.  The few
excellences which they may contain will have an exotic aspect and
flavour.  In general, prize sheep are good for nothing but to
make tallow candles, and prize poems are good for nothing but to
light them.

The first subject proposed by the Society to the poets of England
was Dartmoor.  I thought that they intended a covert sarcasm at
their own projects.  Their institution was a literary Dartmoor
scheme;--a plan for forcing into cultivation the waste lands of
intellect,--for raising poetical produce, by means of bounties,
from soil too meagre to have yielded any returns in the natural
course of things.  The plan for the cultivation of Dartmoor has,
I hear, been abandoned.  I hope that this may be an omen of the
fate of the Society.

In truth, this seems by no means improbable.  They have been
offering for several years the rewards which the king placed at
their disposal, and have not, as far as I can learn, been able to
find in their box one composition which they have deemed worthy
of publication.  At least no publication has taken place.  The
associates may perhaps be astonished at this.  But I will attempt
to explain it, after the manner of ancient times, by means of an
apologue.

About four hundred years after the Deluge, King Gomer Chephoraod
reigned in Babylon.  He united all the characteristics of an
excellent sovereign.  He made good laws, won great battles, and
white-washed long streets.  He was, in consequence, idolised by
his people, and panegyrised by many poets and orators.  A book
was then a sermons undertaking.  Neither paper nor any similar
material had been invented.  Authors were therefore under the
necessity of inscribing their compositions on massive bricks.
Some of these Babylonian records are still preserved in European
museums; but the language in which they are written has never
been deciphered.  Gomer Chephoraod was so popular that the clay
of all the plains round the Euphrates could scarcely furnish
brick-kilns enough for his eulogists.  It is recorded in
particular that Pharonezzar, the Assyrian Pindar, published a
bridge and four walls in his praise.

One day the king was going in state from his palace to the temple
of Belus.  During this procession it was lawful for any
Babylonian to offer any petition or suggestion to his sovereign.
As the chariot passed before a vintner's shop, a large company,
apparently half-drunk, sallied forth into the street, and one of
them thus addressed the king:

"Gomer Chephoraod, live for ever!  It appears to thy servants
that of all the productions of the earth good wine is the best,
and bad wine is the worst.  Good wine makes the heart cheerful,
the eyes bright, the speech ready.  Bad wine confuses the head,
disorders the stomach, makes us quarrelsome at night, and sick
the next morning.  Now therefore let my lord the king take order
that thy servants may drink good wine.

"And how is this to be done?" said the good-natured prince.

"O King," said his monitor, "this is most easy.  Let the king
make a decree, and seal it with his royal signet: and let it be
proclaimed that the king will give ten she-asses, and ten slaves,
and ten changes of raiment, every year, unto the man who shall
make ten measures of the best wine.  And whosoever wishes for the
she-asses, and the slaves, and the raiment, let him send the ten
measures of wine to thy servants, and we will drink thereof and
judge.  So shall there be much good wine in Assyria."

The project pleased Gomer Chephoraod.  "Be it so," said he.  The
people shouted.  The petitioners prostrated themselves in
gratitude.  The same night heralds were despatched to bear the
intelligence to the remotest districts of Assyria.

After a due interval the wines began to come in; and the
examiners assembled to adjudge the prize.  The first vessel was
unsealed.  Its odour was such that the judges, without tasting
it, pronounced unanimous condemnation.  The next was opened: it
had a villainous taste of clay.  The third was sour and vapid.
They proceeded from one cask of execrable liquor to another, till
at length, in absolute nausea, they gave up the investigation.

The next morning they all assembled at the gate of the king, with
pale faces and aching heads.  They owned that they could not
recommend any competitor as worthy of the rewards.  They swore
that the wine was little better than poison, and entreated
permission to resign the office of deciding between such
detestable potions.

"In the name of Belus, how can this have happened?" said the
king.

Merolchazzar, the high-priest, muttered something about the anger
of the Gods at the toleration shown to a sect of impious heretics
who ate pigeons broiled, "whereas," said he, "our religion
commands us to eat them roasted.  Now therefore, O King,"
continued this respectable divine, "give command to thy men of
war, and let them smite the disobedient people with the sword,
them, and their wives, and their children, and let their houses,
and their flocks, and their herds, be given to thy servants the
priests.  Then shall the land yield its increase, and the fruits
of the earth shall be no more blasted by the vengeance of
Heaven."

"Nay," said the king, "the ground lies under no general curse
from Heaven.  The season has been singularly good.  The wine
which thou didst thyself drink at the banquet a few nights ago, O
venerable Merolchazzar, was of this year's vintage.  Dost thou
not remember how thou didst praise it?  It was the same night
that thou wast inspired by Belus and didst reel to and fro, and
discourse sacred mysteries.  These things are too hard for me.  I
comprehend them not.  The only wine which is bad is that which is
sent to my judges.  Who can expound this to us?"

The king scratched his head.  Upon which all the courtiers
scratched their heads.

He then ordered proclamation to be made that a purple robe and a
golden chain should be given to the man who could solve this
difficulty.

An old philosopher, who had been observed to smile rather
disdainfully when the prize had first been instituted, came
forward and spoke thus:--

"Gomer Chephoraod, live for ever!  Marvel not at that which has
happened.  It was no miracle, but a natural event.  How could it
be otherwise?  It is true that much good wine has been made this
year.  But who would send it in for thy rewards?  Thou knowest
Ascobaruch who hath the great vineyards in the north, and
Cohahiroth who sendeth wine every year from the south over the
Persian Golf.  Their wines are so delicious that ten measures
thereof are sold for an hundred talents of silver.  Thinkest thou
that they will exchange them for thy slaves and thine asses?
What would thy prize profit any who have vineyards in rich
soils?"

"Who then," said one of the judges, "are the wretches who sent us
this poison?"

"Blame them not," said the sage, "seeing that you have been the
authors of the evil.  They are men whose lands are poor, and have
never yielded them any returns equal to the prizes which the king
proposed.  Wherefore, knowing that the lords of the fruitful
vineyards would not enter into competition with them they planted
vines, some on rocks, and some in light sandy soil, and some in
deep clay.  Hence their wines are bad.  For no culture or reward
will make barren land bear good vines.  Know therefore,
assuredly, that your prizes have increased the quantity of bad
but not of good wine."

There was a long silence.  At length the king spoke.  "Give him
the purple robe and the chain of gold.  Throw the wines into the
Euphrates; and proclaim that the Royal Society of Wines is
dissolved."

...


SCENES FROM "ATHENIAN REVELS."

(January 1824.)

A DRAMA.

I.

SCENE--A Street in Athens.

Enter CALLIDEMUS and SPEUSIPPUS;

CALLIDEMUS.
So, you young reprobate!  You must be a man of wit, forsooth, and
a man of quality!  You must spend as if you were as rich as
Nicias, and prate as if you were as wise as Pericles!  You must
dangle after sophists and pretty women!  And I must pay for all!
I must sup on thyme and onions, while you are swallowing thrushes
and hares!  I must drink water, that you may play the cottabus
(This game consisted in projecting wine out of cups; it was a
diversion extremely fashionable at Athenian entertainments.) with
Chian wine!  I must wander about as ragged as Pauson (Pauson was
an Athenian painter, whose name was synonymous with beggary.  See
Aristophanes; Plutus, 602.  From his poverty, I am inclined to
suppose that he painted historical pictures.), that you may be as
fine as Alcibiades!  I must lie on bare boards, with a stone (See
Aristophanes; Plutus, 542.) for my pillow, and a rotten mat for
my coverlid, by the light of a wretched winking lamp, while you
are marching in state, with as many torches as one sees at the
feast of Ceres, to thunder with your hatchet (See Theocritus;
Idyll ii. 128.) at the doors of half the Ionian ladies in
Peiraeus.  (This was the most disreputable part of Athens.  See
Aristophanes: Pax, 165.)

SPEUSIPPUS.
Why, thou unreasonable old man!  Thou most shameless of fathers!-
-

CALLIDEMUS.
Ungrateful wretch; dare you talk so?  Are you not afraid of the
thunders of Jupiter?

SPEUSIPPUS.
Jupiter thunder! nonsense!  Anaxagoras says, that thunder is only
an explosion produced by--

CALLIDEMUS.
He does!  Would that it had fallen on his head for his pains!

SPEUSIPPUS.
Nay:  talk rationally.

CALLIDEMUS.
Rationally!  You audacious young sophist!  I will talk
rationally.  Do you know that I am your father?  What quibble can
you make upon that?

SPEUSIPPUS.
Do I know that you are my father?  Let us take the question to
pieces, as Melesigenes would say.  First, then, we must inquire
what is knowledge?  Secondly, what is a father?  Now, knowledge,
as Socrates said the other day to Theaetetus (See Plato's
Theaetetus.)--

CALLIDEMUS.
Socrates! what! the ragged flat-nosed old dotard, who walks about
all day barefoot, and filches cloaks, and dissects gnats, and
shoes (See Aristophanes; Nubes, 150.) fleas with wax?

SPEUSIPPUS.
All fiction!  All trumped up by Aristophanes!

CALLIDEMUS.
By Pallas, if he is in the habit of putting shoes on his fleas,
he is kinder to them than to himself.  But listen to me, boy; if
you go on in this way, you will be ruined.  There is an argument
for you.  Go to your Socrates and your Melesigenes, and tell them
to refute that.  Ruined!  Do you hear?

SPEUSIPPUS.
Ruined!

CALLIDEMUS.
Ay, by Jupiter!  Is such a show as you make to be supported on
nothing?  During all the last war, I made not an obol from my
farm; the Peloponnesian locusts came almost as regularly as the
Pleiades;--corn burnt;--olives stripped;--fruit trees cut down;--
wells stopped up;--and, just when peace came, and I hoped that
all would turn out well, you must begin to spend as if you had
all the mines of Thasus at command.

SPEUSIPPUS.
Now, by Neptune, who delights in horses--

CALLIDEMUS.
If Neptune delights in horses, he does not resemble me.  You must
ride at the Panathenaea on a horse fit for the great king: four
acres of my best vines went for that folly.  You must retrench,
or you will have nothing to eat.  Does not Anaxagoras mention,
among his other discoveries, that when a man has nothing to eat
he dies?

SPEUSIPPUS.
You are deceived.  My friends--

CALLIDEMUS.
Oh, yes! your friends will notice you, doubtless, when you are
squeezing through the crowd, on a winter's day, to warm yourself
at the fire of the baths;--or when you are fighting with beggars
and beggars' dogs for the scraps of a sacrifice;--or when you are
glad to earn three wretched obols (The stipend of an Athenian
juryman.) by listening all day to lying speeches and crying
children.

SPEUSIPPUS.
There are other means of support.

CALLIDEMUS.
What!  I suppose you will wander from house to house, like that
wretched buffoon Philippus (Xenophon; Convivium.), and beg
everybody who has asked a supper-party to be so kind as to feed
you and laugh at you; or you will turn sycophant; you will get a
bunch of grapes, or a pair of shoes, now and then, by frightening
some rich coward with a mock prosecution.  Well! that is a task
for which your studies under the sophists may have fitted you.

SPEUSIPPUS.
You are wide of the mark.

CALLIDEMUS.
Then what, in the name of Juno, is your scheme?  Do you intend to
join Orestes (A celebrated highwayman of Attica.  See
Aristophanes; Aves, 711; and in several other passages.), and rob
on the highway?  Take care; beware of the eleven (The police
officers of Athens.); beware of the hemlock.  It may be very
pleasant to live at other people's expense; but not very
pleasant, I should think, to hear the pestle give its last bang
against the mortar, when the cold dose is ready.  Pah!--

SPEUSIPPUS.
Hemlock? Orestes! folly!--I aim at nobler objects.  What say you
to politics,--the general assembly?

CALLIDEMUS.
You an orator!--oh no! no!  Cleon was worth twenty such fools as
you.  You have succeeded, I grant, to his impudence, for which,
if there be justice in Tartarus, he is now soaking up to the eyes
in his own tanpickle.  But the Paphlagonian had parts.

SPEUSIPPUS.
And you mean to imply--

CALLIDEMUS.
Not I. You are a Pericles in embryo, doubtless.  Well: and when
are you to make your first speech?  O Pallas!

SPEUSIPPUS.
I thought of speaking, the other day, on the Sicilian expedition;
but Nicias (See Thucydides, vi. 8.) got up before me.

CALLIDEMUS.
Nicias, poor honest man, might just as well have sate still; his
speaking did but little good.  The loss of your oration is,
doubtless, an irreparable public calamity.

SPEUSIPPUS.
Why, not so; I intend to introduce it at the next assembly; it
will suit any subject.

CALLIDEMUS.
That is to say, it will suit none.  But pray, if it be not too
presumptuous a request, indulge me with a specimen.

SPEUSIPPUS.
Well; suppose the agora crowded;--an important subject under
discussion;--an ambassador from Argos, or from the great king;--
the tributes from the islands;--an impeachment;--in short,
anything you please.  The crier makes proclamation.--"Any citizen
above fifty years old may speak--any citizen not disqualified may
speak."  Then I rise:--a great murmur of curiosity while I am
mounting the stand.

CALLIDEMUS.
Of curiosity! yes, and of something else too.  You will
infallibly be dragged down by main force, like poor Glaucon (See
Xenophon Memorabilia, iii.) last year.

SPEUSIPPUS.
Never fear.  I shall begin in this style:
"When I consider, Athenians, the importance of our city;--when I
consider the extent of its power, the wisdom of its laws, the
elegance of its decorations;--when I consider by what names and
by what exploits its annals are adorned; when I think on
Harmodius and Aristogiton, on Themistocles and Miltiades, on
Cimon and Pericles;--when I contemplate our pre-eminence in arts
and letters;--when I observe so many flourishing states and
islands compelled to own the dominion, and purchase the
protection of the City of the Violet Crown" (A favourite epithet
of Athens.  See Aristophanes; Acharn. 637.)--

CALLIDEMUS.
I shall choke with rage.  Oh, all ye gods and goddesses, what
sacrilege, what perjury have I ever committed, that I should be
singled out from among all the citizens of Athens to be the
father of this fool?

SPEUSIPPUS.
What now?  By Bacchus, old man, I would not advise you to give
way to such fits of passion in the streets.  If Aristophanes were
to see you, you would infallibly be in a comedy next spring.

CALLIDEMUS.
You have more reason to fear Aristophanes than any fool living.
Oh, that he could but hear you trying to imitate the slang of
Straton (See Aristophanes; Equites, 1375.) and the lisp of
Alcibiades!  (See Aristophanes; Vespae, 44.)  You would be an
inexhaustible subject.  You would console him for the loss of
Cleon.

SPEUSIPPUS.
No, no.  I may perhaps figure at the dramatic representations
before long; but in a very different way.

CALLIDEMUS.
What do you mean?

SPEUSIPPUS.
What say you to a tragedy?

CALLIDEMUS.
A tragedy of yours?

SPEUSIPPUS.
Even so.

CALLIDEMUS.
Oh Hercules!  Oh Bacchus!  This is too much.  Here is an
universal genius; sophist,--orator,--poet.  To what a three-
headed monster have I given birth! a perfect Cerberus of
intellect!  And pray what may your piece be about?  Or will your
tragedy, like your speech, serve equally for any subject?

SPEUSIPPUS.
I thought of several plots;--Oedipus,--Eteocles and Polynices,--
the war of Troy,--the murder of Agamemnon.

CALLIDEMUS.
And what have you chosen?

SPEUSIPPUS.
You know there is a law which permits any modern poet to retouch
a play of Aeschylus, and bring it forward as his own composition.
And, as there is an absurd prejudice, among the vulgar, in favour
of his extravagant pieces, I have selected one of them, and
altered it.

CALLIDEMUS.
Which of them?

SPEUSIPPUS.
Oh! that mass of barbarous absurdities, the Prometheus.  But I
have framed it anew upon the model of Euripides.  By Bacchus, I
shall make Sophocles and Agathon look about them.  You would not
know the play again.

CALLIDEMUS.
By Jupiter, I believe not.

SPEUSIPPUS.
I have omitted the whole of the absurd dialogue between Vulcan
and Strength, at the beginning.

CALLIDEMUS.
That may be, on the whole, an improvement.  The play will then
open with that grand soliloquy of Prometheus, when he is chained
to the rock.

"Oh! ye eternal heavens! ye rushing winds!
Ye fountains of great streams!  Ye ocean waves,
That in ten thousand sparkling dimples wreathe
Your azure smiles!  All-generating earth!
All-seeing sun!  On you, on you, I call."  (See Aeschylus;
Prometheus, 88.)

Well, I allow that will be striking; I did not think you capable
of that idea.  Why do you laugh?

SPEUSIPPUS.
Do you seriously suppose that one who has studied the plays of
that great man, Euripides, would ever begin a tragedy in such a
ranting style?

CALLIDEMUS.
What, does not your play open with the speech of Prometheus?

SPEUSIPPUS.
No doubt.

CALLIDEMUS.
Then what, in the name of Bacchus, do you make him say?

SPEUSIPPUS.
You shall hear; and, if it be not in the very style of Euripides,
call me a fool.

CALLIDEMUS.
That is a liberty which I shall venture to take, whether it be or
no.  But go on.

SPEUSIPPUS.
Prometheus begins thus:--

"Coelus begat Saturn and Briareus
Cottus and Creius and Iapetus,
Gyges and Hyperion, Phoebe, Tethys,
Thea and Rhea and Mnemosyne.
Then Saturn wedded Rhea, and begat
Pluto and Neptune, Jupiter and Juno."

CALLIDEMUS.
Very beautiful, and very natural; and, as you say, very like
Euripides.

SPEUSIPPUS.
You are sneering.  Really, father, you do not understand these
things.  You had not those advantages in your youth--

CALLIDEMUS.
Which I have been fool enough to let you have.  No; in my early
days, lying had not been dignified into a science, nor politics
degraded into a trade.  I wrestled, and read Homer's battles,
instead of dressing my hair, and reciting lectures in verse out
of Euripides.  But I have some notion of what a play should be; I
have seen Phrynichus, and lived with Aeschylus.  I saw the
representation of the Persians.

SPEUSIPPUS.
A wretched play; it may amuse the fools who row the triremes; but
it is utterly unworthy to be read by any man of taste.

CALLIDEMUS.
If you had seen it acted;--the whole theatre frantic with joy,
stamping, shouting, laughing, crying.  There was Cynaegeirus, the
brother of Aeschylus, who lost both his arms at Marathon, beating
the stumps against his sides with rapture.  When the crowd
remarked him--But where are you going?

SPEUSIPPUS.
To sup with Alcibiades; he sails with the expedition for Sicily
in a few days; this is his farewell entertainment.

CALLIDEMUS.
So much the better; I should say, so much the worse.  That cursed
Sicilian expedition!  And you were one of the young fools (See
Thucydides, vi. 13.) who stood clapping and shouting while he was
gulling the rabble, and who drowned poor Nicias's voice with your
uproar.  Look to it; a day of reckoning will come.  As to
Alcibiades himself--

SPEUSIPPUS.
What can you say against him?  His enemies themselves acknowledge
his merit.

CALLIDEMUS.
They acknowledge that he is clever, and handsome, and that he was
crowned at the Olympic games.  And what other merits do his
friends claim for him?  A precious assembly you will meet at his
house, no doubt.

SPEUSIPPUS.
The first men in Athens, probably.

CALLIDEMUS.
Whom do you mean by the first men in Athens?

SPEUSIPPUS.
Callicles.  (Callicles plays a conspicuous part in the Gorgias of
Plato.)

CALLIDEMUS.
A sacrilegious, impious, unfeeling ruffian!

SPEUSIPPUS.
Hippomachus.

CALLIDEMUS.
A fool, who can talk of nothing but his travels through Persia
and Egypt.  Go, go.  The gods forbid that I should detain you
from such choice society!

[Exeunt severally.]


II.

SCENE--A Hall in the house of ALCIBIADES.

ALCIBIADES, SPEUSIPPUS, CALLICLES, HIPPOMACHUS, CHARICLEA,
and others, seated round a table feasting.

ALCIBIADES.
Bring larger cups.  This shall be our gayest revel.  It is
probably the last--for some of us at least.

SPEUSIPPUS.
At all events, it will be long before you taste such wine again,
Alcibiades.

CALLICLES.
Nay, there is excellent wine in Sicily.  When I was there with
Eurymedon's squadron, I had many a long carouse.  You never saw
finer grapes than those of Aetna.

HIPPOMACHUS.
The Greeks do not understand the art of making wine.  Your
Persian is the man.  So rich, so fragrant, so sparkling!  I will
tell you what the Satrap of Caria said to me about that when I
supped with him.

ALCIBIADES.
Nay, sweet Hippomachus; not a word to-night about satraps, or the
great king, or the walls of Babylon, or the Pyramids, or the
mummies.  Chariclea, why do you look so sad?

CHARICLEA.
Can I be cheerful when you are going to leave me, Alcibiades?

ALCIBIADES.
My life, my sweet soul, it is but for a short time.  In a year we
conquer Sicily.  In another, we humble Carthage.  (See
Thucydides, vi. 90.)  I will bring back such robes, such
necklaces, elephants' teeth by thousands, ay, and the elephants
themselves, if you wish to see them.  Nay, smile, my Chariclea,
or I shall talk nonsense to no purpose.

HIPPOMACHUS.
The largest elephant that I ever saw was in the grounds of
Teribazus, near Susa.  I wish that I had measured him.

ALCIBIADES.
I wish that he had trod upon you.  Come, come, Chariclea, we
shall soon return, and then--

CHARICLEA.
Yes; then indeed.

ALCIBIADES.
Yes, then--
Then for revels; then for dances,
Tender whispers, melting glances.
Peasants, pluck your richest fruits:
Minstrels, sound your sweetest flutes:
Come in laughing crowds to greet us,
Dark-eyed daughters of Miletus;
Bring the myrtles, bring the dice,
Floods of Chian, hills of spice.

SPEUSIPPUS.
Whose lines are those, Alcibiades?

ALCIBIADES.
My own.  Think you, because I do not shut myself up to meditate,
and drink water, and eat herbs, that I cannot write verses?  By
Apollo, if I did not spend my days in politics, and my nights in
revelry, I should have made Sophocles tremble.  But now I never
go beyond a little song like this, and never invoke any Muse but
Chariclea.  But come, Speusippus, sing.  You are a professed
poet.  Let us have some of your verses.

SPEUSIPPUS.
My verses!  How can you talk so?  I a professed poet!

ALCIBIADES.
Oh, content you, sweet Speusippus.  We all know your designs upon
the tragic honours.  Come, sing.  A chorus of your new play.

SPEUSIPPUS.
Nay, nay--

HIPPOMACHUS.
When a guest who is asked to sing at a Persian banquet refuses--

SPEUSIPPUS.
In the name of Bacchus--

ALCIBIADES.
I am absolute.  Sing.

SPEUSIPPUS.
Well, then, I will sing you a chorus, which, I think, is a
tolerable imitation of Euripides.

CHARICLEA.
Of Euripides?--Not a word.

ALCIBIADES.
Why so, sweet Chariclea?

CHARICLEA.
Would you have me betray my sex?  Would you have me forget his
Phaedras and Sthenoboeas?  No if I ever suffer any lines of that
woman-hater, or his imitators, to be sung in my presence, may I
sell herbs (The mother of Euripides was a herb-woman.  This was a
favourite topic of Aristophanes.) like his mother, and wear rags
like his Telephus.  (The hero of one of the lost plays of
Euripides, who appears to have been brought upon the stage in the
garb of a beggar.  See Aristophanes; Acharn. 430; and in other
places.)

ALCIBIADES.
Then, sweet Chariclea, since you have silenced Speusippus, you
shall sing yourself.

CHARICLEA.
What shall I sing?

ALCIBIADES.
Nay, choose for yourself.

CHARICLEA.
Then I will sing an old Ionian hymn, which is chanted every
spring at the feast of Venus, near Miletus.  I used to sing it in
my own country when I was a child; and--ah, Alcibiades!

ALCIBIADES.
Dear Chariclea, you shall sing something else.  This distresses
you.

CHARICLEA.
No hand me the lyre:--no matter.  You will hear the song to
disadvantage.  But if it were sung as I have heard it sung:--if
this were a beautiful morning in spring, and if we were standing
on a woody promontory, with the sea, and the white sails, and the
blue Cyclades beneath us,--and the portico of a temple peeping
through the trees on a huge peak above our heads,--and thousands
of people, with myrtles in their hands, thronging up the winding
path, their gay dresses and garlands disappearing and emerging by
turns as they passed round the angles of the rock,--then perhaps-
-

ALCIBIADES.
Now, by Venus herself, sweet lady, where you are we shall lack
neither sun, nor flowers, nor spring, nor temple, nor goddess.

CHARICLEA.  (Sings.)
Let this sunny hour be given,
Venus, unto love and mirth:
Smiles like thine are in the heaven;
Bloom like thine is on the earth;
And the tinkling of the fountains,
And the murmurs of the sea,
And the echoes from the mountains,
Speak of youth, and hope, and thee.

By whate'er of soft expression
Thou hast taught to lovers' eyes,
Faint denial, slow confession,
Glowing cheeks and stifled sighs;
By the pleasure and the pain,
By the follies and the wiles,
Pouting fondness, sweet disdain,
Happy tears and mournful smiles;

Come with music floating o'er thee;
Come with violets springing round:
Let the Graces dance before thee,
All their golden zones unbound;
Now in sport their faces hiding,
Now, with slender fingers fair,
From their laughing eyes dividing
The long curls of rose-crowned hair.

ALCIBIADES.
Sweetly sung; but mournfully, Chariclea; for which I would chide
you, but that I am sad myself.  More wine there.  I wish to all
the gods that I had fairly sailed from Athens.

CHARICLEA.
And from me, Alcibiades?

ALCIBIADES.
Yes, from you, dear lady.  The days which immediately precede
separation are the most melancholy of our lives.

CHARICLEA.
Except those which immediately follow it.

ALCIBIADES.
No; when I cease to see you, other objects may compel my
attention; but can I be near you without thinking how lovely you
are, and how soon I must leave you?

HIPPOMACHUS.
Ay; travelling soon puts such thoughts out of men's heads.

CALLICLES.
A battle is the best remedy for them.

CHARICLEA.
A battle, I should think, might supply their place with others as
unpleasant.

CALLICLES.
No.  The preparations are rather disagreeable to a novice.  But
as soon as the fighting begins, by Jupiter, it is a noble time;--
men trampling,--shields clashing,--spears breaking,--and the
poean roaring louder than all.

CHARICLEA.
But what if you are killed?

CALLICLES.
What indeed?  You must ask Speusippus that question.  He is a
philosopher.

ALCIBIADES.
Yes, and the greatest of philosophers, if he can answer it.

SPEUSIPPUS.
Pythagoras is of opinion--

HIPPOMACHUS.
Pythagoras stole that and all his other opinions from Asia and
Egypt.  The transmigration of the soul and the vegetable diet are
derived from India.  I met a Brachman in Sogdiana--

CALLICLES.
All nonsense!

CHARICLEA.
What think you, Alcibiades?

ALCIBIADES.
I think that, if the doctrine be true, your spirit will be
transfused into one of the doves who carry (Homer's Odyssey, xii.
63.) ambrosia to the gods or verses to the mistresses of poets.
Do you remember Anacreon's lines?  How should you like such an
office?

CHARICLEA.
If I were to be your dove, Alcibiades, and you would treat me as
Anacreon treated his, and let me nestle in your breast and drink
from your cup, I would submit even to carry your love-letters to
other ladies.

CALLICLES.
What, in the name of Jupiter, is the use of all these
speculations about death?  Socrates once (See the close of
Plato's Gorgias.) lectured me upon it the best part of a day.  I
have hated the sight of him ever since.  Such things may suit an
old sophist when he is fasting; but in the midst of wine and
music--

HIPPOMACHUS.
I differ from you.  The enlightened Egyptians bring skeletons
into their banquets, in order to remind their guests to make the
most of their life while they have it.

CALLICLES.
I want neither skeleton nor sophist to teach me that lesson.
More wine, I pray you, and less wisdom.  If you must believe
something which you never can know, why not be contented with the
long stories about the other world which are told us when we are
initiated at the Eleusinian mysteries?  (The scene which follows
is founded upon history.  Thucydides tells us, in his sixth book,
that about this time Alcibiades was suspected of having assisted
at a mock celebration of these famous mysteries.  It was the
opinion of the vulgar among the Athenians that extraordinary
privileges were granted in the other world to alt who had been
initiated.)

CHARICLEA.
And what are those stories?

ALCIBIADES.
Are not you initiated, Chariclea?

CHARICLEA.
No; my mother was a Lydian, a barbarian; and therefore--

ALCIBIADES.
I understand.  Now the curse of Venus on the fools who made so
hateful a law!  Speusippus, does not your friend Euripides (The
right of Euripides to this line is somewhat disputable.  See
Aristophanes; Plutus, 1152.) say

"The land where thou art prosperous is thy country?"

Surely we ought to say to every lady

"The land where thou art pretty is thy country."

Besides, to exclude foreign beauties from the chorus of the
initiated in the Elysian fields is less cruel to them than to
ourselves.  Chariclea, you shall be initiated.

CHARICLEA.
When?

ALCIBIADES.
Now.

CHARICLEA.
Where?

ALCIBIADES.
Here.

CHARICLEA.
Delightful!

SPEUSIPPUS.
But there must be an interval of a year between the purification
and the initiation.

ALCIBIADES.
We will suppose all that.

SPEUSIPPUS.
And nine days of rigid mortification of the senses.

ALCIBIADES.
We will suppose that too.  I am sure it was supposed, with as
little reason, when I was initiated.

SPEUSIPPUS.
But you are sworn to secrecy.

ALCIBIADES.
You a sophist, and talk of oaths!  You a pupil of Euripides, and
forget his maxims!

"My lips have sworn it; but my mind is free."  (See Euripides:
Hippolytus, 608.  For the jesuitical morality of this line
Euripides is bitterly attacked by the comic poet.)

SPEUSIPPUS.
But Alcibiades--

ALCIBIADES.
What!  Are you afraid of Ceres and Proserpine?

SPEUSIPPUS.
No--but--but--I--that is I--but it is best to be safe--I mean--
Suppose there should be something in it.

ALCIBIADES.
Now, by Mercury, I shall die with laughing.  O Speusippus.
Speusippus!  Go back to your old father.  Dig vineyards, and
judge causes, and be a respectable citizen.  But never, while you
live; again dream of being a philosopher.

SPEUSIPPUS.
Nay, I was only--

ALCIBIADES.
A pupil of Gorgias and Melesigenes afraid of Tartarus!  In what
region of the infernal world do you expect your domicile to be
fixed?  Shall you roll a stone like Sisyphus?  Hard exercise,
Speusippus!

SPEUSIPPUS.
In the name of all the gods--

ALCIBIADES.
Or shall you sit starved and thirsty in the midst of fruit and
wine like Tantalus?  Poor fellow?  I think I see your face as you
are springing up to the branches and missing your aim.  Oh
Bacchus!  Oh Mercury!

SPEUSIPPUS.
Alcibiades!

ALCIBIADES.
Or perhaps you will be food for a vulture, like the huge fellow
who was rude to Latona.

SPEUSIPPUS.
Alcibiades!

ALCIBIADES.
Never fear.  Minos will not be so cruel.  Your eloquence will
triumph over all accusations.  The Furies will skulk away like
disappointed sycophants.  Only address the judges of hell in the
speech which you were prevented from speaking last assembly.
"When I consider"--is not that the beginning of it?  Come, man,
do not be angry.  Why do you pace up and down with such long
steps?  You are not in Tartarus yet.  You seem to think that you
are already stalking like poor Achilles,

"With stride
Majestic through the plain of Asphodel."  (See Homer's Odyssey,
xi. 538.)

SPEUSIPPUS.
How can you talk so, when you know that I believe all that
foolery as little as you do?

ALCIBIADES.
Then march.  You shall be the crier.  Callicles, you shall carry
the torch.  Why do you stare?  (The crier and torchbearer were
important functionaries at the celebration of the Eleusinian
mysteries.)

CALLICLES.
I do not much like the frolic.

ALCIBIADES.
Nay, surely you are not taken with a fit of piety.  If all be
true that is told of you, you have as little reason to think the
gods vindictive as any man breathing.  If you be not belied, a
certain golden goblet which I have seen at your house was once in
the temple of Juno at Corcyra.  And men say that there was a
priestess at Tarentum--

CALLICLES.
A fig for the gods!  I was thinking about the Archons.  You will
have an accusation laid against you to-morrow.  It is not very
pleasant to be tried before the king.  (The name of king was
given in the Athenian democracy to the magistrate who exercised
those spiritual functions which in the monarchical times had
belonged to the sovereign.  His court took cognisance of offences
against the religion of the state.)

ALCIBIADES.
Never fear: there is not a sycophant in Attica who would dare to
breathe a word against me, for the golden plane-tree of the great
king.  (See Herodotus, viii. 28.)

HIPPOMACHUS.
That plane-tree--

ALCIBIADES.
Never mind the plane-tree.  Come, Callicles, you were not so
timid when you plundered the merchantman off Cape Malea.  Take up
the torch and move.  Hippomachus, tell one of the slaves to bring
a sow.  (A sow was sacrificed to Ceres at the admission to the
greater mysteries.)

CALLICLES.
And what part are you to play?

ALCIBIADES.
I shall be hierophant.  Herald, to your office.  Torchbearer,
advance with the lights.  Come forward, fair novice.  We will
celebrate the rite within.

[Exeunt.]

...


CRITICISMS ON THE PRINCIPAL ITALIAN WRITERS.

No. I.  DANTE.

(January 1824.)

"Fairest of stars, last in the train of night,
If better thou belong not to the dawn,
Sure pledge of day, that crown'st the smiling morn
With thy bright circlet."   Milton.

In a review of Italian literature, Dante has a double claim to
precedency.  He was the earliest and the greatest writer of his
country.  He was the first man who fully descried and exhibited
the powers of his native dialect.  The Latin tongue, which, under
the most favourable circumstances, and in the hands of the
greatest masters, had still been poor, feeble, and singularly
unpoetical, and which had, in the age of Dante, been debased by
the admixture of innumerable barbarous words and idioms, was
still cultivated with superstitious veneration, and received, in
the last stage of corruption, more honours than it had deserved
in the period of its life and vigour.  It was the language of the
cabinet, of the university, of the church.  It was employed by
all who aspired to distinction in the higher walks of poetry.  In
compassion to the ignorance of his mistress, a cavalier might now
and then proclaim his passion in Tuscan or Proven‡al rhymes.  The
vulgar might occasionally be edified by a pious allegory in the
popular jargon.  But no writer had conceived it possible that the
dialect of peasants and market-women should possess sufficient
energy and precision for a majestic and durable work.  Dante
adventured first.  He detected the rich treasures of thought and
diction which still lay latent in their ore.  He refined them
into purity.  He burnished them into splendour.  He fitted them
for every purpose of use and magnificence.  And he has thus
acquired the glory, not only of producing the finest narrative
poem of modern times but also of creating a language,
distinguished by unrivalled melody, and peculiarly capable of
furnishing to lofty and passionate thoughts their appropriate
garb of severe and concise expression.

To many this may appear a singular panegyric on the Italian
tongue.  Indeed the great majority of the young gentlemen and
young ladies, who, when they are asked whether they read Italian,
answer "yes," never go beyond the stories at the end of their
grammar,--The Pastor Fido,--or an act of Artaserse.  They could
as soon read a Babylonian brick as a canto of Dante.  Hence it is
a general opinion, among those who know little or nothing of the
subject, that this admirable language is adapted only to the
effeminate cant of sonnetteers, musicians, and connoisseurs.

The fact is that Dante and Petrarch have been the Oromasdes and
Arimanes of Italian literature.  I wish not to detract from the
merits of Petrarch.  No one can doubt that his poems exhibit,
amidst some imbecility and more affectation, much elegance,
ingenuity, and tenderness.  They present us with a mixture which
can only be compared to the whimsical concert described by the
humorous poet of Modena:

"S'udian gli usignuoli, al primo albore,
Egli asini cantar versi d'amore."
(Tassoni; Secchia Rapita, canto i. stanza 6.)

I am not, however, at present speaking of the intrinsic
excellencies of his writings, which I shall take another
opportunity to examine, but of the effect which they produced on
the literature of Italy.  The florid and luxurious charms of his
style enticed the poets and the public from the contemplation of
nobler and sterner models.  In truth, though a rude state of
society is that in which great original works are most frequently
produced, it is also that in which they are worst appreciated.
This may appear paradoxical; but it is proved by experience, and
is consistent with reason.  To be without any received canons of
taste is good for the few who can create, but bad for the many
who can only imitate and judge.  Great and active minds cannot
remain at rest.  In a cultivated age they are too often contented
to move on in the beaten path.  But where no path exists they
will make one.  Thus the Iliad, the Odyssey, the Divine Comedy,
appeared in dark and half barbarous times:  and thus of the few
original works which have been produced in more polished ages we
owe a large proportion to men in low stations and of uninformed
minds.  I will instance, in our own language, the Pilgrim's
Progress and Robinson Crusoe.  Of all the prose works of fiction
which we possess, these are, I will not say the best, but the
most peculiar, the most unprecedented, the most inimitable.  Had
Bunyan and Defoe been educated gentlemen, they would probably
have published translations and imitations of French romances "by
a person of quality."  I am not sure that we should have had Lear
if Shakspeare had been able to read Sophocles.

But these circumstances, while they foster genius, are
unfavourable to the science of criticism.  Men judge by
comparison.  They are unable to estimate the grandeur of an
object when there is no standard by which they can measure it.
One of the French philosophers (I beg Gerard's pardon), who
accompanied Napoleon to Egypt, tells us that, when he first
visited the great Pyramid, he was surprised to see it so
diminutive.  It stood alone in a boundless plain.  There was
nothing near it from which he could calculate its magnitude.  But
when the camp was pitched beside it, and the tents appeared like
diminutive specks around its base, he then perceived the
immensity of this mightiest work of man.  In the same manner, it
is not till a crowd of petty writers has sprung up that the merit
of the great masterspirits of literature is understood.

We have indeed ample proof that Dante was highly admired in his
own and the following age.  I wish that we had equal proof that
he was admired for his excellencies.  But it is a remarkable
corroboration of what has been said, that this great man seems to
have been utterly unable to appreciate himself.  In his treatise
"De Vulgari Eloquentia" he talks with satisfaction of what he has
done for Italian literature, of the purity and correctness of his
style.  "Cependant," says a favourite writer of mine,(Sismondi,
Literature du Midi de l'Europe.) "il n'est ni pur, ni correct,
mais il est createur."  Considering the difficulties with which
Dante had to struggle, we may perhaps be more inclined than the
French critic to allow him this praise.  Still it is by no means
his highest or most peculiar title to applause.  It is scarcely
necessary to say that those qualities which escaped the notice of
the poet himself were not likely to attract the attention of the
commentators.  The fact is, that, while the public homage was
paid to some absurdities with which his works may be justly
charged, and to many more which were falsely imputed to them,--
while lecturers were paid to expound and eulogise his physics,
his metaphysics, his theology, all bad of their kind--while
annotators laboured to detect allegorical meanings of which the
author never dreamed, the great powers of his imagination, and
the incomparable force of his style, were neither admired nor
imitated.  Arimanes had prevailed.  The Divine Comedy was to that
age what St. Paul's Cathedral was to Omai.  The poor Otaheitean
stared listlessly for a moment at the huge cupola, and ran into a
toyshop to play with beads.  Italy, too, was charmed with
literary trinkets, and played with them for four centuries.

From the time of Petrarch to the appearance of Alfieri's
tragedies, we may trace in almost every page of Italian
literature the influence of those celebrated sonnets which, from
the nature both of their beauties and their faults, were
peculiarly unfit to be models for general imitation.  Almost all
the poets of that period, however different in the degree and
quality of their talents, are characterised by great
exaggeration, and as a necessary consequence, great coldness of
sentiment; by a passion for frivolous and tawdry ornament; and,
above all, by an extreme feebleness and diffuseness of style.
Tasso, Marino, Guarini, Metastasio, and a crowd of writers of
inferior merit and celebrity, were spell-bound in the enchanted
gardens of a gaudy and meretricious Alcina, who concealed
debility and deformity beneath the deceitful semblance of
loveliness and health.  Ariosto, the great Ariosto himself, like
his own Ruggiero, stooped for a time to linger amidst the magic
flowers and fountains, and to caress the gay and painted
sorceress.  But to him, as to his own Ruggiero, had been given
the omnipotent ring and the winged courser, which bore him from
the paradise of deception to the regions of light and nature.

The evil of which I speak was not confined to the graver poets.
It infected satire, comedy, burlesque.  No person can admire more
than I do the great masterpieces of wit and humour which Italy
has produced.  Still I cannot but discern and lament a great
deficiency, which is common to them all.  I find in them
abundance of ingenuity, of droll naivete, of profound and just
reflection, of happy expression.  Manners, characters, opinions,
are treated with "a most learned spirit of human dealing."  But
something is still wanting.  We read, and we admire, and we yawn.
We look in vain for the bacchanalian fury which inspired the
comedy of Athens, for the fierce and withering scorn which
animates the invectives of Juvenal and Dryden, or even for the
compact and pointed diction which adds zest to the verses of Pope
and Boileau.  There is no enthusiasm, no energy, no condensation,
nothing which springs from strong feeling, nothing which tends to
excite it.  Many fine thoughts and fine expressions reward the
toil of reading.  Still it is a toil.  The Secchia Rapita, in
some points the best poem of its kind, is painfully diffuse and
languid.  The Animali Parlanti of Casti is perfectly intolerable.
I admire the dexterity of the plot, and the liberality of the
opinions.  I admit that it is impossible to turn to a page which
does not contain something that deserves to be remembered; but it
is at least six times as long as it ought to be.  And the
garrulous feebleness of the style is a still greater fault than
the length of the work.

It may be thought that I have gone too far in attributing these
evils to the influence of the works and the fame of Petrarch.  It
cannot, however, be doubted that they have arisen, in a great
measure, from a neglect of the style of Dante.  This is not more
proved by the decline of Italian poetry than by its
resuscitation.  After the lapse of four hundred and fifty years,
there appeared a man capable of appreciating and imitating the
father of Tuscan literature--Vittorio Alfieri.  Like the prince
in the nursery tale, he sought and found the sleeping beauty
within the recesses which had so long concealed her from mankind.
The portal was indeed rusted by time;--the dust of ages had
accumulated on the hangings;--the furniture was of antique
fashion;--and the gorgeous colour of the embroidery had faded.
But the living charms which were well worth all the rest remained
in the bloom of eternal youth, and well rewarded the bold
adventurer who roused them from their long slumber.  In every
line of the Philip and the Saul, the greatest poems, I think, of
the eighteenth century, we may trace the influence of that mighty
genius which has immortalised the ill-starred love of Francesca,
and the paternal agonies of Ugolino.  Alfieri bequeathed the
sovereignty of Italian literature to the author of the
Aristodemus--a man of genius scarcely inferior to his own, and a
still more devoted disciple of the great Florentine.  It must be
acknowledged that this eminent writer has sometimes pushed too
far his idolatry of Dante.  To borrow a sprightly illustration
from Sir John Denham, he has not only imitated his garb, but
borrowed his clothes.  He often quotes his phrases; and he has,
not very judiciously as it appears to me, imitated his
versification.  Nevertheless, he has displayed many of the higher
excellencies of his master; and his works may justly inspire us
with a hope that the Italian language will long flourish under a
new literary dynasty, or rather under the legitimate line, which
has at length been restored to a throne long occupied by specious
usurpers.

The man to whom the literature of his country owes its origin and
its revival was born in times singularly adapted to call forth
his extraordinary powers.  Religious zeal, chivalrous love and
honour, democratic liberty, are the three most powerful
principles that have ever influenced the character of large
masses of men.  Each of them singly has often excited the
greatest enthusiasm, and produced the most important changes.  In
the time of Dante all the three, often in amalgamation, generally
in conflict, agitated the public mind.  The preceding generation
had witnessed the wrongs and the revenge of the brave, the
accomplished, the unfortunate Emperor Frederic the Second,--a
poet in an age of schoolmen,--a philosopher in an age of monks,--
a statesman in an age of crusaders.  During the whole life of the
poet, Italy was experiencing the consequences of the memorable
struggle which he had maintained against the Church.  The finest
works of imagination have always been produced in times of
political convulsion, as the richest vineyards and the sweetest
flowers always grow on the soil which has been fertilised by the
fiery deluge of a volcano.  To look no further than the literary
history of our own country, can we doubt that Shakspeare was in a
great measure produced by the Reformation, and Wordsworth by the
French Revolution?  Poets often avoid political transactions;
they often affect to despise them.  But, whether they perceive it
or not, they must be influenced by them.  As long as their minds
have any point of contact with those of their fellow-men, the
electric impulse, at whatever distance it may originate, will be
circuitously communicated to them.

This will be the case even in large societies, where the division
of labour enables many speculative men to observe the face of
nature, or to analyse their own minds, at a distance from the
seat of political transactions.  In the little republic of which
Dante was a member the state of things was very different.  These
small communities are most unmercifully abused by most of our
modern professors of the science of government.  In such states,
they tell us, factions are always most violent:  where both
parties are cooped up within a narrow space, political difference
necessarily produces personal malignity.  Every man must be a
soldier; every moment may produce a war.  No citizen can lie down
secure that he shall not be roused by the alarum-bell, to repel
or avenge an injury.  In such petty quarrels Greece squandered
the blood which might have purchased for her the permanent empire
of the world, and Italy wasted the energy and the abilities which
would have enabled her to defend her independence against the
Pontiffs and the Caesars.

All this is true: yet there is still a compensation.  Mankind has
not derived so much benefit from the empire of Rome as from the
city of Athens, nor from the kingdom of France as from the city
of Florence.  The violence of party feeling may be an evil; but
it calls forth that activity of mind which in some states of
society it is desirable to produce at any expense.  Universal
soldiership may be an evil; but where every man is a soldier
there will be no standing army.  And is it no evil that one man
in every fifty should be bred to the trade of slaughter; should
live only by destroying and by exposing himself to be destroyed;
should fight without enthusiasm and conquer without glory; be
sent to a hospital when wounded, and rot on a dunghill when old?
Such, over more than two-thirds of Europe, is the fate of
soldiers.  It was something that the citizen of Milan or Florence
fought, not merely in the vague and rhetorical sense in which the
words are often used, but in sober truth, for his parents, his
children, his lands, his house, his altars.  It was something
that he marched forth to battle beneath the Carroccio, which had
been the object of his childish veneration:  that his aged father
looked down from the battlements on his exploits; that his
friends and his rivals were the witnesses of his glory.  If he
fell, he was consigned to no venal or heedless guardians.  The
same day saw him conveyed within the walls which he had defended.
His wounds were dressed by his mother; his confession was
whispered to the friendly priest who had heard and absolved the
follies of his youth; his last sigh was breathed upon the lips of
the lady of his love.  Surely there is no sword like that which
is beaten out of a ploughshare.  Surely this state of things was
not unmixedly bad; its evils were alleviated by enthusiasm and by
tenderness; and it will at least be acknowledged that it was well
fitted to nurse poetical genius in an imaginative and observant
mind.

Nor did the religious spirit of the age tend less to this result
than its political circumstances.  Fanaticism is an evil, but it
is not the greatest of evils.  It is good that a people should be
roused by any means from a state of utter torpor;--that their
minds should be diverted from objects merely sensual, to
meditations, however erroneous, on the mysteries of the
moral and intellectual world; and from interests which are
immediately selfish to those which relate to the past, the
future, and the remote.  These effects have sometimes been
produced by the worst superstitions that ever existed; but the
Catholic religion, even in the time of its utmost extravagance
and atrocity, never wholly lost the spirit of the Great Teacher,
whose precepts form the noblest code, as His conduct furnished
the purest example, of moral excellence.  It is of all religions
the most poetical.  The ancient superstitions furnished the fancy
with beautiful images, but took no hold on the heart.  The
doctrines of the Reformed Churches have most powerfully
influenced the feelings and the conduct of men, but have not
presented them with visions of sensible beauty and grandeur.  The
Roman Catholic Church has united to the awful doctrines
of the one that Mr Coleridge calls the "fair humanities" of the
other.  It has enriched sculpture and painting with the loveliest
and most majestic forms.  To the Phidian Jupiter it can oppose
the Moses of Michael Angelo; and to the voluptuous beauty of the
Queen of Cyprus, the serene and pensive loveliness of the Virgin
Mother.  The legends of its martyrs and its saints may vie in
ingenuity and interest with the mythological fables of Greece;
its ceremonies and processions were the delight of the vulgar;
the huge fabric of secular power with which it was connected
attracted the admiration of the statesman.  At the same time, it
never lost sight of the most solemn and tremendous doctrines of
Christianity,--the incarnate God,--the judgment,--the
retribution,--the eternity of happiness or torment.  Thus, while,
like the ancient religions, it received incalculable support from
policy and ceremony, it never wholly became, like those
religions, a merely political and ceremonial institution.

The beginning of the thirteenth century was, as Machiavelli has
remarked, the era of a great revival of this extraordinary
system.  The policy of Innocent,--the growth of the Inquisition
and the mendicant orders,--the wars against the Albigenses, the
Pagans of the East, and the unfortunate princes of the house of
Swabia, agitated Italy during the two following generations.  In
this point Dante was completely under the influence of his age.
He was a man of a turbid and melancholy spirit.  In early youth
he had entertained a strong and unfortunate passion, which, long
after the death of her whom he loved, continued to haunt him.
Dissipation, ambition, misfortunes had not effaced it.  He was
not only a sincere, but a passionate, believer.  The crimes and
abuses of the Church of Rome were indeed loathsome to him; but to
all its doctrines and all its rites he adhered with enthusiastic
fondness and veneration; and, at length, driven from his native
country, reduced to a situation the most painful to a man of his
disposition, condemned to learn by experience that no food is so
bitter as the bread of dependence
("Tu proverai si come sa di sale
Lo pane altrui, e come e duro calle
Lo scendere e'l sa'ir per l'altrui scale."
Paradiso, canto xvii.),

and no ascent so painful as the staircase of a patron,--his
wounded spirit took refuge in visionary devotion.  Beatrice, the
unforgotten object of his early tenderness, was invested by his
imagination with glorious and mysterious attributes; she was
enthroned among the highest of the celestial hierarchy:  Almighty
Wisdom had assigned to her the care of the sinful and unhappy
wanderer who had loved her with such a perfect love.  ("L'amico
mio, e non della ventura."  Inferno, canto ii.)  By a confusion,
like that which often takes place in dreams, he has sometimes
lost sight of her human nature, and even of her personal
existence, and seems to consider her as one of the attributes of
the Deity.

But those religious hopes which had released the mind of the
sublime enthusiast from the terrors of death had not rendered his
speculations on human life more cheerful.  This is an
inconsistency which may often be observed in men of a similar
temperament.  He hoped for happiness beyond the grave:  but he
felt none on earth.  It is from this cause, more than from any
other, that his description of Heaven is so far inferior to the
Hell or the Purgatory.  With the passions and miseries of the
suffering spirits he feels a strong sympathy.  But among the
beatified he appears as one who has nothing in common with them,-
-as one who is incapable of comprehending, not only the degree,
but the nature of their enjoyment.  We think that we see him
standing amidst those smiling and radiant spirits with that scowl
of unutterable misery on his brow, and that curl of bitter
disdain on his lips, which all his portraits have preserved, and
which might furnish Chantrey with hints for the head of his
projected Satan.

There is no poet whose intellectual and moral character are so
closely connected.  The great source, as it appears to me, of the
power of the Divine Comedy is the strong belief with which the
story seems to be told.  In this respect, the only books which
approach to its excellence are Gulliver's Travels and Robinson
Crusoe.  The solemnity of his asseverations, the consistency and
minuteness of his details, the earnestness with which he labours
to make the reader understand the exact shape and size of
everything that he describes, give an air of reality to his
wildest fictions.  I should only weaken this statement by quoting
instances of a feeling which pervades the whole work, and to
which it owes much of its fascination.  This is the real
justification of the many passages in his poem which bad critics
have condemned as grotesque.  I am concerned to see that Mr Cary,
to whom Dante owes more than ever poet owed to translator, has
sanctioned an accusation utterly unworthy of his abilities.  "His
solicitude," says that gentleman, "to define all his images in
such a manner as to bring them within the circle of our vision,
and to subject them to the power of the pencil, renders him
little better than grotesque, where Milton has since taught us to
expect sublimity."  It is true that Dante has never shrunk from
embodying his conceptions in determinate words, that he has even
given measures and numbers, where Milton would have left his
images to float undefined in a gorgeous haze of language.  Both
were right.  Milton did not profess to have been in heaven or
hell.  He might therefore reasonably confine himself to
magnificent generalities.  Far different was the office of the
lonely traveller, who had wandered through the nations of the
dead.  Had he described the abode of the rejected spirits in
language resembling the splendid lines of the English Poet,--had
he told us of--

"An universe of death, which God by curse
Created evil, for evil only good,
Where all life dies, death lives, and Nature breeds
Perverse all monstrous, all prodigious things,
Abominable, unutterable, and worse
Than fables yet have feigned, or fear conceived,
Gorgons, and hydras, and chimaeras dire"--

this would doubtless have been noble writing.  But where would
have been that strong impression of reality, which, in accordance
with his plan, it should have been his great object to produce?
It was absolutely necessary for him to delineate accurately "all
monstrous, all prodigious things,"--to utter what might to others
appear "unutterable,"--to relate with the air of truth what
fables had never feigned,--to embody what fear had never
conceived. And I will frankly confess that the vague sublimity of
Milton affects me less than these reviled details of Dante.  We
read Milton; and we know that we are reading a great poet.  When
we read Dante, the poet vanishes.  We are listening to the man
who has returned from "the valley of the dolorous abyss;"
("Lavalle d'abisso doloroso."--Inferno, cantoiv.)--we seem to see
the dilated eye of horror, to hear the shuddering accents with
which he tells his fearful tale.  Considered in this light, the
narratives are exactly what they should be,--definite in
themselves, but suggesting to the mind ideas of awful and
indefinite wonder.  They are made up of the images of the earth:-
-they are told in the language of the earth.--Yet the whole
effect is, beyond expression, wild and unearthly.  The fact is,
that supernatural beings, as long as they are considered merely
with reference to their own nature, excite our feelings very
feebly.  It is when the great gulf which separates them from us
is passed, when we suspect some strange and undefinable relation
between the laws of the visible and the invisible world, that
they rouse, perhaps, the strongest emotions of which our nature
is capable.  How many children, and how many men, are afraid of
ghosts, who are not afraid of God!  And this, because, though
they entertain a much stronger conviction of the existence of a
Deity than of the reality of apparitions, they have no
apprehension that he will manifest himself to them in any
sensible manner.  While this is the case, to describe superhuman
beings in the language, and to attribute to them the actions, of
humanity may be grotesque, unphilosophical, inconsistent; but it
will be the only mode of working upon the feelings of men, and,
therefore, the only mode suited for poetry.  Shakspeare
understood this well, as he understood everything that belonged
to his art.  Who does not sympathise with the rapture of Ariel,
flying after sunset on the wings of the bat, or sucking in the
cups of flowers with the bee?  Who does not shudder at the
caldron of Macbeth?  Where is the philosopher who is not moved
when he thinks of the strange connection between the infernal
spirits and "the sow's blood that hath eaten her nine farrow?"
But this difficult task of representing supernatural beings to
our minds, in a manner which shall be neither unintelligible to
our intellects nor wholly inconsistent with our ideas of their
nature, has never been so well performed as by Dante.  I will
refer to three instances, which are, perhaps, the most striking:-
-the description of the transformations of the serpents and the
robbers, in the twenty-fifth canto of the Inferno,--the passage
concerning Nimrod, in the thirty-first canto of the same part,--
and the magnificent procession in the twenty-ninth canto of the
Purgatorio.

The metaphors and comparisons of Dante harmonise admirably with
that air of strong reality of which I have spoken.  They have a
very peculiar character.  He is perhaps the only poet whose
writings would become much less intelligible if all illustrations
of this sort were expunged.  His similes are frequently rather
those of a traveller than of a poet.  He employs them not to
display his ingenuity by fanciful analogies,--not to delight the
reader by affording him a distant and passing glimpse of
beautiful images remote from the path in which he is proceeding,
but to give an exact idea of the objects which he is describing,
by comparing them with others generally known.  The boiling pitch
in Malebolge was like that in the Venetian arsenal:--the mound on
which he travelled along the banks of Phlegethon was like that
between Ghent and Bruges, but not so large:--the cavities where
the Simoniacal prelates are confined resemble the Fonts in the
Church of John at Florence.  Every reader of Dante will recall
many other illustrations of this description, which add to the
appearance of sincerity and earnestness from which the narrative
derives so much of its interest.

Many of his comparisons, again, are intended to give an exact
idea of his feelings under particular circumstances.  The
delicate shades of grief, of fear, of anger, are rarely
discriminated with sufficient accuracy in the language of the
most refined nations.  A rude dialect never abounds in nice
distinctions of this kind.  Dante therefore employs the most
accurate and infinitely the most poetical mode of marking the
precise state of his mind.  Every person who has experienced the
bewildering effect of sudden bad tidings,--the stupefaction,--the
vague doubt of the truth of our own perceptions which they
produce,--will understand the following simile:--"I was as he is
who dreameth his own harm,--who, dreaming, wishes that it may be
all a dream, so that he desires that which is as though it were
not."  This is only one out of a hundred equally striking and
expressive similitudes.  The comparisons of Homer and Milton are
magnificent digressions.  It scarcely injures their effect to
detach them from the work.  Those of Dante are very different.
They derive their beauty from the context, and reflect beauty
upon it.  His embroidery cannot be taken out without spoiling the
whole web.  I cannot dismiss this part of the subject without
advising every person who can muster sufficient Italian to read
the simile of the sheep, in the third canto of the Purgatorio.  I
think it the most perfect passage of the kind in the world, the
most imaginative, the most picturesque, and the most sweetly
expressed.

No person can have attended to the Divine Comedy without
observing how little impression the forms of the external world
appear to have made on the mind of Dante.  His temper and his
situation had led him to fix his observation almost exclusively
on human nature.  The exquisite opening of the eighth* canto of
the Purgatorio affords a strong instance of this.  (I cannot help
observing that Gray's imitation of that noble line

"Che paia 'lgiorna pianger che si muore,"--

is one of the most striking instances of injudicious plagiarism
with which I am acquainted.  Dante did not put this strong
personification at the beginning of his description.  The
imagination of the reader is so well prepared for it by the
previous lines, that it appears perfectly natural and pathetic.
Placed as Gray has placed it, neither preceded nor followed by
anything that harmonises with it, it becomes a frigid conceit.
Woe to the unskilful rider who ventures on the horses of
Achilles!)

He leaves to others the earth, the ocean, and the sky.  His
business is with man.  To other writers, evening may be the
season of dews and stars and radiant clouds.  To Dante it is the
hour of fond recollection and passionate devotion,--the hour
which melts the heart of the mariner and kindles the love of the
pilgrim,--the hour when the toll of the bell seems to mourn for
another day which is gone and will return no more.

The feeling of the present age has taken a direction
diametrically opposite.  The magnificence of the physical world,
and its influence upon the human mind, have been the favourite
themes of our most eminent poets.  The herd of bluestocking
ladies and sonneteering gentlemen seem to consider a strong
sensibility to the "splendour of the grass, the glory of the
flower," as an ingredient absolutely indispensable in the
formation of a poetical mind.  They treat with contempt all
writers who are unfortunately

nec ponere lucum
Artifices, nec rus saturum laudare.

The orthodox poetical creed is more Catholic.  The noblest
earthly object of the contemplation of man is man himself.  The
universe, and all its fair and glorious forms, are indeed
included in the wide empire of the imagination; but she has
placed her home and her sanctuary amidst the inexhaustible
varieties and the impenetrable mysteries of the mind.

In tutte parti impera, e quivi regge;
Quivi e la sua cittade, e l'alto seggio.
(Inferno, canto i.)

Othello is perhaps the greatest work in the world.  From what
does it derive its power?  From the clouds?  From the ocean?
From the mountains?  Or from love strong as death, and jealousy
cruel as the grave?  What is it that we go forth to see in
Hamlet?  Is it a reed shaken with the wind?  A small celandine?
A bed of daffodils?  Or is it to contemplate a mighty and wayward
mind laid bare before us to the inmost recesses?  It may perhaps
be doubted whether the lakes and the hills are better fitted for
the education of a poet than the dusky streets of a huge capital.
Indeed who is not tired to death with pure description of
scenery?  Is it not the fact, that external objects never
strongly excite our feelings but when they are contemplated in
reference to man, as illustrating his destiny, or as influencing
his character?  The most beautiful object in the world, it will
be allowed, is a beautiful woman.  But who that can analyse his
feelings is not sensible that she owes her fascination less to
grace of outline and delicacy of colour, than to a thousand
associations which, often unperceived by ourselves, connect those
qualities with the source of our existence, with the nourishment
of our infancy, with the passions of our youth, with the hopes of
our age--with elegance, with vivacity, with tenderness, with the
strongest of natural instincts, with the dearest of social ties?

To those who think thus, the insensibility of the Florentine poet
to the beauties of nature will not appear an unpardonable
deficiency.  On mankind no writer, with the exception of
Shakspeare, has looked with a more penetrating eye.  I have said
that his poetical character had derived a tinge from his peculiar
temper.  It is on the sterner and darker passions that he
delights to dwell.  All love excepting the half-mystic passion
which he still felt for his buried Beatrice, had palled on the
fierce and restless exile.  The sad story of Rimini is almost a
single exception.  I know not whether it has been remarked, that,
in one point, misanthropy seems to have affected his mind, as it
did that of Swift.  Nauseous and revolting images seem to have
had a fascination for his mind; and he repeatedly places before
his readers, with all the energy of his incomparable style, the
most loathsome objects of the sewer and the dissecting-room.

There is another peculiarity in the poem of Dante, which, I
think, deserves notice.  Ancient mythology has hardly ever been
successfully interwoven with modern poetry.  One class of writers
have introduced the fabulous deities merely as allegorical
representatives of love, wine, or wisdom.  This necessarily
renders their works tame and cold.  We may sometimes admire their
ingenuity; but with what interest can we read of beings of whose
personal existence the writer does not suffer us to entertain,
for a moment, even a conventional belief?  Even Spenser's
allegory is scarcely tolerable, till we contrive to forget that
Una signifies innocence, and consider her merely as an oppressed
lady under the protection of a generous knight.

Those writers who have, more judiciously, attempted to preserve
the personality of the classical divinities have failed from a
different cause.  They have been imitators, and imitators at a
disadvantage.  Euripides and Catullus believed in Bacchus and
Cybele as little as we do.  But they lived among men who did.
Their imaginations, if not their opinions, took the colour of the
age.  Hence the glorious inspiration of the Bacchae and the Atys.
Our minds are formed by circumstances:  and I do not believe that
it would be in the power of the greatest modern poet to lash
himself up to a degree of enthusiasm adequate to the production
of such works.

Dante, alone among the poets of later times, has been, in this
respect, neither an allegorist nor an imitator; and,
consequently, he alone has introduced the ancient fictions with
effect.  His Minos, his Charon, his Pluto, are absolutely
terrific.  Nothing can be more beautiful or original
than the use which he has made of the River of Lethe.  He has
never assigned to his mythological characters any functions
inconsistent with the creed of the Catholic Church.  He has
related nothing concerning them which a good Christian of that
age might not believe possible.  On this account there is nothing
in these passages that appears puerile or pedantic.  On the
contrary, this singular use of classical names suggests
to the mind a vague and awful idea of some mysterious revelation,
anterior to all recorded history, of which the dispersed
fragments might have been retained amidst the impostures and
superstitions of later religions.  Indeed the mythology of the
Divine Comedy is of the elder and more colossal mould.  It
breathes the spirit of Homer and Aeschylus, not of Ovid and
Claudian.

This is the more extraordinary, since Dante seems to have been
utterly ignorant of the Greek language; and his favourite Latin
models could only have served to mislead him.  Indeed, it is
impossible not to remark his admiration of writers far inferior
to himself; and, in particular, his idolatry of Virgil, who,
elegant and splendid as he is, has no pretensions to the depth
and originality of mind which characterise his Tuscan worshipper,
In truth it may be laid down as an almost universal rule that
good poets are bad critics.  Their minds are under the tyranny of
ten thousand associations imperceptible to others.  The worst
writer may easily happen to touch a spring which is connected in
their minds with a long succession of beautiful images.  They are
like the gigantic slaves of Aladdin, gifted with matchless power,
but bound by spells so mighty that when a child whom they could
have crushed touched a talisman, of whose secret he was ignorant,
they immediately became his vassals.  It has more than once
happened to me to see minds, graceful and majestic as the Titania
of Shakspeare, bewitched by the charms of an ass's head,
bestowing on it the fondest caresses, and crowning it with the
sweetest flowers.  I need only mention the poems attributed to
Ossian.  They are utterly worthless, except as an edifying
instance of the success of a story without evidence, and of a
book without merit.  They are a chaos of words which present no
image, of images which have no archetype:--they are without form
and void; and darkness is upon the face of them.  Yet how many
men of genius have panegyrised and imitated them!

The style of Dante is, if not his highest, perhaps his most
peculiar excellence.  I know nothing with which it can be
compared.  The noblest models of Greek composition must yield to
it.  His words are the fewest and the best which it is possible
to use.  The first expression in which he clothes his thoughts is
always so energetic and comprehensive that amplification would
only injure the effect.  There is probably no writer in any
language who has presented so many strong pictures to the mind.
Yet there is probably no writer equally concise.  This perfection
of style is the principal merit of the Paradiso, which, as I have
already remarked, is by no means equal in other respects to the
two preceding parts of the poem.  The force and felicity of the
diction, however, irresistibly attract the reader through the
theological lectures and the sketches of ecclesiastical
biography, with which this division of the work too much abounds.
It may seem almost absurd to quote particular specimens of an
excellence which is diffused over all his hundred cantos.  I
will, however, instance the third canto of the Inferno, and the
sixth of the Purgatorio, as passages incomparable in their kind.
The merit of the latter is, perhaps, rather oratorical than
poetical; nor can I recollect anything in the great Athenian
speeches which equals it in force of invective and bitterness of
sarcasm.  I have heard the most eloquent statesman of the age
remark that, next to Demosthenes, Dante is the writer who ought
to be most attentively studied by every man who desires to attain
oratorical eminence.

But it is time to close this feeble and rambling critique.  I
cannot refrain, however, from saying a few words upon the
translations of the Divine Comedy.  Boyd's is as tedious and
languid as the original is rapid and forcible.  The strange
measure which he has chosen, and, for aught I know, invented, is
most unfit for such a work.  Translations ought never to be
written in a verse which requires much command of rhyme.  The
stanza becomes a bed of Procrustes; and the thoughts of the
unfortunate author are alternately racked and curtailed to fit
their new receptacle.  The abrupt and yet consecutive style of
Dante suffers more than that of any other poet by a version
diffuse in style, and divided into paragraphs, for they deserve
no other name, of equal length.

Nothing can be said in favour of Hayley's attempt, but that it is
better than Boyd's.  His mind was a tolerable specimen of
filigree work,--rather elegant, and very feeble.  All that can be
said for his best works is that they are neat.  All that can be
said against his worst is that they are stupid.  He might have
translated Metastasio tolerably.  But he was utterly unable to do
justice to the

"rime e aspre e chiocce,
"Come si converrebbe al tristo buco."
(Inferno, canto xxxii.)

I turn with pleasure from these wretched performances to Mr
Cary's translation.  It is a work which well deserves a separate
discussion, and on which, if this article were not already too
long, I could dwell with great pleasure.  At present I will only
say that there is no other version in the world, as far as I
know, so faithful, yet that there is no other version which so
fully proves that the translator is himself a man of poetical
genius.  Those who are ignorant of the Italian language should
read it to become acquainted with the Divine Comedy.  Those who
are most intimate with Italian literature should read it for its
original merits:  and I believe that they will find it difficult
to determine whether the author deserves most praise for his
intimacy with the language of Dante, or for his extraordinary
mastery over his own.

...


CRITICISMS ON THE PRINCIPAL ITALIAN WRITERS.

No. II.  PETRARCH.

(April 1824.)

Et vos, o lauri, carpam, et te, proxima myrte,
Sic positae quoniam suaves miscetis odores.  Virgil.

It would not be easy to name a writer whose celebrity, when both
its extent and its duration are taken into the account, can be
considered as equal to that of Petrarch.  Four centuries and a
half have elapsed since his death.  Yet still the inhabitants of
every nation throughout the western world are as familiar with
his character and his adventures as with the most illustrious
names, and the most recent anecdotes, of their own literary
history.  This is indeed a rare distinction.  His detractors must
acknowledge that it could not have been acquired by a poet
destitute of merit.  His admirers will scarcely maintain that the
unassisted merit of Petrarch could have raised him to that
eminence which has not yet been attained by Shakspeare, Milton,
or Dante,--that eminence, of which perhaps no modern writer,
excepting himself and Cervantes, has long retained possession,--
an European reputation.

It is not difficult to discover some of the causes to which this
great man has owed a celebrity, which I cannot but think
disproportioned to his real claims on the admiration of mankind.
In the first place, he is an egotist.  Egotism in conversation is
universally abhorred.  Lovers, and, I believe, lovers alone,
pardon it in each other.  No services, no talents, no powers of
pleasing, render it endurable.  Gratitude, admiration, interest,
fear, scarcely prevent those who are condemned to listen to it
from indicating their disgust and fatigue.  The childless uncle,
the powerful patron can scarcely extort this compliance.  We
leave the inside of the mail in a storm, and mount the box,
rather than hear the history of our companion.  The chaplain
bites his lips in the presence of the archbishop.  The midshipman
yawns at the table of the First Lord.  Yet, from whatever cause,
this practice, the pest of conversation, gives to writing a zest
which nothing else can impart.  Rousseau made the boldest
experiment of this kind; and it fully succeeded.  In our own time
Lord Byron, by a series of attempts of the same nature, made
himself the object of general interest and admiration.
Wordsworth wrote with egotism more intense, but less obvious; and
he has been rewarded with a sect of worshippers, comparatively
small in number, but far more enthusiastic in their devotion.  It
is needless to multiply instances.  Even now all the walks of
literature are infested with mendicants for fame, who attempt to
excite our interest by exhibiting all the distortions of their
intellects, and stripping the covering from all the putrid sores
of their feelings.  Nor are there wanting many who push their
imitation of the beggars whom they resemble a step further, and
who find it easier to extort a pittance from the spectator, by
simulating deformity and debility from which they are exempt,
than by such honest labour as their health and strength enable
them to perform.  In the meantime the credulous public pities and
pampers a nuisance which requires only the treadmill and the
whip.  This art, often successful when employed by dunces, gives
irresistible fascination to works which possess intrinsic merit.
We are always desirous to know something of the character and
situation of those whose writings we have perused with pleasure.
The passages in which Milton has alluded to his own circumstances
are perhaps read more frequently, and with more interest, than
any other lines in his poems.  It is amusing to observe with what
labour critics have attempted to glean from the poems of Homer,
some hints as to his situation and feelings.  According to one
hypothesis, he intended to describe himself under the name of
Demodocus.  Others maintain that he was the identical Phemius
whose life Ulysses spared.  This propensity of the human mind
explains, I think, in a great degree, the extensive popularity of
a poet whose works are little else than the expression of his
personal feelings.

In the second place, Petrarch was not only an egotist, but an
amatory egotist.  The hopes and fears, the joys and sorrows,
which he described, were derived from the passion which of all
passions exerts the widest influence, and which of all passions
borrows most from the imagination.  He had also another immense
advantage.  He was the first eminent amatory poet who appeared
after the great convulsion which had changed, not only the
political, but the moral, state of the world.  The Greeks, who,
in their public institutions and their literary tastes, were
diametrically opposed to the oriental nations, bore a
considerable resemblance to those nations in their domestic
habits.  Like them, they despised the intellects and immured the
persons of their women; and it was among the least of the
frightful evils to which this pernicious system gave birth, that
all the accomplishments of mind, and all the fascinations of
manner, which, in a highly cultivated age, will generally be
necessary to attach men to their female associates, were
monopolised by the Phrynes and the Lamais.  The indispensable
ingredients of honourable and chivalrous love were nowhere to be
found united.  The matrons and their daughters confined in the
harem,--insipid, uneducated, ignorant of all but the mechanical
arts, scarcely seen till they were married,--could rarely excite
interest; afterwards their brilliant rivals, half Graces, half
Harpies, elegant and informed, but fickle and rapacious, could
never inspire respect.

The state of society in Rome was, in this point, far happier; and
the Latin literature partook of the superiority.  The Roman poets
have decidedly surpassed those of Greece in the delineation of
the passion of love.  There is no subject which they have treated
with so much success.  Ovid, Catullus, Tibullus, Horace, and
Propertius, in spite of all their faults, must be allowed to rank
high in this department of the art.  To these I would add my
favourite Plautus; who, though he took his plots from Greece,
found, I suspect, the originals of his enchanting female
characters at Rome.

Still many evils remained:  and, in the decline of the great
empire, all that was pernicious in its domestic institutions
appeared more strongly.  Under the influence of governments at
once dependent and tyrannical, which purchased, by cringing to
their enemies, the power of trampling on their subjects, the
Romans sunk into the lowest state of effeminacy and debasement.
Falsehood, cowardice, sloth, conscious and unrepining
degradation, formed the national character.  Such a character is
totally incompatible with the stronger passions.  Love, in
particular, which, in the modern sense of the word, implies
protection and devotion on the one side, confidence on the other,
respect and fidelity on both, could not exist among the sluggish
and heartless slaves who cringed around the thrones of Honorius
and Augustulus.  At this period the great renovation commenced.
The warriors of the north, destitute as they were of knowledge
and humanity, brought with them, from their forests and marshes,
those qualities without which humanity is a weakness and
knowledge a curse,--energy--independence--the dread of shame--the
contempt of danger.  It would be most interesting to examine the
manner in which the admixture of the savage conquerors and the
effeminate slaves, after many generations of darkness and
agitation, produced the modern European character;--to trace
back, from the first conflict to the final amalgamation, the
operation of that mysterious alchemy which, from hostile and
worthless elements, has extracted the pure gold of human nature--
to analyse the mass, and to determine the proportion in which the
ingredients are mingled.  But I will confine myself to the
subject to which I have more particularly referred.  The nature
of the passion of love had undergone a complete change.  It still
retained, indeed, the fanciful and voluptuous character which it
had possessed among the southern nations of antiquity.  But it
was tinged with the superstitious veneration with which the
northern warriors had been accustomed to regard women.  Devotion
and war had imparted to it their most solemn and animating
feelings.  It was sanctified by the blessings of the Church, and
decorated with the wreaths of the tournament.  Venus, as in the
ancient fable, was again rising above the dark and tempestuous
waves which had so long covered her beauty.  But she rose not
now, as of old, in exposed and luxurious loveliness.  She still
wore the cestus of her ancient witchcraft; but the diadem of Juno
was on her brow, and the aegis of Pallas in her hand.  Love
might, in fact, be called a new passion; and it is not
astonishing that the first poet of eminence who wholly devoted
his genius to this theme should have excited an extraordinary
sensation.  He may be compared to an adventurer who accidentally
lands in a rich and unknown island; and who, though he may only
set up an ill-shaped cross upon the shore, acquires possession of
its treasures, and gives it his name.  The claim of Petrarch was
indeed somewhat like that of Amerigo Vespucci to the continent
which should have derived its appellation from Columbus.  The
Provencal poets were unquestionably the masters of the
Florentine.  But they wrote in an age which could not appreciate
their merits; and their imitator lived at the very period when
composition in the vernacular language began to attract general
attention.  Petrarch was in literature what a Valentine is in
love.  The public preferred him, not because his merits were of a
transcendent order, but because he was the first person whom they
saw after they awoke from their long sleep.

Nor did Petrarch gain less by comparison with his immediate
successors than with those who had preceded him.  Till more than
a century after his death Italy produced no poet who could be
compared to him.  This decay of genius is doubtless to be
ascribed, in a great measure, to the influence which his own
works had exercised upon the literature of his country.  Yet it
has conduced much to his fame.  Nothing is more favourable to the
reputation of a writer than to be succeeded by a race inferior to
himself; and it is an advantage, from obvious causes, much more
frequently enjoyed by those who corrupt the national taste than
by those who improve it.

Another cause has co-operated with those which I have mentioned
to spread the renown of Petrarch.  I mean the interest which is
inspired by the events of his life--an interest which must have
been strongly felt by his contemporaries, since, after an
interval of five hundred years, no critic can be wholly exempt
from its influence.  Among the great men to whom we owe the
resuscitation of science he deserves the foremost place; and his
enthusiastic attachment to this great cause constitutes his most
just and splendid title to the gratitude of posterity.  He was
the votary of literature.  He loved it with a perfect love.  He
worshipped it with an almost fanatical devotion.  He was the
missionary, who proclaimed its discoveries to distant countries--
the pilgrim, who travelled far and wide to collect its reliques--
the hermit, who retired to seclusion to meditate on its beauties-
-the champion, who fought its battles--the conqueror, who, in
more than a metaphorical sense, led barbarism and ignorance in
triumph, and received in the Capitol the laurel which his
magnificent victory had earned.

Nothing can be conceived more noble or affecting than that
ceremony.  The superb palaces and porticoes, by which had rolled
the ivory chariots of Marius and Caesar, had long mouldered into
dust.  The laurelled fasces--the golden eagles--the shouting
legions--the captives and the pictured cities--were indeed
wanting to his victorious procession.  The sceptre had passed
away from Rome.  But she still retained the mightier influence of
an intellectual empire, and was now to confer the prouder reward
of an intellectual triumph.  To the man who had extended the
dominion of her ancient language--who had erected the trophies of
philosophy and imagination in the haunts of ignorance and
ferocity--whose captives were the hearts of admiring nations
enchained by the influence of his song--whose spoils were the
treasures of ancient genius rescued from obscurity and decay--the
Eternal City offered the just and glorious tribute of her
gratitude.  Amidst the ruined monuments of ancient and the infant
erections of modern art, he who had restored the broken link
between the two ages of human civilisation was crowned with the
wreath which he had deserved from the moderns who owed to him
their refinement--from the ancients who owed to him their fame.
Never was a coronation so august witnessed by Westminster or by
Rheims.

When we turn from this glorious spectacle to the private chamber
of the poet,--when we contemplate the struggle of passion and
virtue,--the eye dimmed, the cheek furrowed, by the tears of
sinful and hopeless desire,--when we reflect on the whole history
of his attachment, from the gay fantasy of his youth to the
lingering despair of his age, pity and affection mingle with our
admiration.  Even after death had placed the last seal on his
misery, we see him devoting to the cause of the human mind all
the strength and energy which love and sorrow had spared.  He
lived the apostle of literature;--he fell its martyr:--he was
found dead with his head reclined on a book.

Those who have studied the life and writings of Petrarch with
attention, will perhaps be inclined to make some deductions from
this panegyric.  It cannot be denied that his merits were
disfigured by a most unpleasant affectation.  His zeal for
literature communicated a tinge of pedantry to all his feelings
and opinions.  His love was the love of a sonnetteer:--his
patriotism was the patriotism of an antiquarian.  The interest
with which we contemplate the works, and study the history, of
those who, in former ages, have occupied our country, arises from
the associations which connect them with the community in which
are comprised all the objects of our affection and our hope.  In
the mind of Petrarch these feelings were reversed.  He loved
Italy, because it abounded with the monuments of the ancient
masters of the world.  His native city--the fair and glorious
Florence--the modern Athens, then in all the bloom and strength
of its youth, could not obtain, from the most distinguished of
its citizens, any portion of that passionate homage which he paid
to the decrepitude of Rome.  These and many other blemishes,
though they must in candour be acknowledged, can but in a very
slight degree diminish the glory of his career.  For my own part,
I look upon it with so much fondness and pleasure that I feel
reluctant to turn from it to the consideration of his works,
which I by no means contemplate with equal admiration.

Nevertheless, I think highly of the poetical powers of Petrarch.
He did not possess, indeed, the art of strongly presenting
sensible objects to the imagination;--and this is the more
remarkable, because the talent of which I speak is that which
peculiarly distinguishes the Italian poets.  In the Divine Comedy
it is displayed in its highest perfection.  It characterises
almost every celebrated poem in the language.  Perhaps this is to
be attributed to the circumstance, that painting and sculpture
had attained a high degree of excellence in Italy before poetry
had been extensively cultivated.  Men were debarred from books,
but accustomed from childhood to contemplate the admirable works
of art, which, even in the thirteenth century, Italy began to
produce.  Hence their imaginations received so strong a bias
that, even in their writings, a taste for graphic delineation is
discernible.  The progress of things in England has been in all
respects different.  The consequence is, that English historical
pictures are poems on canvas; while Italian poems are pictures
painted to the mind by means of words.  Of this national
characteristic the writings of Petrarch are almost totally
destitute.  His sonnets indeed, from their subject and nature,
and his Latin Poems, from the restraints which always shackle one
who writes in a dead language, cannot fairly be received in
evidence.  But his Triumphs absolutely required the exercise of
this talent, and exhibit no indications of it.

Genius, however, he certainly possessed, and genius of a high
order.  His ardent, tender, and magnificent turn of thought, his
brilliant fancy, his command of expression, at once forcible and
elegant, must be acknowledged.  Nature meant him for the prince
of lyric writers.  But by one fatal present she deprived her
other gifts of half their value.  He would have been a much
greater poet had he been a less clever man.  His ingenuity was
the bane of his mind.  He abandoned the noble and natural style,
in which he might have excelled, for the conceits which he
produced with a facility at once admirable and disgusting.  His
muse, like the Roman lady in Livy, was tempted by gaudy ornaments
to betray the fastnesses of her strength, and, like her, was
crushed beneath the glittering bribes which had seduced her.

The paucity of his thoughts is very remarkable.  It is impossible
to look without amazement on a mind so fertile in combinations,
yet so barren of images.  His amatory poetry is wholly made up of
a very few topics, disposed in so many orders, and exhibited in
so many lights, that it reminds us of those arithmetical problems
about permutations, which so much astonish the unlearned.  The
French cook, who boasted that he could make fifteen different
dishes out of a nettle-top, was not a greater master of his art.
The mind of Petrarch was a kaleidoscope.  At every turn it
presents us with new forms, always fantastic, occasionally
beautiful; and we can scarcely believe that all these varieties
have been produced by the same worthless fragments of glass.  The
sameness of his images is, indeed, in some degree, to be
attributed to the sameness of his subject.  It would be
unreasonable to expect perpetual variety from so many hundred
compositions, all of the same length, all in the same measure,
and all addressed to the same insipid and heartless coquette.  I
cannot but suspect also that the perverted taste, which is the
blemish of his amatory verses, was to be attributed to the
influence of Laura, who, probably, like most critics of her sex,
preferred a gaudy to a majestic style.  Be this as it may, he no
sooner changes his subject than he changes his manner.  When he
speaks of the wrongs and degradation of Italy, devastated by
foreign invaders, and but feebly defended by her pusillanimous
children, the effeminate lisp of the sonnetteer is exchanged for
a cry, wild, and solemn, and piercing as that which proclaimed
"Sleep no more" to the bloody house of Cawdor.  "Italy seems not
to feel her sufferings," exclaims her impassioned poet;
"decrepit, sluggish, and languid, will she sleep forever?  Will
there be none to awake her?  Oh that I had my hands twisted in
her hair!"

("Che suoi guai non par che senta;
Vecchia, oziosa, e lenta.
Dormira sempre, e non fia chi la svegli?
Le man l' avess' io avvolte entro e capegli."
Canzone xi.)

Nor is it with less energy that he denounces against the
Mahometan Babylon the vengeance of Europe and of Christ.  His
magnificent enumeration of the ancient exploits of the Greeks
must always excite admiration, and cannot be perused without the
deepest interest, at a time when the wise and good, bitterly
disappointed in so many other countries, are looking with
breathless anxiety towards the natal land of liberty,--the field
of Marathon,--and the deadly pass where the Lion of Lacedaemon
turned to bay.
("Maratona, e le mortali strette
Che difese il LEON con poca gente."
Canzone v.)

His poems on religious subjects also deserve the highest
commendation.  At the head of these must be placed the Ode to the
Virgin.  It is, perhaps, the finest hymn in the world.  His
devout veneration receives an exquisitely poetical character from
the delicate perception of the sex and the loveliness of his
idol, which we may easily trace throughout the whole composition.

I could dwell with pleasure on these and similar parts of the
writings of Petrarch; but I must return to his amatory poetry:
to that he entrusted his fame; and to that he has principally
owed it.

The prevailing defect of his best compositions on this subject is
the universal brilliancy with which they are lighted up.  The
natural language of the passions is, indeed, often figurative and
fantastic; and with none is this more the case than with that of
love.  Still there is a limit.  The feelings should, indeed, have
their ornamental garb; but, like an elegant woman, they should be
neither muffled nor exposed.  The drapery should be so arranged,
as at once to answer the purposes of modest concealment and
judicious display.  The decorations should sometimes be employed
to hide a defect, and sometimes to heighten a beauty; but never
to conceal, much less to distort, the charms to which they are
subsidiary.  The love of Petrarch, on the contrary, arrays itself
like a foppish savage, whose nose is bored with a golden ring,
whose skin is painted with grotesque forms and dazzling colours,
and whose ears are drawn down his shoulders by the weight of
jewels.  It is a rule, without any exception, in all kinds of
composition, that the principal idea, the predominant feeling,
should never be confounded with the accompanying decorations.  It
should generally be distinguished from them by greater simplicity
of expression; as we recognise Napoleon in the pictures of his
battles, amidst a crowd of embroidered coats and plumes, by his
grey cloak and his hat without a feather.  In the verses of
Petrarch it is generally impossible to say what thought is meant
to be prominent.  All is equally elaborate.  The chief wears the
same gorgeous and degrading livery with his retinue, and obtains
only his share of the indifferent stare which we bestow upon them
in common.  The poems have no strong lights and shades, no
background, no foreground;--they are like the illuminated figures
in an oriental manuscript,--plenty of rich tints and no
perspective.  Such are the faults of the most celebrated of these
compositions.  Of those which are universally acknowledged to be
bad it is scarcely possible to speak with patience.  Yet they
have much in common with their splendid companions.  They differ
from them, as a Mayday procession of chimneysweepers differs from
the Field of Cloth of Gold.  They have the gaudiness but not the
wealth.  His muse belongs to that numerous class of females who
have no objection to be dirty, while they can be tawdry.  When
his brilliant conceits are exhausted, he supplies their place
with metaphysical quibbles, forced antitheses, bad puns, and
execrable charades.  In his fifth sonnet he may, I think, be said
to have sounded the lowest chasm of the Bathos.  Upon the whole,
that piece may be safely pronounced to be the worst attempt at
poetry, and the worst attempt at wit, in the world.

A strong proof of the truth of these criticisms is, that almost
all the sonnets produce exactly the same effect on the mind of
the reader.  They relate to all the various moods of a lover,
from joy to despair:--yet they are perused, as far as my
experience and observation have gone, with exactly the same
feeling.  The fact is, that in none of them are the passion and
the ingenuity mixed in just proportions.  There is not enough
sentiment to dilute the condiments which are employed to season
it.  The repast which he sets before us resembles the Spanish
entertainment in Dryden's "Mock Astrologer", at which the relish
of all the dishes and sauces was overpowered by the common
flavour of spice.  Fish,--flesh,--fowl,--everything at table
tasted of nothing but red pepper.

The writings of Petrarch may indeed suffer undeservedly from one
cause to which I must allude.  His imitators have so much
familiarised the ear of Italy and of Europe to the favourite
topics of amorous flattery and lamentation, that we can scarcely
think them original when we find them in the first author; and,
even when our understandings have convinced us that they were new
to him, they are still old to us.  This has been the fate of many
of the finest passages of the most eminent writers.  It is
melancholy to trace a noble thought from stage to stage of its
profanation; to see it transferred from the first illustrious
wearer to his lacqueys, turned, and turned again, and at last
hung on a scarecrow.  Petrarch has really suffered much from this
cause.  Yet that he should have so suffered is a sufficient proof
that his excellences were not of the highest order.  A line may
be stolen; but the pervading spirit of a great poet is not to be
surreptitiously obtained by a plagiarist.  The continued
imitation of twenty-five centuries has left Homer as it found
him.  If every simile and every turn of Dante had been copied ten
thousand times, the Divine Comedy would have retained all its
freshness.  It was easy for the porter in Farquhar to pass for
Beau Clincher, by borrowing his lace and his pulvilio.  It would
have been more difficult to enact Sir Harry Wildair.

Before I quit this subject I must defend Petrarch from one
accusation which is in the present day frequently brought against
him.  His sonnets are pronounced by a large sect of critics not
to possess certain qualities which they maintain to be
indispensable to sonnets, with as much confidence, and as much
reason, as their prototypes of old insisted on the unities of the
drama.  I am an exoteric--utterly unable to explain the mysteries
of this new poetical faith.  I only know that it is a faith,
which except a man do keep pure and undefiled, without doubt he
shall be called a blockhead.  I cannot, however, refrain from
asking what is the particular virtue which belongs to fourteen as
distinguished from all other numbers.  Does it arise from its
being a multiple of seven?  Has this principle any reference to
the sabbatical ordinance?  Or is it to the order of rhymes that
these singular properties are attached?  Unhappily the sonnets of
Shakspeare differ as much in this respect from those of Petrarch,
as from a Spenserian or an octave stanza.  Away with this
unmeaning jargon!  We have pulled down the old regime of
criticism.  I trust that we shall never tolerate the equally
pedantic and irrational despotism, which some of the
revolutionary leaders would erect upon its ruins.  We have not
dethroned Aristotle and Bossu for this.

These sonnet-fanciers would do well to reflect that, though the
style of Petrarch may not suit the standard of perfection which
they have chosen, they lie under great obligations to these very
poems,--that, but for Petrarch the measure, concerning which they
legislate so judiciously, would probably never have attracted
notice; and that to him they owe the pleasure of admiring, and
the glory of composing, pieces, which seem to have been produced
by Master Slender, with the assistance of his man Simple.

I cannot conclude these remarks without making a few observations
on the Latin writings of Petrarch.  It appears that, both by
himself and by his contemporaries, these were far more highly
valued than his compositions in the vernacular language.
Posterity, the supreme court of literary appeal, has not only
reversed the judgment, but, according to its general practice,
reversed it with costs, and condemned the unfortunate works to
pay, not only for their own inferiority, but also for the
injustice of those who had given them an unmerited preference.
And it must be owned that, without making large allowances for
the circumstances under which they were produced, we cannot
pronounce a very favourable judgment.  They must be considered as
exotics, transplanted to a foreign climate, and reared in an
unfavourable situation; and it would be unreasonable to expect
from them the health and the vigour which we find in the
indigenous plants around them, or which they might themselves
have possessed in their native soil.  He has but very imperfectly
imitated the style of the Latin authors, and has not compensated
for the deficiency by enriching the ancient language with the
graces of modern poetry.  The splendour and ingenuity, which we
admire, even when we condemn it, in his Italian works, is almost
totally wanting, and only illuminates with rare and occasional
glimpses the dreary obscurity of the African.  The eclogues have
more animation; but they can only be called poems by courtesy.
They have nothing in common with his writings in his native
language, except the eternal pun about Laura and Daphne.  None of
these works would have placed him on a level with Vida or
Buchanan.  Yet, when we compare him with those who preceded him,
when we consider that he went on the forlorn hope of literature,
that he was the first who perceived, and the first who attempted
to revive, the finer elegancies of the ancient language of the
world, we shall perhaps think more highly of him than of those
who could never have surpassed his beauties if they had not
inherited them.

He has aspired to emulate the philosophical eloquence of Cicero,
as well as the poetical majesty of Virgil.  His essay on the
Remedies of Good and Evil Fortune is a singular work in a
colloquial form, and a most scholastic style.  It seems to be
framed upon the model of the Tusculan Questions,--with what
success those who have read it may easily determine.  It consists
of a series of dialogues:  in each of these a person is
introduced who has experienced some happy or some adverse event:
he gravely states his case; and a reasoner, or rather Reason
personified, confutes him; a task not very difficult, since the
disciple defends his position only by pertinaciously repeating
it, in almost the same words at the end of every argument of his
antagonist.  In this manner Petrarch solves an immense variety of
cases.  Indeed, I doubt whether it would be possible to name any
pleasure or any calamity which does not find a place in this
dissertation.  He gives excellent advice to a man who is in
expectation of discovering the philosopher's stone;--to another,
who has formed a fine aviary;--to a third, who is delighted with
the tricks of a favourite monkey.  His lectures to the
unfortunate are equally singular.  He seems to imagine that a
precedent in point is a sufficient consolation for every form of
suffering.  "Our town is taken," says one complainant; "So was
Troy," replies his comforter.  "My wife has eloped," says
another; "If it has happened to you once, it happened to Menelaus
twice."  One poor fellow is in great distress at having
discovered that his wife's son is none of his.  "It is hard,"
says he, "that I should have had the expense of bringing up one
who is indifferent to me."  "You are a man," returns his monitor,
quoting the famous line of Terence; "and nothing that belongs to
any other man ought to be indifferent to you."  The physical
calamities of life are not omitted; and there is in particular a
disquisition on the advantages of having the itch, which, if not
convincing, is certainly very amusing.

The invectives on an unfortunate physician, or rather upon the
medical science, have more spirit.  Petrarch was thoroughly in
earnest on this subject.  And the bitterness of his feelings
occasionally produces, in the midst of his classical and
scholastic pedantry, a sentence worthy of the second Philippic.
Swift himself might have envied the chapter on the causes of the
paleness of physicians.

Of his Latin works the Epistles are the most generally known and
admired.  As compositions they are certainly superior to his
essays.  But their excellence is only comparative.  From so large
a collection of letters, written by so eminent a man, during so
varied and eventful a life, we should have expected a complete
and spirited view of the literature, the manners, and the
politics of the age.  A traveller--a poet--a scholar--a lover--a
courtier--a recluse--he might have perpetuated, in an
imperishable record, the form and pressure of the age and body of
the time.  Those who read his correspondence, in the hope of
finding such information as this, will be utterly disappointed.
It contains nothing characteristic of the period or of the
individual.  It is a series, not of letters, but of themes; and,
as it is not generally known, might be very safely employed at
public schools as a magazine of commonplaces.  Whether he write
on politics to the Emperor and the Doge, or send advice and
consolation to a private friend, every line is crowded with
examples and quotations, and sounds big with Anaxagoras and
Scipio.  Such was the interest excited by the character of
Petrarch, and such the admiration which was felt for his
epistolary style, that it was with difficulty that his letters
reached the place of their destination.  The poet describes, with
pretended regret and real complacency, the importunity of the
curious, who often opened, and sometimes stole, these favourite
compositions.  It is a remarkable fact that, of all his epistles,
the least affected are those which are addressed to the dead and
the unborn.  Nothing can be more absurd than his whim of
composing grave letters of expostulation and commendation to
Cicero and Seneca; yet these strange performances are written in
a far more natural manner than his communications to his living
correspondents.  But of all his Latin works the preference must
be given to the Epistle to Posterity; a simple, noble, and
pathetic composition, most honourable both to his taste and his
heart.  If we can make allowance for some of the affected
humility of an author, we shall perhaps think that no literary
man has left a more pleasing memorial of himself.

In conclusion, we may pronounce that the works of Petrarch were
below both his genius and his celebrity; and that the
circumstances under which he wrote were as adverse to the
development of his powers as they were favourable to the
extension of his fame.

...


SOME ACCOUNT OF THE GREAT LAWSUIT BETWEEN THE PARISHES OF ST
DENNIS AND ST GEORGE IN THE WATER.

(April 1824.)

PART I.

The parish of St Dennis is one of the most pleasant parts of the
county in which it is situated.  It is fertile, well wooded, well
watered, and of an excellent air.  For many generations the manor
had been holden in tail-male by a worshipful family, who have
always taken precedence of their neighbours at the races and the
sessions.

In ancient times the affairs of this parish were administered by
a Court-Baron, in which the freeholders were judges; and the
rates were levied by select vestries of the inhabitant
householders.  But at length these good customs fell into disuse.
The Lords of the Manor, indeed, still held courts for form's
sake; but they or their stewards had the whole management of
affairs.  They demanded services, duties, and customs to which
they had no just title.  Nay, they would often bring actions
against their neighbours for their own private advantage, and
then send in the bill to the parish.  No objection was made,
during many years, to these proceedings, so that the rates became
heavier and heavier:  nor was any person exempted from these
demands, except the footmen and gamekeepers of the squire and the
rector of the parish.  They indeed were never checked in any
excess.  They would come to an honest labourer's cottage, eat his
pancakes, tuck his fowls into their pockets, and cane the poor
man himself.  If he went up to the great house to complain, it
was hard to get the speech of Sir Lewis; and, indeed, his only
chance of being righted was to coax the squire's pretty
housekeeper, who could do what she pleased with her master.  If
he ventured to intrude upon the Lord of the Manor without this
precaution, he gained nothing by his pains.  Sir Lewis, indeed,
would at first receive him with a civil face; for, to give him
his due, he could be a fine gentleman when he pleased.  "Good
day, my friend," he would say, "what situation have you in my
family?"  "Bless your honour!" says the poor fellow, "I am not
one of your honour's servants; I rent a small piece of ground,
your honour."  "Then, you dog," quoth the squire, "what do you
mean by coming here?  Has a gentleman nothing to do but to hear
the complaints of clowns?  Here! Philip, James, Dick, toss this
fellow in a blanket; or duck him, and set him in the stocks to
dry."

One of these precious Lords of the Manor enclosed a deer-park;
and, in order to stock it, he seized all the pretty pet fawns
that his tenants had brought up, without paying them a farthing,
or asking their leave.  It was a sad day for the parish of St
Dennis.  Indeed, I do not believe that all his oppressive
exactions and long bills enraged the poor tenants so much as this
cruel measure.

Yet for a long time, in spite of all these inconveniences, St
Dennis's was a very pleasant place.  The people could not refrain
from capering if they heard the sound of a fiddle.  And, if they
were inclined to be riotous, Sir Lewis had only to send for
Punch, or the dancing dogs, and all was quiet again.  But this
could not last forever; they began to think more and more of
their condition; and, at last, a club of foul-mouthed, good-for-
nothing rascals was held at the sign of the Devil, for the
purpose of abusing the squire and the parson.  The doctor, to own
the truth, was old and indolent, extremely fat and greedy.  He
had not preached a tolerable sermon for a long time.  The squire
was still worse; so that, partly by truth and partly by
falsehood, the club set the whole parish against their superiors.
The boys scrawled caricatures of the clergyman upon the church-
door, and shot at the landlord with pop-guns as he rode a-
hunting.  It was even whispered about that the Lord of the Manor
had no right to his estate, and that, if he were compelled to
produce the original title-deeds, it would be found that he only
held the estate in trust for the inhabitants of the parish.

In the meantime the squire was pressed more and more for money.
The parish could pay no more.  The rector refused to lend a
farthing.  The Jews were clamorous for their money; and the
landlord had no other resource than to call together the
inhabitants of the parish, and to request their assistance.  They
now attacked him furiously about their grievances, and insisted
that he should relinquish his oppressive powers.  They insisted
that his footmen should be kept in order, that the parson should
pay his share of the rates, that the children of the parish
should be allowed to fish in the trout-stream, and to gather
blackberries in the hedges.  They at last went so far as to
demand that he should acknowledge that he held his estate only in
trust for them.  His distress compelled him to submit.  They, in
return, agreed to set him free from his pecuniary difficulties,
and to suffer him to inhabit the manor-house; and only annoyed
him from time to time by singing impudent ballads under his
window.

The neighbouring gentlefolks did not look on these proceedings
with much complacency.  It is true that Sir Lewis and his
ancestors had plagued them with law-suits, and affronted them at
county meetings.  Still they preferred the insolence of a
gentleman to that of the rabble, and felt some uneasiness lest
the example should infect their own tenants.

A large party of them met at the house of Lord Caesar Germain.
Lord Caesar was the proudest man in the county.  His family was
very ancient and illustrious, though not particularly opulent.
He had invited most of his wealthy neighbours.  There was Mrs
Kitty North, the relict of poor Squire Peter, respecting whom the
coroner's jury had found a verdict of accidental death, but whose
fate had nevertheless excited strange whispers in the
neighbourhood.  There was Squire Don, the owner of the great West
Indian property, who was not so rich as he had formerly been, but
still retained his pride, and kept up his customary pomp; so that
he had plenty of plate but no breeches.  There was Squire Von
Blunderbussen, who had succeeded to the estates of his uncle, old
Colonel Frederic Von Blunderbussen, of the hussars.  The colonel
was a very singular old fellow; he used to learn a page of
Chambaud's grammar, and to translate Telemaque, every morning,
and he kept six French masters to teach him to parleyvoo.
Nevertheless he was a shrewd clever man, and improved his estate
with so much care, sometimes by honest and sometimes by dishonest
means, that he left a very pretty property to his nephew.

Lord Caesar poured out a glass of Tokay for Mrs Kitty.  "Your
health, my dear madam, I never saw you look more charming.  Pray,
what think you of these doings at St Dennis's?"

"Fine doings, indeed!" interrupted Von Blunderbussen; "I wish
that we had my old uncle alive, he would have had some of them up
to the halberts.  He knew how to usa cat-o'-nine-tails.  If
things go on in this way, a gentleman will not be able to
horsewhip an impudent farmer, or to say a civil word to a milk-
maid."

"Indeed, it's very true, Sir," said Mrs Kitty; "their insolence
is intolerable.  Look at me, for instance:--a poor lone woman!--
My dear Peter dead!  I loved him:--so I did; and, when he died, I
was so hysterical you cannot think.  And now I cannot lean on the
arm of a decent footman, or take a walk with a tall grenadier
behind me, just to protect me from audacious vagabonds, but they
must have their nauseous suspicions;--odious creatures!"

"This must be stopped," replied Lord Caesar.  "We ought to
contribute to support my poor brother-in-law against these
rascals.  I will write to Squire Guelf on this subject by this
night's post.  His name is always at the head of our county
subscriptions."

If the people of St Dennis's had been angry before, they were
well-nigh mad when they heard of this conversation.  The whole
parish ran to the manor-house.  Sir Lewis's Swiss porter shut the
door against them; but they broke in and knocked him on the head
for his impudence.  They then seized the Squire, hooted at him,
pelted him, ducked him, and carried him to the watch-house.  They
turned the rector into the street, burnt his wig and band, and
sold the church-plate by auction.  They put up a painted Jezebel
in the pulpit to preach.  They scratched out the texts which were
written round the church, and scribbled profane scraps of songs
and plays in their place.  They set the organ playing to pot-
house tunes.  Instead of being decently asked in church, they
were married over a broomstick.  But, of all their whims, the use
of the new patent steel-traps was the most remarkable.

This trap was constructed on a completely new principle.  It
consisted of a cleaver hung in a frame like a window; when any
poor wretch got in, down it came with a tremendous din, and took
off his head in a twinkling.  They got the squire into one of
these machines.  In order to prevent any of his partisans from
getting footing in the parish, they placed traps at every corner.
It was impossible to walk through the highway at broad noon
without tumbling into one or other of them.  No man could go
about his business in security.  Yet so great was the hatred
which the inhabitants entertained for the old family, that a few
decent, honest people, who begged them to take down the steel-
traps, and to put up humane man-traps in their room, were very
roughly handled for their good nature.

In the meantime the neighbouring gentry undertook a suit against
the parish on the behalf of Sir Lewis's heir, and applied to
Squire Guelf for his assistance.

Everybody knows that Squire Guelf is more closely tied up than
any gentleman in the shire.  He could, therefore, lend them no
help; but he referred them to the Vestry of the Parish of St
George in the Water.  These good people had long borne a grudge
against their neighbours on the other side of the stream; and
some mutual trespasses had lately occurred which increased their
hostility.

There was an honest Irishman, a great favourite among them, who
used to entertain them with raree-shows, and to exhibit a magic
lantern to the children on winter evenings.  He had gone quite
mad upon this subject.  Sometimes he would call out in the middle
of the street--"Take care of that corner, neighbours; for the
love of Heaven, keep clear of that post, there is a patent steel-
trap concealed thereabouts."  Sometimes he would be disturbed by
frightful dreams; then he would get up at dead of night, open his
window and cry "fire," till the parish was roused, and the
engines sent for.  The pulpit of the Parish of St George seemed
likely to fall; I believe that the only reason was that the
parson had grown too fat and heavy; but nothing would persuade
this honest man but that it was a scheme of the people at St
Dennis's, and that they had sawed through the pillars in order to
break the rector's neck.  Once he went about with a knife in his
pocket, and told all the persons whom he met that it had been
sharpened by the knife-grinder of the next parish to cut their
throats.  These extravagancies had a great effect on the people;
and the more so because they were espoused by Squire Guelf's
steward, who was the most influential person in the parish.  He
was a very fair-spoken man, very attentive to the main chance,
and the idol of the old women, because he never played at
skittles or danced with the girls; and, indeed, never took any
recreation but that of drinking on Saturday nights with his
friend Harry, the Scotch pedlar.  His supporters called him Sweet
William; his enemies the Bottomless Pit.

The people of St Dennis's, however, had their advocates.  There
was Frank, the richest farmer in the parish, whose great
grandfather had been knocked on the head many years before, in a
squabble between the parish and a former landlord.  There was
Dick, the merry-andrew, rather light-fingered and riotous, but a
clever droll fellow.  Above all, there was Charley, the publican,
a jolly, fat, honest lad, a great favourite with the women, who,
if he had not been rather too fond of ale and chuck-farthing,
would have been the best fellow in the neighbourhood.

"My boys," said Charley, "this is exceedingly well for Madam
North;--not that I would speak uncivilly of her; she put up my
picture in her best room, bless her for it!  But, I say, this is
very well for her, and for Lord Caesar, and Squire Don, and
Colonel Von;--but what affair is it of yours or mine?  It is not
to be wondered at, that gentlemen should wish to keep poor people
out of their own.  But it is strange indeed that they should
expect the poor themselves to combine against their own
interests.  If the folks at St Dennis's should attack us we have
the law and our cudgels to protect us.  But why, in the name of
wonder, are we to attack them?  When old Sir Charles, who was
Lord of the Manor formerly, and the parson, who was presented by
him to the living, tried to bully the vestry, did not we knock
their heads together, and go to meeting to hear Jeremiah
Ringletub preach?  And did the Squire Don, or the great Sir
Lewis, that lived at that time, or the Germains, say a word
against us for it?  Mind your own business, my lads:  law is not
to be had for nothing; and we, you may be sure, shall have to pay
the whole bill."

Nevertheless the people of St George's were resolved on law.
They cried out most lustily, "Squire Guelf for ever!  Sweet
William for ever!  No steel traps!"  Squire Guelf took all the
rascally footmen who had worn old Sir Lewis's livery into his
service.  They were fed in the kitchen on the very best of
everything, though they had no settlement.  Many people, and the
paupers in particular, grumbled at these proceedings.  The
steward, however, devised a way to keep them quiet.

There had lived in this parish for many years an old gentleman,
named Sir Habeas Corpus.  He was said by some to be of Saxon, by
some of Norman, extraction.  Some maintain that he was not born
till after the time of Sir Charles, to whom we have before
alluded.  Others are of opinion that he was a legitimate son of
old Lady Magna Charta, although he was long concealed and kept
out of his birthright.  Certain it is that he was a very
benevolent person.  Whenever any poor fellow was taken up on
grounds which he thought insufficient, he used to attend on his
behalf and bail him; and thus he had become so popular, that to
take direct measures against him was out of the question.

The steward, accordingly, brought a dozen physicians to examine
Sir Habeas.  After consultation, they reported that he was in a
very bad way, and ought not, on any account, to be allowed to
stir out for several months.  Fortified with this authority, the
parish officers put him to bed, closed his windows, and barred
his doors.  They paid him every attention, and from time to time
issued bulletins of his health.  The steward never spoke of him
without declaring that he was the best gentleman in the world;
but excellent care was taken that he should never stir out of
doors.

When this obstacle was removed, the Squire and the steward kept
the parish in excellent order; flogged this man, sent that man to
the stocks, and pushed forward the law-suit with a noble
disregard of expense.  They were, however, wanting either in
skill or in fortune.  And everything went against them after
their antagonists had begun to employ Solicitor Nap.

Who does not know the name of Solicitor Nap?  At what alehouse is
not his behaviour discussed?  In what print-shop is not his
picture seen?  Yet how little truth has been said about him!
Some people hold that he used to give laudanum by pints to his
six clerks for his amusement.  Others, whose number has very much
increased since he was killed by the gaol distemper, conceive
that he was the very model of honour and good-nature.  I shall
try to tell the truth about him.

He was assuredly an excellent solicitor.  In his way he never was
surpassed.  As soon as the parish began to employ him, their
cause took a turn.  In a very little time they were successful;
and Nap became rich.  He now set up for a gentleman; took
possession of the old manor-house; got into the commission of the
peace, and affected to be on a par with the best of the county.
He governed the vestries as absolutely as the old family had
done.  Yet, to give him his due, he managed things with far more
discretion than either Sir Lewis or the rioters who had pulled
the Lords of the Manor down.  He kept his servants in tolerable
order.  He removed the steel traps from the highways and the
corners of the streets.  He still left a few indeed in the more
exposed parts of his premises; and set up a board announcing that
traps and spring guns were set in his grounds.  He brought the
poor parson back to the parish; and, though he did not enable him
to keep a fine house and a coach as formerly, he settled him in a
snug little cottage, and allowed him a pleasant pad-nag.  He
whitewashed the church again; and put the stocks, which had been
much wanted of late, into good repair.

With the neighbouring gentry, however, he was no favourite.  He
was crafty and litigious.  He cared nothing for right, if he
could raise a point of law against them.  He pounded their
cattle, broke their hedges, and seduced their tenants from them.
He almost ruined Lord Caesar with actions, in every one of which
he was successful.  Von Blunderbussen went to law with him for an
alleged trespass, but was cast, and almost ruined by the costs of
suit.  He next took a fancy to the seat of Squire Don, who was,
to say the truth, little better than an idiot.  He asked the poor
dupe to dinner, and then threatened to have him tossed in a
blanket unless he would make over his estates to him.  The poor
Squire signed and sealed a deed by which the property was
assigned to Joe, a brother of Nap's, in trust for and to the use
of Nap himself.  The tenants, however, stood out.  They
maintained that the estate was entailed, and refused to pay rents
to the new landlord; and in this refusal they were stoutly
supported by the people in St George's.

About the same time Nap took it into his head to match with
quality, and nothing would serve him but one of the Miss
Germains.  Lord Caesar swore like a trooper; but there was no
help for it.  Nap had twice put executions in his principal
residence, and had refused to discharge the latter of the two
till he had extorted a bond from his Lordship which compelled him
to comply.

THE END OF THE FIRST PART.

...


A CONVERSATION BETWEEN MR ABRAHAM COWLEY AND MR JOHN MILTON,
TOUCHING THE GREAT CIVIL WAR.

SET DOWN BY A GENTLEMAN OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE.

(August 1824.)

"Referre sermones Deorum et
Magna modis tenuare parvis."--Horace.

I have thought it good to set down in writing a memorable debate,
wherein I was a listener, and two men of pregnant parts and great
reputation discoursers; hoping that my friends will not be
displeased to have a record both of the strange times through
which I have lived, and of the famous men with whom I have
conversed.  It chanced in the warm and beautiful spring of the
year 1665, a little before the saddest summer that ever London
saw, that I went to the Bowling Green at Piccadilly, whither, at
that time, the best gentry made continual resorts.  There I met
Mr Cowley, who had lately left Barnelms.  There was then a house
preparing for him at Chertsey; and till it should be finished, he
had come up for a short time to London, that he might urge a suit
to his Grace of Buckingham touching certain lands of her
Majesty's, whereof he requested a lease.  I had the honour to be
familiarly acquainted with that worthy gentleman and most
excellent poet, whose death hath been deplored with as general a
consent of all Powers that delight in the woods, or in verse, or
in love, as was of old that of Daphnis or of Callus.

After some talk, which it is not material to set down at large,
concerning his suit and his vexations at the court, where indeed
his honesty did him more harm than his parts could do him good, I
entreated him to dine with me at my lodging in the Temple, which
he most courteously promised.  And, that so eminent a guest might
not lack a better entertainment than cooks or vintners can
provide, I sent to the house of Mr John Milton, in the Artillery
Walk, to beg that he would also be my guest. For, though he had
been secretary, first to the Council of State, and, after that,
to the Protector, and Mr Cowley had held the same post under the
Lord St Albans in his banishment, I hoped, notwithstanding that
they would think themselves rather united by their common art
than divided by their different factions.  And so indeed it
proved.  For, while we sat at table, they talked freely of many
men and things, as well ancient as modern, with much civility.
Nay, Mr Milton, who seldom tasted wine, both because of his
singular temperance and because of his gout, did more than once
pledge Mr Cowley, who was indeed no hermit in diet.  At last,
being heated, Mr Milton begged that I would open the windows.
"Nay," said I, "if you desire fresh air and coolness, what should
hinder us, as the evening is fair, from sailing for an hour on
the river?"  To this they both cheerfully consented; and forth we
walked, Mr Cowley and I leading Mr Milton between us, to the
Temple Stairs.  There we took a boat; and thence we were rowed up
the river.

The wind was pleasant; the evening fine; the sky, the earth, and
the water beautiful to look upon.  But Mr Cowley and I held our
peace, and said nothing of the gay sights around us, lest we
should too feelingly remind Mr Milton of his calamity; whereof,
however, he needed no monitor:  for soon he said, sadly, "Ah, Mr
Cowley, you are a happy man.  What would I now give but for one
more look at the sun, and the waters, and the gardens of this
fair city!"

"I know not," said Mr Cowley, "whether we ought not rather to
envy you for that which makes you to envy others:  and that
specially in this place, where all eyes which are not closed in
blindness ought to become fountains of tears.  What can we look
upon which is not a memorial of change and sorrow, of fair things
vanished, and evil things done?  When I see the gate of
Whitehall, and the stately pillars of the Banqueting House, I
cannot choose but think of what I have there seen in former days,
masques, and pageants, and dances, and smiles, and the waving of
graceful heads, and the bounding of delicate feet.  And then I
turn to thoughts of other things, which even to remember makes me
to blush and weep;--of the great black scaffold, and the axe and
block, which were placed before those very windows; and the voice
seems to sound in mine ears, the lawless and terrible voice,
which cried out that the head of a king was the head of a
traitor.  There stands Westminster Hall, which who can look upon,
and not tremble to think how time, and change, and death confound
the councils of the wise, and beat down the weapons of the
mighty?  How have I seen it surrounded with tens of thousands of
petitioners crying for justice and privilege!  How have I heard
it shake with fierce and proud words, which made the hearts of
the people burn within them!  Then it is blockaded by dragoons,
and cleared by pikemen.  And they who have conquered their master
go forth trembling at the word of their servant.  And yet a
little while, and the usurper comes forth from it, in his robe of
ermine, with the golden staff in one hand and the Bible in the
other, amidst the roaring of the guns and the shouting of the
people.  And yet again a little while, and the doors are thronged
with multitudes in black, and the hearse and the plumes come
forth; and the tyrant is borne, in more than royal pomp, to a
royal sepulchre.  A few days more, and his head is fixed to rot
on the pinnacles of that very hall where he sat on a throne in
his life, and lay in state after his death.  When I think on all
these things, to look round me makes me sad at heart.  True it is
that God hath restored to us our old laws, and the rightful line
of our kings.  Yet, how I know not, but it seems to me that
something is wanting--that our court hath not the old gravity,
nor our people the old loyalty.  These evil times, like the great
deluge, have overwhelmed and confused all earthly things.  And,
even as those waters, though at last they abated, yet, as the
learned write, destroyed all trace of the garden of Eden, so that
its place hath never since been found, so hath this opening of
all the flood-gates of political evil effaced all marks of the
ancient political paradise."

"Sir, by your favour," said Mr Milton, "though, from many
circumstances both of body and of fortune, I might plead fairer
excuses for despondency than yourself, I yet look not so sadly
either on the past or on the future.  That a deluge hath passed
over this our nation, I deny not.  But I hold it not to be such a
deluge as that of which you speak; but rather a blessed flood,
like those of the Nile, which in its overflow doth indeed wash
away ancient landmarks, and confound boundaries, and sweep away
dwellings, yea, doth give birth to many foul and dangerous
reptiles.  Yet hence is the fulness of the granary, the beauty of
the garden, the nurture of all living things.

"I remember well, Mr Cowley, what you have said concerning these
things in your Discourse of the Government of Oliver Cromwell,
which my friend Elwood read to me last year.  Truly, for elegance
and rhetoric, that essay is to be compared with the finest
tractates of Isocrates and Cicero.  But neither that nor any
other book, nor any events, which with most men have, more than
any book, weight and authority, have altered my opinion, that, of
all assemblies that ever were in this world, the best and the
most useful was our Long Parliament.  I speak not this as wishing
to provoke debate; which neither yet do I decline."

Mr Cowley was, as I could see, a little nettled.  Yet, as he was
a man of a kind disposition and a most refined courtesy, he put a
force upon himself, and answered with more vehemence and
quickness indeed than was his wont, yet not uncivilly.  "Surely,
Mr Milton, you speak not as you think.  I am indeed one of those
who believe that God hath reserved to himself the censure of
kings, and that their crimes and oppressions are not to be
resisted by the hands of their subjects.  Yet can I easily find
excuse for the violence of such as are stung to madness by
grievous tyranny.  But what shall we say for these men?  Which of
their just demands was not granted?  Which even of their cruel
and unreasonable requisitions, so as it were not inconsistent
with all law and order, was refused?  Had they not sent Strafford
to the block and Laud to the Tower?  Had they not destroyed the
Courts of the High Commission and the Star Chamber?  Had they not
reversed the proceedings confirmed by the voices of the judges of
England, in the matter of ship-money?  Had they not taken from
the king his ancient and most lawful power touching the order of
knighthood?  Had they not provided that, after their dissolution,
triennial parliaments should be holden, and that their own power
should continue till of their great condescension they should be
pleased to resign it themselves?  What more could they ask?  Was
it not enough that they had taken from their king all his
oppressive powers, and many that were most salutary?  Was it not
enough that they had filled his council-board with his enemies,
and his prisons with his adherents?  Was it not enough that they
had raised a furious multitude, to shout and swagger daily under
the very windows of his royal palace?  Was it not enough that
they had taken from him the most blessed prerogative of princely
mercy; that, complaining of intolerance themselves, they had
denied all toleration to others; that they had urged, against
forms, scruples childish as those of any formalist; that they had
persecuted the least remnant of the popish rites with the
fiercest bitterness of the popish spirit?  Must they besides all
this have full power to command his armies, and to massacre his
friends?

"For military command, it was never known in any monarchy, nay,
in any well ordered republic, that it was committed to the
debates of a large and unsettled assembly.  For their other
requisition, that he should give up to their vengeance all who
had defended the rights of his crown, his honour must have been
ruined if he had complied.  Is it not therefore plain that they
desired these things only in order that, by refusing, his
Majesty might give them a pretence for war?

"Men have often risen up against fraud, against cruelty, against
rapine.  But when before was it known that concessions were met
with importunities, graciousness with insults, the open palm of
bounty with the clenched fist of malice?  Was it like trusty
delegates of the Commons of England, and faithful stewards of
their liberty and their wealth, to engage them for such causes in
civil war, which both to liberty and to wealth is of all things
the most hostile.  Evil indeed must be the disease which is not
more tolerable than such a medicine.  Those who, even to save a
nation from tyrants, excite it to civil war do in general but
minister to it the same miserable kind of relief wherewith the
wizards of Pharaoh mocked the Egyptian.  We read that, when Moses
had turned their waters into blood, those impious magicians,
intending, not benefit to the thirsting people, but vain and
emulous ostentation of their own art, did themselves also change
into blood the water which the plague had spared.  Such sad
comfort do those who stir up war minister to the oppressed.  But
here where was the oppression?  What was the favour which had not
been granted?  What was the evil which had not been removed?
What further could they desire?"

"These questions," said Mr Milton, austerely, "have indeed often
deceived the ignorant; but that Mr Cowley should have been so
beguiled, I marvel.  You ask what more the Parliament could
desire?  I will answer you in one word, security.  What are
votes, and statutes, and resolutions?  They have no eyes to see,
no hands to strike and avenge.  They must have some safeguard
from without.  Many things, therefore, which in themselves were
peradventure hurtful, was this Parliament constrained to ask,
lest otherwise good laws and precious rights should be without
defence.  Nor did they want a great and signal example of this
danger.  I need not remind you that, many years before, the two
Houses had presented to the king the Petition of Right, wherein
were set down all the most valuable privileges of the people of
this realm.  Did not Charles accept it?  Did he not declare it to
be law?  Was it not as fully enacted as ever were any of those
bills of the Long Parliament concerning which you spoke?  And
were those privileges therefore enjoyed more fully by the people?
No:  the king did from that time redouble his oppressions as if
to avenge himself for the shame of having been compelled to
renounce them.  Then were our estates laid under shameful
impositions, our houses ransacked, our bodies imprisoned.
Then was the steel of the hangman blunted with mangling the ears
of harmless men. Then our very minds were fettered, and the iron
entered into our souls.  Then we were compelled to hide our
hatred, our sorrow, and our scorn, to laugh with hidden faces at
the mummery of Laud, to curse under our breath the tyranny of
Wentworth.  Of old time it was well and nobly said, by one of our
kings, that an Englishman ought to be as free as his thoughts.
Our prince reversed the maxim; he strove to make our thoughts as
much slaves as ourselves.  To sneer at a Romish pageant, to
miscall a lord's crest, were crimes for which there was no mercy.
These were all the fruits which we gathered from those excellent
laws of the former Parliament, from these solemn promises of the
king.  Were we to be deceived again?  Were we again to give
subsidies, and receive nothing but promises?  Were we again to
make wholesome statutes, and then leave them to be broken daily
and hourly, until the oppressor should have squandered another
supply, and should be ready for another perjury?  You ask what
they could desire which he had not already granted.  Let me ask
of you another question.  What pledge could he give which he had
not already violated?  From the first year of his reign, whenever
he had need of the purses of his Commons to support the revels of
Buckingham or the processions of Laud, he had assured them that,
as he was a gentleman and a king, he would sacredly preserve
their rights.  He had pawned those solemn pledges, and pawned
them again and again; but when had he redeemed them?  'Upon my
faith,'--'Upon my sacred word,'--'Upon the honour of a prince,'--
came so easily from his lips, and dwelt so short a time on his
mind that they were as little to be trusted as the 'By the hilts'
of an Alsatian dicer.

"Therefore it is that I praise this Parliament for what else I
might have condemned.  If what he had granted had been granted
graciously and readily, if what he had before promised had been
faithfully observed, they could not be defended.  It was because
he had never yielded the worst abuse without a long struggle, and
seldom without a large bribe; it was because he had no sooner
disentangled himself from his troubles than he forgot his
promises; and, more like a villainous huckster than a great king,
kept both the prerogative and the large price which had been paid
to him to forego it; it was because of these things that it was
necessary and just to bind with forcible restraints one who could
be bound neither by law nor honour.  Nay, even while he was
making those very concessions of which you speak, he betrayed his
deadly hatred against the people and their friends.  Not only did
he, contrary to all that ever was deemed lawful in England, order
that members of the Commons House of Parliament should be
impeached of high treason at the bar of the Lords; thereby
violating both the trial by jury and the privileges of the House;
but, not content with breaking the law by his ministers, he went
himself armed to assail it.  In the birth-place and sanctuary of
freedom, in the House itself; nay in the very chair of the
speaker, placed for the protection of free speech and privilege,
he sat, rolling his eyes round the benches, searching for those
whose blood he desired, and singling out his opposers to the
slaughter.  This most foul outrage fails.  Then again for the old
arts.  Then come gracious messages.  Then come courteous
speeches.  Then is again mortgaged his often forfeited honour.
He will never again violate the laws.  He will respect their
rights as if they were his own.  He pledges the dignity of his
crown; that crown which had been committed to him for the weal of
his people, and which he never named, but that he might the more
easily delude and oppress them.

"The power of the sword, I grant you, was not one to be
permanently possessed by Parliament.  Neither did that Parliament
demand it as a permanent possession.  They asked it only for
temporary security.  Nor can I see on what conditions they could
safely make peace with that false and wicked king, save such as
would deprive him of all power to injure.

"For civil war, that it is an evil I dispute not.  But that it is
the greatest of evils, that I stoutly deny.  It doth indeed
appear to the misjudging to be a worse calamity than bad
government, because its miseries are collected together within a
short space and time, and may easily at one view be taken in and
perceived.  But the misfortunes of nations ruled by tyrants,
being distributed over many centuries and many places, as they
are of greater weight and number, so are they of less display.
When the Devil of tyranny hath gone into the body politic he
departs not but with struggles, and foaming, and great
convulsions.  Shall he, therefore, vex it for ever, lest, in
going out, he for a moment tear and rend it?  Truly this argument
touching the evils of war would better become my friend Elwood,
or some other of the people called Quakers, than a courtier and a
cavalier.  It applies no more to this war than to all others, as
well foreign as domestic, and, in this war, no more to the Houses
than to the king; nay, not so much, since he by a little
sincerity and moderation might have rendered that needless which
their duty to God and man then enforced them to do."

"Pardon me, Mr Milton," said Mr Cowley; "I grieve to hear you
speak thus of that good king.  Most unhappy indeed he was, in
that he reigned at a time when the spirit of the then living
generation was for freedom, and the precedents of former ages for
prerogative.  His case was like to that of Christopher Columbus,
when he sailed forth on an unknown ocean, and found that the
compass, whereby he shaped his course, had shifted from the north
pole whereto before it had constantly pointed.  So it was with
Charles.  His compass varied; and therefore he could not tack
aright.  If he had been an absolute king he would doubtless, like
Titus Vespasian, have been called the delight of the human race.
If he had been a Doge of Venice, or a Stadtholder of Holland, he
would never have outstepped the laws.  But he lived when our
government had neither clear definitions nor strong sanctions.
Let, therefore, his faults be ascribed to the time.  Of his
virtues the praise is his own.

"Never was there a more gracious prince, or a more proper
gentleman.  In every pleasure he was temperate, in conversation
mild and grave, in friendship constant, to his servants liberal,
to his queen faithful and loving, in battle grave, in sorrow and
captivity resolved, in death most Christian and forgiving.

"For his oppressions, let us look at the former history of this
realm.  James was never accounted a tyrant.  Elizabeth is
esteemed to have been the mother of her people.  Were they less
arbitrary?  Did they never lay hands on the purses of their
subjects but by Act of Parliament?  Did they never confine
insolent and disobedient men but in due course of law?  Was the
court of Star Chamber less active?  Were the ears of libellers
more safe?  I pray you, let not king Charles be thus dealt with.
It was enough that in his life he was tried for an alleged breach
of laws which none ever heard named till they were discovered for
his destruction.  Let not his fame be treated as was his sacred
and anointed body.  Let not his memory be tried by principles
found out ex post facto.  Let us not judge by the spirit of one
generation a man whose disposition had been formed by the temper
and fashion of another."

"Nay, but conceive me, Mr Cowley," said Mr Milton; "inasmuch as,
at the beginning of his reign, he imitated those who had governed
before him, I blame him not.  To expect that kings will, of their
own free choice, abridge their prerogative, were argument of but
slender wisdom.  Whatever, therefore, lawless, unjust, or cruel,
he either did or permitted during the first years of his reign, I
pass by.  But for what was done after that he had solemnly given
his consent to the Petition of Right, where shall we find
defence?  Let it be supposed, which yet I concede not, that the
tyranny of his father and of Queen Elizabeth had been no less
rigorous than was his.  But had his father, had that queen, sworn
like him, to abstain from those rigours?  Had they, like him, for
good and valuable consideration, aliened their hurtful
prerogatives?  Surely not:  from whatever excuse you can plead
for him he had wholly excluded himself.  The borders of
countries, we know, are mostly the seats of perpetual wars and
tumults.  It was the same with the undefined frontiers, which of
old separated privilege and prerogative.  They were the debatable
land of our polity.  It was no marvel if, both on the one side
and on the other, inroads were often made.  But, when treaties
have been concluded, spaces measured, lines drawn, landmarks set
up, that which before might pass for innocent error or just
reprisal becomes robbery, perjury, deadly sin.  He knew not, you
say, which of his powers were founded on ancient law, and which
only on vicious example.  But had he not read the Petition of
Right?  Had not proclamation been made from his throne, Soit fait
comme il est desire?

"For his private virtues they are beside the question.  Remember
you not," and Mr Milton smiled, but somewhat sternly, "what Dr
Cauis saith in the Merry Wives of Shakspeare?  'What shall the
honest man do in my closet?  There is no honest man that shall
come in my closet.'  Even so say I.  There is no good man who
shall make us his slaves.  If he break his word to his people, is
it a sufficient defence that he keeps it to his companions?  If
he oppress and extort all day, shall he be held blameless because
he prayeth at night and morning?  If he be insatiable in plunder
and revenge, shall we pass it by because in meat and drink he is
temperate?  If he have lived like a tyrant, shall all be
forgotten because he hath died like a martyr?

"He was a man, as I think, who had so much semblance of virtues
as might make his vices most dangerous.  He was not a tyrant
after our wonted English model.  The second Richard, the second
and fourth Edwards, and the eighth Harry, were men profuse, gay,
boisterous; lovers of women and of wine, of no outward sanctity
or gravity.  Charles was a ruler after the Italian fashion;
grave, demure, of a solemn carriage, and a sober diet; as
constant at prayers as a priest, as heedless of oaths as an
atheist."

Mr Cowley answered somewhat sharply:  "I am sorry, Sir, to hear
you speak thus.  I had hoped that the vehemence of spirit which
was caused by these violent times had now abated.  Yet, sure, Mr
Milton, whatever you may think of the character of King Charles,
you will not still justify his murder?"

"Sir," said Mr Milton, "I must have been of a hard and strange
nature, if the vehemence which was imputed to me in my younger
days had not been diminished by the afflictions wherewith it hath
pleased Almighty God to chasten my age.  I will not now defend
all that I may heretofore have written.  But this I say, that I
perceive not wherefore a king should be exempted from all
punishment.  Is it just that where most is given least should be
required?  Or politic that where there is the greatest power to
injure there should be no danger to restrain?  But, you will say,
there is no such law.  Such a law there is.  There is the law of
selfpreservation written by God himself on our hearts.  There is
the primal compact and bond of society, not graven on stone, or
sealed with wax, nor put down on parchment, nor set forth in any
express form of words by men when of old they came together; but
implied in the very act that they so came together, pre-supposed
in all subsequent law, not to be repealed by any authority, nor
invalidated by being omitted in any code; inasmuch as from thence
are all codes and all authority.

"Neither do I well see wherefore you cavaliers, and, indeed, many
of us whom you merrily call Roundheads, distinguish between those
who fought against King Charles, and specially after the second
commission given to Sir Thomas Fairfax, and those who condemned
him to death.  Sure, if his person were inviolable, it was as
wicked to lift the sword against it at Naseby as the axe at
Whitehall.  If his life might justly be taken, why not in course
of trial as well as by right of war?

"Thus much in general as touching the right.  But, for the
execution of King Charles in particular, I will not now undertake
to defend it.  Death is inflicted, not that the culprit may die,
but that the state may be thereby advantaged.  And, from all that
I know, I think that the death of King Charles hath more hindered
than advanced the liberties of England.

"First, he left an heir.  He was in captivity.  The heir was in
freedom.  He was odious to the Scots.  The heir was favoured by
them.  To kill the captive therefore, whereby the heir, in the
apprehension of all royalists, became forthwith king--what was
it, in truth, but to set their captive free, and to give him
besides other great advantages?

"Next, it was a deed most odious to the people, and not only to
your party, but to many among ourselves; and, as it is perilous
for any government to outrage the public opinion, so most was it
perilous for a government which had from that opinion alone its
birth, its nurture, and its defence.

"Yet doth not this properly belong to our dispute; nor can these
faults be justly charged upon that most renowned Parliament.
For, as you know, the high court of justice was not established
until the House had been purged of such members as were adverse
to the army, and brought wholly under the control of the chief
officers."

"And who," said Mr Cowley, "levied that army?  Who commissioned
those officers?  Was not the fate of the Commons as justly
deserved as was that of Diomedes, who was devoured by those
horses whom he had himself taught to feed on the flesh and blood
of men?  How could they hope that others would respect laws which
they had themselves insulted; that swords which had been drawn
against the prerogatives of the king would be put up at an
ordinance of the Commons?  It was believed, of old, that there
were some devils easily raised but never to be laid; insomuch
that, if a magician called them up, he should be forced to find
them always some employment; for, though they would do all his
bidding, yet, if he left them but for one moment without some
work of evil to perform, they would turn their claws against
himself.  Such a fiend is an army.  They who evoke it cannot
dismiss it.  They are at once its masters and its slaves.  Let
them not fail to find for it task after task of blood and rapine.
Let them not leave it for a moment in repose, lest it tear them
in pieces.

"Thus was it with that famous assembly.  They formed a force
which they could neither govern nor resist.  They made it
powerful.  They made it fanatical.  As if military insolence were
not of itself sufficiently dangerous, they heightened it with
spiritual pride,--they encouraged their soldiers to rave from the
tops of tubs against the men of Belial, till every trooper
thought himself a prophet.  They taught them to abuse popery,
till every drummer fancied that he was as infallible as a pope.

"Then it was that religion changed her nature.  She was no longer
the parent of arts and letters, of wholesome knowledge, of
innocent pleasures, of blessed household smiles.  In their place
came sour faces, whining voices, the chattering of fools, the
yells of madmen.  Then men fasted from meat and drink, who fasted
not from bribes and blood.  Then men frowned at stage-plays, who
smiled at massacres.  Then men preached against painted faces,
who felt no remorse for their own most painted lives.  Religion
had been a pole-star to light and to guide.  It was now more like
to that ominous star in the book of the Apocalypse, which fell
from heaven upon the fountains and rivers and changed them into
wormwood; for even so did it descend from its high and celestial
dwelling-place to plague this earth, and to turn into bitterness
all that was sweet, and into poison all that was nourishing.

"Therefore it was not strange that such things should follow.
They who had closed the barriers of London against the king could
not defend them against their own creatures.  They who had so
stoutly cried for privilege, when that prince, most unadvisedly
no doubt, came among them to demand their members, durst not wag
their fingers when Oliver filled their hall with soldiers, gave
their mace to a corporal, put their keys in his pocket, and drove
them forth with base terms, borrowed half from the conventicle
and half from the ale-house.  Then were we, like the trees of the
forest in holy writ, given over to the rule of the bramble; then
from the basest of the shrubs came forth the fire which devoured
the cedars of Lebanon.  We bowed down before a man of mean birth,
of ungraceful demeanour, of stammering and most vulgar utterance,
of scandalous and notorious hypocrisy.  Our laws were made and
unmade at his pleasure; the constitution of our Parliaments
changed by his writ and proclamation; our persons imprisoned; our
property plundered; our lands and houses overrun with soldiers;
and the great charter itself was but argument for a scurrilous
jest; and for all this we may thank that Parliament; for never,
unless they had so violently shaken the vessel, could such foul
dregs have risen to the top."

Then answered Mr Milton:  "What you have now said comprehends so
great a number of subjects, that it would require, not an
evening's sail on the Thames, but rather a voyage to the Indies,
accurately to treat of all:  yet, in as few words as I may, I
will explain my sense of these matters.

"First, as to the army.  An army, as you have well set forth, is
always a weapon dangerous to those who use it; yet he who falls
among thieves spares not to fire his musquetoon, because he may
be slain if it burst in his hand.  Nor must states refrain from
defending themselves, lest their defenders should at last turn
against them.  Nevertheless, against this danger statesmen should
carefully provide; and, that they may do so, they should take
especial care that neither the officers nor the soldiers do
forget that they are also citizens.  I do believe that the
English army would have continued to obey the parliament with all
duty, but for one act, which, as it was in intention, in seeming,
and in immediate effect, worthy to be compared with the most
famous in history, so was it, in its final consequence, most
injurious.  I speak of that ordinance called the "self-denying",
and of the new model of the army.  By those measures the Commons
gave up the command of their forces into the hands of men who
were not of themselves.  Hence, doubtless, derived no small
honour to that noble assembly, which sacrificed to the hope of
public good the assurance of private advantage.  And, as to the
conduct of the war, the scheme prospered.  Witness the battle of
Naseby, and the memorable exploits of Fairfax in the west.  But
thereby the Parliament lost that hold on the soldiers and that
power to control them, which they retained while every regiment
was commanded by their own members.  Politicians there be, who
would wholly divide the legislative from the executive power.  In
the golden age this may have succeeded; in the millennium it may
succeed again.  But, where great armies and great taxes are
required, there the executive government must always hold a great
authority, which authority, that it may not oppress and destroy
the legislature, must be in some manner blended with it.  The
leaders of foreign mercenaries have always been most dangerous to
a country.  The officers of native armies, deprived of the civil
privileges of other men, are as much to be feared.  This was the
great error of that Parliament:  and, though an error it were, it
was an error generous, virtuous, and more to be deplored than
censured.

"Hence came the power of the army and its leaders, and especially
of that most famous leader, whom both in our conversation to-day,
and in that discourse whereon I before touched, you have, in my
poor opinion, far too roughly handled.  Wherefore you speak
contemptibly of his parts I know not; but I suspect that you are
not free from the error common to studious and speculative men.
Because Oliver was an ungraceful orator, and never said, either
in public or private, anything memorable, you will have it that
he was of a mean capacity.  Sure this is unjust.  Many men have
there been ignorant of letters, without wit, without eloquence,
who yet had the wisdom to devise, and the courage to perform,
that which they lacked language to explain.  Such men often, in
troubled times, have worked out the deliverance of nations and
their own greatness, not by logic, not by rhetoric, but by
wariness in success, by calmness in danger, by fierce and
stubborn resolution in all adversity.  The hearts of men are
their books; events are their tutors; great actions are their
eloquence: and such an one, in my judgment, was his late
Highness, who, if none were to treat his name scornfully now
shook not at the sound of it while he lived, would, by very few,
be mentioned otherwise than with reverence.  His own deeds shall
avouch him for a great statesman, a great soldier, a true lover
of his country, a merciful and generous conqueror.

"For his faults, let us reflect that they who seem to lead are
oftentimes most constrained to follow.  They who will mix with
men, and especially they who will govern them, must in many
things obey them.  They who will yield to no such conditions may
be hermits, but cannot be generals and statesmen.  If a man will
walk straight forward without turning to the right or the left,
he must walk in a desert, and not in Cheapside.  Thus was he
enforced to do many things which jumped not with his inclination
nor made for his honour; because the army, on which alone he
could depend for power and life, might not otherwise be
contented.  And I, for mine own part, marvel less that he
sometimes was fain to indulge their violence than that he could
so often restrain it.

"In that he dissolved the Parliament, I praise him.  It then was
so diminished in numbers, as well by the death as by the
exclusion of members, that it was no longer the same assembly;
and, if at that time it had made itself perpetual, we should have
been governed, not by an English House of Commons, but by a
Venetian Council.

"If in his following rule he overstepped the laws, I pity rather
than condemn him.  He may be compared to that Maeandrius of
Samos, of whom Herodotus saith, in his Thalia, that, wishing to
be of all men the most just, he was not able; for after the death
of Polycrates he offered freedom to the people; and not till
certain of them threatened to call him to a reckoning for what he
had formerly done, did he change his purpose, and make himself a
tyrant, lest he should be treated as a criminal.

"Such was the case of Oliver.  He gave to his country a form of
government so free and admirable that, in near six thousand
years, human wisdom hath never devised any more excellent
contrivance for human happiness.  To himself he reserved so
little power that it would scarcely have sufficed for his safety,
and it is a marvel that it could suffice for his ambition.  When,
after that, he found that the members of his Parliament disputed
his right even to that small authority which he had kept, when he
might have kept all, then indeed I own that he began to govern by
the sword those who would not suffer him to govern by the law.

"But, for the rest, what sovereign was ever more princely in
pardoning injuries, in conquering enemies, in extending the
dominions and the renown of his people?  What sea, what shore did
he not mark with imperishable memorials of his friendship or his
vengeance?  The gold of Spain, the steel of Sweden, the ten
thousand sails of Holland, availed nothing against him.  While
every foreign state trembled at our arms, we sat secure from all
assault.  War, which often so strangely troubles both husbandry
and commerce, never silenced the song of our reapers, or the
sound of our looms.  Justice was equally administered; God was
freely worshipped.

"Now look at that which we have taken in exchange.  With the
restored king have come over to us vices of every sort, and most
the basest and most shameful,--lust without love--servitude
without loyalty--foulness of speech--dishonesty of dealing--
grinning contempt of all things good and generous.  The throne is
surrounded by men whom the former Charles would have spurned from
his footstool.  The altar is served by slaves whose knees are
supple to every being but God.  Rhymers, whose books the hangman
should burn, pandars, actors, and buffoons, these drink a health
and throw a main with the King; these have stars on their breasts
and gold sticks in their hands; these shut out from his presence
the best and bravest of those who bled for his house.  Even so
doth God visit those who know not how to value freedom.  He gives
them over to the tyranny which they have desired, Ina pantes
epaurontai basileos."

"I will not," said Mr Cowley, "dispute with you on this argument.
But, if it be as you say, how can you maintain that England hath
been so greatly advantaged by the rebellion?"

"Understand me rightly, Sir," said Mr Milton.  "This nation is
not given over to slavery and vice.  We tasted indeed the fruits
of liberty before they had well ripened.  Their flavour was harsh
and bitter; and we turned from them with loathing to the sweeter
poisons of servitude.  This is but for a time.  England is
sleeping on the lap of Dalilah, traitorously chained, but not yet
shorn of strength.  Let the cry be once heard--the Philistines be
upon thee; and at once that sleep will be broken, and those
chains will be as flax in the fire.  The great Parliament hath
left behind it in our hearts and minds a hatred of tyrants, a
just knowledge of our rights, a scorn of vain and deluding names;
and that the revellers of Whitehall shall surely find.  The sun
is darkened; but it is only for a moment:  it is but an eclipse;
though all birds of evil omen have begun to scream, and all
ravenous beasts have gone forth to prey, thinking it to be
midnight.  Woe to them if they be abroad when the rays again
shine forth!

"The king hath judged ill.  Had he been wise he would have
remembered that he owed his restoration only to confusions which
had wearied us out, and made us eager for repose.  He would have
known that the folly and perfidy of a prince would restore to the
good old cause many hearts which had been alienated thence by the
turbulence of factions; for, if I know aught of history, or of
the heart of man, he will soon learn that the last champion of
the people was not destroyed when he murdered Vane, nor seduced
when he beguiled Fairfax."

Mr Cowley seemed to me not to take much amiss what Mr Milton had
said touching that thankless court, which had indeed but poorly
requited his own good service.  He only said, therefore, "Another
rebellion!  Alas! alas! Mr Milton!  If there be no choice but
between despotism and anarchy, I prefer despotism."

"Many men," said Mr Milton, "have floridly and ingeniously
compared anarchy and despotism; but they who so amuse themselves
do but look at separate parts of that which is truly one great
whole.  Each is the cause and the effect of the other; the evils
of either are the evils of both.  Thus do states move on in the
same eternal cycle, which, from the remotest point, brings them
back again to the same sad starting-post:  and, till both those
who govern and those who obey shall learn and mark this great
truth, men can expect little through the future, as they have
known little through the past, save vicissitudes of extreme
evils, alternately producing and produced.

"When will rulers learn that, where liberty is not, security end
order can never be?  We talk of absolute power; but all power
hath limits, which, if not fixed by the moderation of the
governors, will be fixed by the force of the governed.
Sovereigns may send their opposers to dungeons; they may clear
out a senate-house with soldiers; they may enlist armies of
spies; they may hang scores of the disaffected in chains at every
cross road; but what power shall stand in that frightful time
when rebellion hath become a less evil than endurance?  Who shall
dissolve that terrible tribunal, which, in the hearts of the
oppressed, denounces against the oppressor the doom of its wild
justice?  Who shall repeal the law of selfdefence?  What arms or
discipline shall resist the strength of famine and despair?  How
often were the ancient Caesars dragged from their golden palaces,
stripped of their purple robes, mangled, stoned, defiled with
filth, pierced with hooks, hurled into Tiber?  How often have the
Eastern Sultans perished by the sabres of their own janissaries,
or the bow-strings of their own mutes!  For no power which is not
limited by laws can ever be protected by them.  Small, therefore,
is the wisdom of those who would fly to servitude as if it were a
refuge from commotion; for anarchy is the sure consequence of
tyranny.  That governments may be safe, nations must be free.
Their passions must have an outlet provided, lest they make one.

"When I was at Naples, I went with Signor Manso, a gentleman of
excellent parts and breeding, who had been the familiar friend of
that famous poet Torquato Tasso, to see the burning mountain
Vesuvius.  I wondered how the peasants could venture to dwell so
fearlessly and cheerfully on its sides, when the lava was flowing
from its summit; but Manso smiled, and told me that when the fire
descends freely they retreat before it without haste or fear.
They can tell how fast it will move, and how far; and they know,
moreover, that, though it may work some little damage, it will
soon cover the fields over which it hath passed with rich
vineyards and sweet flowers.  But, when the flames are pent up in
the mountain, then it is that they have reason to fear; then it
is that the earth sinks and the sea swells; then cities are
swallowed up; and their place knoweth them no more.  So it is in
politics:  where the people is most closely restrained, there it
gives the greatest shocks to peace and order; therefore would I
say to all kings, let your demagogues lead crowds, lest they lead
armies; let them bluster, lest they massacre; a little turbulence
is, as it were, the rainbow of the state; it shows indeed that
there is a passing shower; but it is a pledge that there shall be
no deluge."

"This is true," said Mr Cowley; "yet these admonitions are not
less needful to subjects than to sovereigns."

"Surely," said Mr Milton; "and, that I may end this long debate
with a few words in which we shall both agree, I hold that, as
freedom is the only safeguard of governments, so are order and
moderation generally necessary to preserve freedom.  Even the
vainest opinions of men are not to be outraged by those who
propose to themselves the happiness of men for their end, and who
must work with the passions of men for their means.  The blind
reverence for things ancient is indeed so foolish that it might
make a wise man laugh, if it were not also sometimes so
mischievous that it would rather make a good man weep.  Yet,
since it may not be wholly cured it must be discreetly indulged;
and therefore those who would amend evil laws should consider
rather how much it may be safe to spare, than how much it may be
possible to change.  Have you not heard that men who have been
shut up for many years in dungeons shrink if they see the light,
and fall down if their irons be struck off?  And so, when nations
have long been in the house of bondage, the chains which have
crippled them are necessary to support them, the darkness which
hath weakened their sight is necessary to preserve it.  Therefore
release them not too rashly, lest they curse their freedom and
pine for their prison.

"I think indeed that the renowned Parliament, of which we have
talked so much, did show, until it became subject to the
soldiers, a singular and admirable moderation, in such times
scarcely to be hoped, and most worthy to be an example to all
that shall come after.  But on this argument I have said enough:
and I will therefore only pray to Almighty God that those who
shall, in future times stand forth in defence of our liberties,
as well civil as religious, may adorn the good cause by mercy,
prudence, and soberness, to the glory of his name and the
happiness and honour of the English people."

And so ended that discourse; and not long after we were set on
shore again at the Temple Gardens, and there parted company:  and
the same evening I took notes of what had been said, which I have
here more fully set down, from regard both to the fame of the
men, and the importance of the subject-matter.

...


ON THE ATHENIAN ORATORS.

(August 1824.)

"To the famous orators repair,
Those ancient, whose resistless eloquence
Wielded at will that fierce democratie,
Shook the arsenal, and fulmined over Greece
To Macedon and Artaxerxes' throne."--Milton.

The celebrity of the great classical writers is confined within
no limits, except those which separate civilised from savage man.
Their works are the common property of every polished nation.
They have furnished subjects for the painter, and models for the
poet.  In the minds of the educated classes throughout Europe,
their names are indissolubly associated with the endearing
recollections of childhood,--the old school-room,--the dog-eared
grammar,--the first prize,--the tears so often shed and so
quickly dried.  So great is the veneration with which they are
regarded, that even the editors and commentators who perform the
lowest menial offices to their memory, are considered, like the
equerries and chamberlains of sovereign princes, as entitled to a
high rank in the table of literary precedence.  It is, therefore,
somewhat singular that their productions should so rarely have
been examined on just and philosophical principles of criticism.

The ancient writers themselves afford us but little assistance.
When they particularise, they are commonly trivial:  when they
would generalise, they become indistinct.  An exception must,
indeed, be made in favour of Aristotle.  Both in analysis and in
combination, that great man was without a rival.  No philosopher
has ever possessed, in an equal degree, the talent either of
separating established systems into their primary elements, or of
connecting detached phenomena in harmonious systems.  He was the
great fashioner of the intellectual chaos; he changed its
darkness into light, and its discord into order.  He brought to
literary researches the same vigour and amplitude of mind to
which both physical and metaphysical science are so greatly
indebted.  His fundamental principles of criticism are excellent.
To cite only a single instance:--the doctrine which he
established, that poetry is an imitative art, when justly
understood, is to the critic what the compass is to the
navigator.  With it he may venture upon the most extensive
excursions.  Without it he must creep cautiously along the coast,
or lose himself in a trackless expanse, and trust, at best, to
the guidance of an occasional star.  It is a discovery which
changes a caprice into a science.

The general propositions of Aristotle are valuable.  But the
merit of the superstructure bears no proportion to that of the
foundation.  This is partly to be ascribed to the character of
the philosopher, who, though qualified to do all that could be
done by the resolving and combining powers of the understanding,
seems not to have possessed much of sensibility or imagination.
Partly, also, it may be attributed to the deficiency of
materials.  The great works of genius which then existed were not
either sufficiently numerous or sufficiently varied to enable any
man to form a perfect code of literature.  To require that a
critic should conceive classes of composition which had never
existed, and then investigate their principles, would be as
unreasonable as the demand of Nebuchadnezzar, who expected his
magicians first to tell him his dream and then to interpret it.

With all his deficiencies, Aristotle was the most enlightened and
profound critic of antiquity.  Dionysius was far from possessing
the same exquisite subtilty, or the same vast comprehension.  But
he had access to a much greater number of specimens; and he had
devoted himself, as it appears, more exclusively to the study of
elegant literature.  His peculiar judgments are of more value
than his general principles.  He is only the historian of
literature.  Aristotle is its philosopher.

Quintilian applied to general literature the same principles by
which he had been accustomed to judge of the declamations of his
pupils.  He looks for nothing but rhetoric, and rhetoric not of
the highest order.  He speaks coldly of the incomparable works of
Aeschylus.  He admires, beyond expression, those inexhaustible
mines of common-places, the plays of Euripides.  He bestows a few
vague words on the poetical character of Homer.  He then proceeds
to consider him merely as an orator.  An orator Homer doubtless
was, and a great orator.  But surely nothing is more remarkable,
in his admirable works, than the art with which his oratorical
powers are made subservient to the purposes of poetry.  Nor can I
think Quintilian a great critic in his own province.  Just as are
many of his remarks, beautiful as are many of his illustrations,
we can perpetually detect in his thoughts that flavour which the
soil of despotism generally communicates to all the fruits of
genius.  Eloquence was, in his time, little more than a condiment
which served to stimulate in a despot the jaded appetite for
panegyric, an amusement for the travelled nobles and the blue-
stocking matrons of Rome.  It is, therefore, with him, rather a
sport than a war; it is a contest of foils, not of swords.  He
appears to think more of the grace of the attitude than of the
direction and vigour of the thrust.  It must be acknowledged, in
justice to Quintilian, that this is an error to which Cicero has
too often given the sanction, both of his precept and of his
example.

Longinus seems to have had great sensibility, but little
discrimination.  He gives us eloquent sentences, but no
principles.  It was happily said that Montesquieu ought to have
changed the name of his book from "L'Esprit des Lois" to
"L'Esprit sur les Lois".  In the same manner the philosopher of
Palmyra ought to have entitled his famous work, not "Longinus on
the Sublime," but "The Sublimities of Longinus."  The origin of
the sublime is one of the most curious and interesting subjects
of inquiry that can occupy the attention of a critic.  In our own
country it has been discussed, with great ability, and, I think,
with very little success, by Burke and Dugald Stuart.  Longinus
dispenses himself from all investigations of this nature, by
telling his friend Terentianus that he already knows everything
that can be said upon the question.  It is to be regretted that
Terentianus did not impart some of his knowledge to his
instructor:  for from Longinus we learn only that sublimity means
height--or elevation.  (Akrotes kai exoche tis logon esti ta
uoe.)  This name, so commodiously vague, is applied indifferently
to the noble prayer of Ajax in the Iliad, and to a passage of
Plato about the human body, as full of conceits as an ode of
Cowley.  Having no fixed standard, Longinus is right only by
accident.  He is rather a fancier than a critic.

Modern writers have been prevented by many causes from supplying
the deficiencies of their classical predecessors.  At the time of
the revival of literature, no man could, without great and
painful labour, acquire an accurate and elegant knowledge of the
ancient languages.  And, unfortunately, those grammatical and
philological studies, without which it was impossible to
understand the great works of Athenian and Roman genius, have a
tendency to contract the views and deaden the sensibility of
those who follow them with extreme assiduity.  A powerful mind,
which has been long employed in such studies, may be compared to
the gigantic spirit in the Arabian tale, who was persuaded to
contract himself to small dimensions in order to enter within the
enchanted vessel, and, when his prison had been closed upon him,
found himself unable to escape from the narrow boundaries to the
measure of which he had reduced his stature.  When the means have
long been the objects of application, they are naturally
substituted for the end.  It was said, by Eugene of Savoy, that
the greatest generals have commonly been those who have been at
once raised to command, and introduced to the great operations of
war, without being employed in the petty calculations and
manoeuvres which employ the time of an inferior officer.  In
literature the principle is equally sound.  The great tactics of
criticism will, in general, be best understood by those who have
not had much practice in drilling syllables and particles.

I remember to have observed among the French Anas a ludicrous
instance of this.  A scholar, doubtless of great learning,
recommends the study of some long Latin treatise, of which I now
forget the name, on the religion, manners, government, and
language of the early Greeks.  "For there," says he, "you will
learn everything of importance that is contained in the Iliad and
Odyssey, without the trouble of reading two such tedious books."
Alas! it had not occurred to the poor gentleman that all the
knowledge to which he attached so much value was useful only as
it illustrated the great poems which he despised, and would be as
worthless for any other purpose as the mythology of Caffraria, or
the vocabulary of Otaheite.

Of those scholars who have disdained to confine themselves to
verbal criticism few have been successful.  The ancient languages
have, generally, a magical influence on their faculties.  They
were "fools called into a circle by Greek invocations."  The
Iliad and Aeneid were to them not books but curiosities, or
rather reliques.  They no more admired those works for their
merits than a good Catholic venerates the house of the Virgin at
Loretto for its architecture.  Whatever was classical was good.
Homer was a great poet, and so was Callimachus.  The epistles of
Cicero were fine, and so were those of Phalaris.  Even with
respect to questions of evidence they fell into the same error.
The authority of all narrations, written in Greek or Latin, was
the same with them.  It never crossed their minds that the lapse
of five hundred years, or the distance of five hundred leagues,
could affect the accuracy of a narration;--that Livy could be a
less veracious historian than Polybius;--or that Plutarch could
know less about the friends of Xenophon than Xenophon himself.
Deceived by the distance of time, they seem to consider all the
Classics as contemporaries; just as I have known people in
England, deceived by the distance of place, take it for granted
that all persons who live in India are neighbours, and ask an
inhabitant of Bombay about the health of an acquaintance at
Calcutta.  It is to be hoped that no barbarian deluge will ever
again pass over Europe.  But should such a calamity happen, it
seems not improbable that some future Rollin or Gillies will
compile a history of England from Miss Porter's Scottish Chiefs,
Miss Lee's Recess, and Sir Nathaniel Wraxall's Memoirs.

It is surely time that ancient literature should be examined in a
different manner, without pedantical prepossessions, but with a
just allowance, at the same time, for the difference of
circumstances and manners.  I am far from pretending to the
knowledge or ability which such a task would require.  All that I
mean to offer is a collection of desultory remarks upon a most
interesting portion of Greek literature.

It may be doubted whether any compositions which have ever been
produced in the world are equally perfect in their kind with the
great Athenian orations.  Genius is subject to the same laws
which regulate the production of cotton and molasses.  The supply
adjusts itself to the demand.  The quantity may be diminished by
restrictions, and multiplied by bounties.  The singular
excellence to which eloquence attained at Athens is to be mainly
attributed to the influence which it exerted there.  In turbulent
times, under a constitution purely democratic, among a people
educated exactly to that point at which men are most susceptible
of strong and sudden impressions, acute, but not sound reasoners,
warm in their feelings, unfixed in their principles, and
passionate admirers of fine composition, oratory received such
encouragement as it has never since obtained.

The taste and knowledge of the Athenian people was a favourite
object of the contemptuous derision of Samuel Johnson; a man who
knew nothing of Greek literature beyond the common school-books,
and who seems to have brought to what he had read scarcely more
than the discernment of a common school-boy.  He used to assert,
with that arrogant absurdity which, in spite of his great
abilities and virtues, renders him, perhaps the most ridiculous
character in literary history, that Demosthenes spoke to a people
of brutes;--to a barbarous people;--that there could have been no
civilisation before the invention of printing.  Johnson was a
keen but a very narrow-minded observer of mankind.  He
perpetually confounded their general nature with their particular
circumstances.  He knew London intimately.  The sagacity of his
remarks on its society is perfectly astonishing.  But Fleet
Street was the world to him.  He saw that Londoners who did not
read were profoundly ignorant; and he inferred that a Greek, who
had few or no books, must have been as uninformed as one of Mr
Thrale's draymen.

There seems to be, on the contrary, every reason to believe,
that, in general intelligence, the Athenian populace far
surpassed the lower orders of any community that has ever
existed.  It must be considered, that to be a citizen was to be a
legislator,--a soldier,--a judge,--one upon whose voice might
depend the fate of the wealthiest tributary state, of the most
eminent public man.  The lowest offices, both of agriculture and
of trade, were, in common, performed by slaves.  The commonwealth
supplied its meanest members with the support of life, the
opportunity of leisure, and the means of amusement.  Books were
indeed few:  but they were excellent; and they were accurately
known.  It is not by turning over libraries, but by repeatedly
perusing and intently contemplating a few great models, that the
mind is best disciplined.  A man of letters must now read much
that he soon forgets, and much from which he learns nothing
worthy to be remembered.  The best works employ, in general, but
a small portion of his time.  Demosthenes is said to have
transcribed six times the history of Thucydides.  If he had been
a young politician of the present age, he might in the same space
of time have skimmed innumerable newspapers and pamphlets.  I do
not condemn that desultory mode of study which the state of
things, in our day, renders a matter of necessity.  But I may be
allowed to doubt whether the changes on which the admirers of
modern institutions delight to dwell have improved our condition
so much in reality as in appearance.  Rumford, it is said,
proposed to the Elector of Bavaria a scheme for feeding his
soldiers at a much cheaper rate than formerly.  His plan was
simply to compel them to masticate their food thoroughly.  A
small quantity, thus eaten, would, according to that famous
projector, afford more sustenance than a large meal hastily
devoured.  I do not know how Rumford's proposition was received;
but to the mind, I believe, it will be found more nutritious to
digest a page than to devour a volume.

Books, however, were the least part of the education of an
Athenian citizen.  Let us, for a moment, transport ourselves in
thought, to that glorious city.  Let us imagine that we are
entering its gates, in the time of its power and glory.  A crowd
is assembled round a portico.  All are gazing with delight at the
entablature; for Phidias is putting up the frieze.  We turn into
another street; a rhapsodist is reciting there:  men, women,
children are thronging round him:  the tears are running down
their cheeks:  their eyes are fixed:  their very breath is still;
for he is telling how Priam fell at the feet of Achilles, and
kissed those hands,--the terrible--the murderous,--which had
slain so many of his sons.
(--kai kuse cheiras,
deinas, anorophonous, ai oi poleas ktanon uias.)

We enter the public place; there is a ring of youths, all leaning
forward, with sparkling eyes, and gestures of expectation.
Socrates is pitted against the famous atheist, from Ionia, and
has just brought him to a contradiction in terms.  But we are
interrupted.  The herald is crying--"Room for the Prytanes."  The
general assembly is to meet.  The people are swarming in on every
side.  Proclamation is made--"Who wishes to speak?"  There is a
shout, and a clapping of hands:  Pericles is mounting the stand.
Then for a play of Sophocles; and away to sup with Aspasia.  I
know of no modern university which has so excellent a system of
education.

Knowledge thus acquired and opinions thus formed were, indeed,
likely to be, in some respects, defective.  Propositions which
are advanced in discourse generally result from a partial view of
the question, and cannot be kept under examination long enough to
be corrected.  Men of great conversational powers almost
universally practise a sort of lively sophistry and exaggeration,
which deceives, for the moment, both themselves and their
auditors.  Thus we see doctrines, which cannot bear a close
inspection, triumph perpetually in drawing-rooms, in debating
societies, and even in legislative or judicial assemblies.  To
the conversational education of the Athenians I am inclined to
attribute the great looseness of reasoning which is remarkable in
most of their scientific writings.  Even the most illogical of
modern writers would stand perfectly aghast at the puerile
fallacies which seem to have deluded some of the greatest men of
antiquity.  Sir Thomas Lethbridge would stare at the political
economy of Xenophon; and the author of "Soirees de Petersbourg"
would be ashamed of some of the metaphysical arguments of Plato.
But the very circumstances which retarded the growth of science
were peculiarly favourable to the cultivation of eloquence.  From
the early habit of taking a share in animated discussion the
intelligent student would derive that readiness of resource, that
copiousness of language, and that knowledge of the temper and
understanding of an audience, which are far more valuable to an
orator than the greatest logical powers.

Horace has prettily compared poems to those paintings of which
the effect varies as the spectator changes his stand.  The same
remark applies with at least equal justice to speeches.  They
must be read with the temper of those to whom they were
addressed, or they must necessarily appear to offend against the
laws of taste and reason; as the finest picture, seen in a light
different from that for which it was designed, will appear fit
only for a sign.  This is perpetually forgotten by those who
criticise oratory.  Because they are reading at leisure, pausing
at every line, reconsidering every argument, they forget that the
hearers were hurried from point to point too rapidly to detect
the fallacies through which they were conducted; that they had no
time to disentangle sophisms, or to notice slight inaccuracies of
expression; that elaborate excellence, either of reasoning or of
language, would have been absolutely thrown away.  To recur to
the analogy of the sister art, these connoisseurs examine a
panorama through a microscope, and quarrel with a scene-painter
because he does not give to his work the exquisite finish of
Gerard Dow.

Oratory is to be estimated on principles different from those
which are applied to other productions.  Truth is the object of
philosophy and history.  Truth is the object even of those works
which are peculiarly called works of fiction, but which, in fact,
bear the same relation to history which algebra bears to
arithmetic.  The merit of poetry, in its wildest forms, still
consists in its truth,--truth conveyed to the understanding, not
directly by the words, but circuitously by means of imaginative
associations, which serve as its conductors.  The object of
oratory alone is not truth, but persuasion.  The admiration of
the multitude does not make Moore a greater poet than Coleridge,
or Beattie a greater philosopher than Berkeley.  But the
criterion of eloquence is different.  A speaker who exhausts the
whole philosophy of a question, who displays every grace of
style, yet produces no effect on his audience, may be a great
essayist, a great statesman, a great master of composition; but
he is not an orator.  If he miss the mark, it makes no difference
whether he have taken aim too high or too low.

The effect of the great freedom of the press in England has been,
in a great measure, to destroy this distinction, and to leave
among us little of what I call Oratory Proper.  Our legislators,
our candidates, on great occasions even our advocates, address
themselves less to the audience than to the reporters.  They
think less of the few hearers than of the innumerable readers.
At Athens the case was different; there the only object of the
speaker was immediate conviction and persuasion.  He, therefore,
who would justly appreciate the merit of the Grecian orators
should place himself, as nearly as possible, in the situation of
their auditors:  he should divest himself of his modern feelings
and acquirements, and make the prejudices and interests of the
Athenian citizen his own.  He who studies their works in this
spirit will find that many of those things which, to an English
reader, appear to be blemishes,--the frequent violation of those
excellent rules of evidence by which our courts of law are
regulated,--the introduction of extraneous matter,--the reference
to considerations of political expediency in judicial
investigations,--the assertions, without proof,--the passionate
entreaties,--the furious invectives,--are really proofs of the
prudence and address of the speakers.  He must not dwell
maliciously on arguments or phrases, but acquiesce in his first
impressions.  It requires repeated perusal and reflection to
decide rightly on any other portion of literature.  But with
respect to works of which the merit depends on their
instantaneous effect the most hasty judgment is likely to be
best.

The history of eloquence at Athens is remarkable.  From a very
early period great speakers had flourished there.  Pisistratus
and Themistocles are said to have owed much of their influence to
their talents for debate.  We learn, with more certainty, that
Pericles was distinguished by extraordinary oratorical powers.
The substance of some of his speeches is transmitted to us by
Thucydides; and that excellent writer has doubtless faithfully
reported the general line of his arguments.  But the manner,
which in oratory is of at least as much consequence as the
matter, was of no importance to his narration.  It is evident
that he has not attempted to preserve it.  Throughout his work,
every speech on every subject, whatever may have been the
character of the dialect of the speaker, is in exactly the same
form.  The grave king of Sparta, the furious demagogue of Athens,
the general encouraging his army, the captive supplicating for
his life, all are represented as speakers in one unvaried style,-
-a style moreover wholly unfit for oratorical purposes.  His mode
of reasoning is singularly elliptical,--in reality most
consecutive,--yet in appearance often incoherent.  His meaning,
in itself sufficiently perplexing, is compressed into the fewest
possible words.  His great fondness for antithetical expression
has not a little conduced to this effect.  Every one must have
observed how much more the sense is condensed in the verses of
Pope and his imitators, who never ventured to continue the same
clause from couplet to couplet, than in those of poets who allow
themselves that license.  Every artificial division, which is
strongly marked, and which frequently recurs, has the same
tendency.  The natural and perspicuous expression which
spontaneously rises to the mind will often refuse to accommodate
itself to such a form.  It is necessary either to expand it into
weakness, or to compress it into almost impenetrable density.
The latter is generally the choice of an able man, and was
assuredly the choice of Thucydides.

It is scarcely necessary to say that such speeches could never
have been delivered.  They are perhaps among the most difficult
passages in the Greek language, and would probably have been
scarcely more intelligible to an Athenian auditor than to a
modern reader.  Their obscurity was acknowledged by Cicero, who
was as intimate with the literature and language of Greece as the
most accomplished of its natives, and who seems to have held a
respectable rank among the Greek authors.  Their difficulty to a
modern reader lies, not in the words, but in the reasoning.  A
dictionary is of far less use in studying them than a clear head
and a close attention to the context.  They are valuable to the
scholar as displaying, beyond almost any other compositions, the
powers of the finest of languages:  they are valuable to the
philosopher as illustrating the morals and manners of a most
interesting age:  they abound in just thought and energetic
expression.  But they do not enable us to form any accurate
opinion on the merits of the early Greek orators.

Though it cannot be doubted that, before the Persian wars, Athens
had produced eminent speakers, yet the period during which
eloquence most flourished among her citizens was by no means that
of her greatest power and glory.  It commenced at the close of
the Peloponnesian war.  In fact, the steps by which Athenian
oratory approached to its finished excellence seem to have been
almost contemporaneous with those by which the Athenian character
and the Athenian empire sunk to degradation.  At the time when
the little commonwealth achieved those victories which twenty-
five eventful centuries have left unequalled, eloquence was in
its infancy.  The deliverers of Greece became its plunderers and
oppressors.  Unmeasured exaction, atrocious vengeance, the
madness of the multitude, the tyranny of the great, filled the
Cyclades with tears, and blood, and mourning.  The sword
unpeopled whole islands in a day.  The plough passed over the
ruins of famous cities.  The imperial republic sent forth her
children by thousands to pine in the quarries of Syracuse, or to
feed the vultures of Aegospotami.  She was at length reduced by
famine and slaughter to humble herself before her enemies, and to
purchase existence by the sacrifice of her empire and her laws.
During these disastrous and gloomy years, oratory was advancing
towards its highest excellence.  And it was when the moral, the
political, and the military character of the people was most
utterly degraded, it was when the viceroy of a Macedonian
sovereign gave law to Greece, that the courts of Athens witnessed
the most splendid contest of eloquence that the world has ever
known.

The causes of this phenomenon it is not, I think, difficult to
assign.  The division of labour operates on the productions of
the orator as it does on those of the mechanic.  It was remarked
by the ancients that the Pentathlete, who divided his attention
between several exercises, though he could not vie with a boxer
in the use of the cestus, or with one who had confined his
attention to running in the contest of the stadium, yet enjoyed
far greater general vigour and health than either.  It is the
same with the mind.  The superiority in technical skill is often
more than compensated by the inferiority in general intelligence.
And this is peculiarly the case in politics.  States have always
been best governed by men who have taken a wide view of public
affairs, and who have rather a general acquaintance with many
sciences than a perfect mastery of one.  The union of the
political and military departments in Greece contributed not a
little to the splendour of its early history.  After their
separation more skilful generals and greater speakers appeared;
but the breed of statesmen dwindled and became almost extinct.
Themistocles or Pericles would have been no match for Demosthenes
in the assembly, or for Iphicrates in the field.  But surely they
were incomparably better fitted than either for the supreme
direction of affairs.

There is indeed a remarkable coincidence between the progress of
the art of war, and that of the art of oratory, among the Greeks.
They both advanced to perfection by contemporaneous steps, and
from similar causes.  The early speakers, like the early warriors
of Greece, were merely a militia.  It was found that in both
employments practice and discipline gave superiority.  (It has
often occurred to me, that to the circumstances mentioned in the
text is to be referred one of the most remarkable events in
Grecian history; I mean the silent but rapid downfall of the
Lacedaemonian power.  Soon after the termination of the
Peloponnesian war, the strength of Lacedaemon began to decline.
Its military discipline, its social institutions, were the same.
Agesilaus, during whose reign the change took place, was the
ablest of its kings.  Yet the Spartan armies were frequently
defeated in pitched battles,--an occurrence considered impossible
in the earlier ages of Greece.  They are allowed to have fought
most bravely; yet they were no longer attended by the success to
which they had formerly been accustomed.  No solution of these
circumstances is offered, as far as I know, by any ancient
author.  The real cause, I conceive, was this.  The
Lacedaemonians, alone among the Greeks, formed a permanent
standing army.  While the citizens of other commonwealths were
engaged in agriculture and trade, they had no employment whatever
but the study of military discipline.  Hence, during the Persian
and Peloponnesian wars, they had that advantage over their
neighbours which regular troops always possess over militia.
This advantage they lost, when other states began, at a later
period, to employ mercenary forces, who were probably as superior
to them in the art of war as they had hitherto been to their
antagonists.)  Each pursuit therefore became first an art, and
then a trade.  In proportion as the professors of each became
more expert in their particular craft, they became less
respectable in their general character.  Their skill had been
obtained at too great expense to be employed only from
disinterested views.  Thus, the soldiers forgot that they were
citizens, and the orators that they were statesmen.  I know not
to what Demosthenes and his famous contemporaries can be so
justly compared as to those mercenary troops who, in their time,
overran Greece; or those who, from similar causes, were some
centuries ago the scourge of the Italian republics,--perfectly
acquainted with every part of their profession, irresistible in
the field, powerful to defend or to destroy, but defending
without love, and destroying without hatred.  We may despise the
characters of these political Condottieri; but is impossible to
examine the system of their tactics without being amazed at its
perfection.

I had intended to proceed to this examination, and to consider
separately the remains of Lysias, of Aeschines, of Demosthenes,
and of Isocrates, who, though strictly speaking he was rather a
pamphleteer than an orator, deserves, on many accounts, a place
in such a disquisition.  The length of my prolegomena and
digressions compels me to postpone this part of the subject to
another occasion.  A Magazine is certainly a delightful invention
for a very idle or a very busy man.  He is not compelled to
complete his plan or to adhere to his subject.  He may ramble as
far as he is inclined, and stop as soon as he is tired.  No one
takes the trouble to recollect his contradictory opinions or his
unredeemed pledges.  He may be as superficial, as inconsistent,
and as careless as he chooses.  Magazines resemble those little
angels, who, according to the pretty Rabbinical tradition, are
generated every morning by the brook which rolls over the flowers
of Paradise,--whose life is a song,--who warble till sunset, and
then sink back without regret into nothingness.  Such spirits
have nothing to do with the detecting spear of Ithuriel or the
victorious sword of Michael.  It is enough for them to please and
be forgotten.

...


A PROPHETIC ACCOUNT OF A GRAND NATIONAL EPIC POEM, TO BE ENTITLED
"THE WELLINGTONIAD," AND TO BE PUBLISHED A.D. 2824.

(November 1824.)

How I became a prophet it is not very important to the reader to
know.  Nevertheless I feel all the anxiety which, under similar
circumstances, troubled the sensitive mind of Sidrophel; and,
like him, am eager to vindicate myself from the suspicion of
having practised forbidden arts, or held intercourse with beings
of another world.  I solemnly declare, therefore, that I never
saw a ghost, like Lord Lyttleton; consulted a gipsy, like
Josephine; or heard my name pronounced by an absent person, like
Dr Johnson.  Though it is now almost as usual for gentlemen to
appear at the moment of their death to their friends as to call
on them during their life, none of my acquaintance have been so
polite as to pay me that customary attention.  I have derived my
knowledge neither from the dead nor from the living; neither from
the lines of a hand, nor from the grounds of a tea-cup; neither
from the stars of the firmament, nor from the fiends of the
abyss.  I have never, like the Wesley family, heard "that mighty
leading angel," who "drew after him the third part of heaven's
sons," scratching in my cupboard. I have never been enticed to
sign any of those delusive bonds which have been the ruin of so
many poor creatures; and, having always been an indifferent horse
man, I have been careful not to venture myself on a broomstick.

My insight into futurity, like that of George Fox the quaker, and
that of our great and philosophic poet, Lord Byron, is derived
from simple presentiment.  This is a far less artificial process
than those which are employed by some others.  Yet my predictions
will, I believe, be found more correct than theirs, or, at all
events, as Sir Benjamin Back bite says in the play, "more
circumstantial."

I prophesy then, that, in the year 2824, according to our present
reckoning, a grand national Epic Poem, worthy to be compared with
the Iliad, the Aeneid, or the Jerusalem, will be published in
London.

Men naturally take an interest in the adventures of every eminent
writer.  I will, therefore, gratify the laudable curiosity,
which, on this occasion, will doubtless be universal, by pre
fixing to my account of the poem a concise memoir of the poet.

Richard Quongti will be born at Westminster on the 1st of July,
2786.  He will be the younger son of the younger branch of one of
the most respectable families in England.  He will be linearly
descended from Quongti, the famous Chinese liberal, who, after
the failure of the heroic attempt of his party to obtain a
constitution from the Emperor Fim Fam, will take refuge in
England, in the twenty-third century.  Here his descendants will
obtain considerable note; and one branch of the family will be
raised to the peerage.

Richard, however, though destined to exalt his family to
distinction far nobler than any which wealth or titles can
bestow, will be born to a very scanty fortune.  He will display
in his early youth such striking talents as will attract the
notice of Viscount Quongti, his third cousin, then secretary of
state for the Steam Department.  At the expense of this eminent
nobleman, he will be sent to prosecute his studies at the
university of Tombuctoo.  To that illustrious seat of the muses
all the ingenuous youth of every country will then be attracted
by the high scientific character of Professor Quashaboo, and the
eminent literary attainments of Professor Kissey Kickey.  In
spite of this formidable competition, however, Quongti will
acquire the highest honours in every department of knowledge, and
will obtain the esteem of his associates by his amiable and
unaffected manners.  The guardians of the young Duke of
Carrington, premier peer of England, and the last remaining scion
of the ancient and illustrious house of Smith, will be desirous
to secure so able an instructor for their ward.  With the Duke,
Quongti will perform the grand tour, and visit the polished
courts of Sydney and Capetown.  After prevailing on his pupil,
with great difficulty, to subdue a violent and imprudent passion
which he had conceived for a Hottentot lady, of great beauty and
accomplishments indeed, but of dubious character, he will travel
with him to the United States of America.  But that tremendous
war which will be fatal to American liberty will, at that time,
be raging through the whole federation.  At New York the
travellers will hear of the final defeat and death of the
illustrious champion of freedom, Jonathon Higginbottom, and of
the elevation of Ebenezer Hogsflesh to the perpetual Presidency.
They will not choose to proceed in a journey which would expose
them to the insults of that brutal soldiery, whose cruelty and
rapacity will have devastated Mexico and Colombia, and now, at
length, enslaved their own country.

On their return to England, A.D. 2810, the death of the Duke will
compel his preceptor to seek for a subsistence by literary
labours.  His fame will be raised by many small productions of
considerable merit; and he will at last obtain a permanent place
in the highest class of writers by his great epic poem.

The celebrated work will become, with unexampled rapidity, a
popular favourite.  The sale will be so beneficial to the author
that, instead of going about the dirty streets on his velocipede,
he will be enabled to set up his balloon.

The character of this noble poem will be so finely and justly
given in the Tombuctoo Review for April 2825, that I cannot
refrain from translating the passage.  The author will be our
poet's old preceptor, Professor Kissey Kickey.

"In pathos, in splendour of language, in sweetness of
versification, Mr Quongti has long been considered as unrivalled.
In his exquisite poem on the Ornithorhynchus Paradoxus all these
qualities are displayed in their greatest perfection.  How
exquisitely does that work arrest and embody the undefined and
vague shadows which flit over an imaginative mind.  The cold
worldling may not comprehend it; but it will find a response in
the bosom of every youthful poet, of every enthusiastic lover,
who has seen an Ornithorhynchus Paradoxus by moonlight.  But we
were yet to learn that he possessed the comprehension, the
judgment, and the fertility of mind indispensable to the epic
poet.

"It is difficult to conceive a plot more perfect than that of the
'Wellingtoniad.'  It is most faithful to the manners of the age
to which it relates.  It preserves exactly all the historical
circumstances, and interweaves them most artfully with all the
speciosa miracula of supernatural agency."

Thus far the learned Professor of Humanity in the university of
Tombuctoo.  I fear that the critics of our time will form an
opinion diametrically opposite as to these every points.  Some
will, I fear, be disgusted by the machinery, which is derived
from the mythology of ancient Greece.  I can only say that, in
the twenty-ninth century, that machinery will be universally in
use among poets; and that Quongti will use it, partly in
conformity with the general practice, and partly from a
veneration, perhaps excessive, for the great remains of classical
antiquity, which will then, as now, be assiduously read by every
man of education; though Tom Moore's songs will be forgotten, and
only three copies of Lord Byron's works will exist:  one in the
possession of King George the Nineteenth, one in the Duke of
Carrington's collection, and one in the library of the British
Museum.  Finally, should any good people be concerned to hear
that Pagan fictions will so long retain their influence over
literature, let them reflect that, as the Bishop of St David's
says, in his "Proofs of the Inspiration of the Sibylline Verses,"
read at the last meeting of the Royal Society of Literature, "at
all events, a Pagan is not a Papist."

Some readers of the present day may think that Quongti is by no
means entitled to the compliments which his Negro critic pays him
on his adherence to the historical circumstances of the time in
which he has chosen his subject; that, where he introduces any
trait of our manners, it is in the wrong place, and that he
confounds the customs of our age with those of much more remote
periods.  I can only say that the charge is infinitely more
applicable to Homer, Virgil, and Tasso.  If, therefore, the
reader should detect, in the following abstract of the plot, any
little deviation from strict historical accuracy, let him
reflect, for a moment, whether Agamemnon would not have found as
much to censure in the Iliad,--Dido in the Aeneid,--or Godfrey in
the Jerusalem.  Let him not suffer his opinions to depend on
circumstances which cannot possibly affect the truth or falsehood
of the representation.  If it be impossible for a single man to
kill hundreds in battle, the impossibility is not diminished by
distance of time.  If it be as certain that Rinaldo never
disenchanted a forest in Palestine as it is that the Duke of
Wellington never disenchanted the forest of Soignies, can we, as
rational men, tolerate the one story and ridicule the other?  Of
this, at least, I am certain, that whatever excuse we have for
admiring the plots of those famous poems our children will have
for extolling that of the "Wellingtoniad."

I shall proceed to give a sketch of the narrative.  The subject
is "The Reign of the Hundred Days."

BOOK I.

The poem commences, in form, with a solemn proposition of the
subject.  Then the muse is invoked to give the poet accurate
information as to the causes of so terrible a commotion.  The
answer to this question, being, it is to be supposed, the joint
production of the poet and the muse, ascribes the event to
circumstances which have hitherto eluded all the research of
political writers, namely, the influence of the god Mars, who, we
are told, had some forty years before usurped the conjugal rights
of old Carlo Buonaparte, and given birth to Napoleon.  By his
incitement it was that the emperor with his devoted companions
was now on the sea, returning to his ancient dominions.  The gods
were at present, fortunately for the adventurer, feasting with
the Ethiopians, whose entertainments, according to the ancient
custom described by Homer, they annually attended, with the same
sort of condescending gluttony which now carries the cabinet to
Guildhall on the 9th of November.  Neptune was, in consequence,
absent, and unable to prevent the enemy of his favourite island
from crossing his element.  Boreas, however, who had his abode on
the banks of the Russian ocean, and who, like Thetis in the
Iliad, was not of sufficient quality to have an invitation to
Ethiopia, resolves to destroy the armament which brings war and
danger to his beloved Alexander.  He accordingly raises a storm
which is most powerfully described.  Napoleon bewails the
inglorious fate for which he seems to be reserved.  "Oh! thrice
happy," says he, "those who were frozen to death at Krasnoi, or
slaughtered at Leipsic.  Oh, Kutusoff, bravest of the Russians,
wherefore was I not permitted to fall by thy victorious sword?"
He then offers a prayer to Aeolus, and vows to him a sacrifice of
a black ram.  In consequence, the god recalls his turbulent
subject; the sea is calmed; and the ship anchors in the port of
Frejus.  Napoleon and Bertrand, who is always called the faithful
Bertrand, land to explore the country; Mars meets them disguised
as a lancer of the guard, wearing the cross of the legion of
honour.  He advises them to apply for necessaries of all kinds to
the governor, shows them the way, and disappears with a strong
smell of gunpowder.  Napoleon makes a pathetic speech, and enters
the governor's house.  Here he sees hanging up a fine print of
the battle of Austerlitz, himself in the foreground giving his
orders.  This puts him in high spirits; he advances and salutes
the governor, who receives him most loyally, gives him an
entertainment, and, according to the usage of all epic hosts,
insists after dinner on a full narration of all that has happened
to him since the battle of Leipsic.

BOOK II.

Napoleon carries his narrative from the battle of Leipsic to his
abdication.  But, as we shall have a great quantity of fighting
on our hands, I think it best to omit the details.

BOOK III.

Napoleon describes his sojourn at Elba, and his return; how he
was driven by stress of weather to Sardinia, and fought with the
harpies there; how he was then carried southward to Sicily, where
he generously took on board an English sailor, whom a man-of-war
had unhappily left there, and who was in imminent danger of being
devoured by the Cyclops; how he landed in the bay of Naples, saw
the Sibyl, and descended to Tartarus; how he held a long and
pathetic conversation with Poniatowski, whom he found wandering
unburied on the banks of Styx; how he swore to give him a
splendid funeral; how he had also an affectionate interview with
Desaix; how Moreau and Sir Ralph Abercrombie fled at the sight of
him.  He relates that he then re-embarked, and met with nothing
of importance till the commencement of the storm with which the
poem opens.

BOOK IV.

The scene changes to Paris.  Fame, in the garb of an express,
brings intelligence of the landing of Napoleon.  The king
performs a sacrifice:  but the entrails are unfavourable; and the
victim is without a heart.  He prepares to encounter the invader.
A young captain of the guard,--the son of Maria Antoinette by
Apollo,--in the shape of a fiddler, rushes in to tell him that
Napoleon is approaching with a vast army.  The royal forces are
drawn out for battle.  Full catalogues are given of the regiments
on both sides; their colonels, lieutenant-colonels, and uniform.

BOOK V.

The king comes forward and defies Napoleon to single combat.
Napoleon accepts it.  Sacrifices are offered.  The ground is
measured by Ney and Macdonald.  The combatants advance.  Louis
snaps his pistol in vain.  The bullet of Napoleon, on the
contrary, carries off the tip of the king's ear.  Napoleon then
rushes on him sword in hand.  But Louis snatches up a stone, such
as ten men of those degenerate days will be unable to move, and
hurls it at his antagonist.  Mars averts it.  Napoleon then
seizes Louis, and is about to strike a fatal blow, when Bacchus
intervenes, like Venus in the third book of the Iliad, bears off
the king in a thick cloud, and seats him in an hotel at Lille,
with a bottle of Maraschino and a basin of soup before him.  Both
armies instantly proclaim Napoleon emperor.

BOOK VI.

Neptune, returned from his Ethiopian revels, sees with rage the
events which have taken place in Europe.  He flies to the cave of
Alecto, and drags out the fiend, commanding her to excite
universal hostility against Napoleon.  The Fury repairs to Lord
Castlereagh; and, as, when she visited Turnus, she assumed the
form of an old woman, she here appears in the kindred shape of Mr
Vansittart, and in an impassioned address exhorts his lordship to
war.  His lordship, like Turnus, treats this unwonted monitor
with great disrespect, tells him that he is an old doting fool,
and advises him to look after the ways and means, and leave
questions of peace and war to his betters.  The Fury then
displays all her terrors.  The neat powdered hair bristles up
into snakes; the black stockings appear clotted with blood; and,
brandishing a torch, she announces her name and mission.  Lord
Castlereagh, seized with fury, flies instantly to the Parliament,
and recommends war with a torrent of eloquent invective.  All the
members instantly clamour for vengeance, seize their arms which
are hanging round the walls of the house, and rush forth to
prepare for instant hostilities.

BOOK VII.

In this book intelligence arrives at London of the flight of the
Duchess d'Angouleme from France.  It is stated that this heroine,
armed from head to foot, defended Bordeaux against the adherents
of Napoleon, and that she fought hand to hand with Clausel, and
beat him down with an enormous stone.  Deserted by her followers,
she at last, like Turnus, plunged, armed as she was, into the
Garonne, and swam to an English ship which lay off the coast.
This intelligence yet more inflames the English to war.

A yet bolder flight than any which has been mentioned follows.
The Duke of Wellington goes to take leave of the duchess; and a
scene passes quite equal to the famous interview of Hector and
Andromache.  Lord Douro is frightened at his father's feather,
but begs for his epaulette.

BOOK VIII.

Neptune, trembling for the event of the war, implores Venus, who,
as the offspring of his element, naturally venerates him, to
procure from Vulcan a deadly sword and a pair of unerring pistols
for the Duke.  They are accordingly made, and superbly decorated.
The sheath of the sword, like the shield of Achilles, is carved,
in exquisitely fine miniature, with scenes from the common life
of the period; a dance at Almack's a boxing match at the Fives-
court, a lord mayor's procession, and a man hanging.  All these
are fully and elegantly described.  The Duke thus armed hastens
to Brussels.

BOOK IX.

The Duke is received at Brussels by the King of the Netherlands
with great magnificence.  He is informed of the approach of the
armies of all the confederate kings.  The poet, however, with a
laudable zeal for the glory of his country, completely passes
over the exploits of the Austrians in Italy, and the discussions
of the congress.  England and France, Wellington and Napoleon,
almost exclusively occupy his attention.  Several days are spent
at Brussels in revelry.  The English heroes astonish their allies
by exhibiting splendid games, similar to those which draw the
flower of the British aristocracy to Newmarket and Moulsey Hurst,
and which will be considered by our descendants with as much
veneration as the Olympian and Isthmian contests by classical
students of the present time.  In the combat of the cestus, Shaw,
the lifeguardsman, vanquishes the Prince of Orange, and obtains a
bull as a prize.  In the horse-race, the Duke of Wellington and
Lord Uxbridge ride against each other; the Duke is victorious,
and is rewarded with twelve opera-girls.  On the last day of the
festivities, a splendid dance takes place, at which all the
heroes attend.

BOOK X.

Mars, seeing the English army thus inactive, hastens to rouse
Napoleon, who, conducted by Night and Silence, unexpectedly
attacks the Prussians.  The slaughter is immense.  Napoleon kills
many whose histories and families are happily particularised.  He
slays Herman, the craniologist, who dwelt by the linden-shadowed
Elbe, and measured with his eye the skulls of all who walked
through the streets of Berlin.  Alas! his own skull is now cleft
by the Corsican sword.  Four pupils of the University of Jena
advance together to encounter the Emperor; at four blows he
destroys them all.  Blucher rushes to arrest the devastation;
Napoleon strikes him to the ground, and is on the point of
killing him, but Gneisenau, Ziethen, Bulow, and all the other
heroes of the Prussian army, gather round him, and bear the
venerable chief to a distance from the field.  The slaughter is
continued till night.  In the meantime Neptune has despatched
Fame to bear the intelligence to the Duke, who is dancing at
Brussels.  The whole army is put in motion.  The Duke of
Brunswick's horse speaks to admonish him of his danger, but in
vain.

BOOK VI.

Picton, the Duke of Brunswick, and the Prince of Orange, engage
Ney at Quatre Bras.  Ney kills the Duke of Brunswick, and strips
him, sending his belt to Napoleon.  The English fall back on
Waterloo.  Jupiter calls a council of the gods, and commands that
none shall interfere on either side.  Mars and Neptune make very
eloquent speeches.  The battle of Waterloo commences.  Napoleon
kills Picton and Delancy.  Ney engages Ponsonby and kills him.
The Prince of Orange is wounded by Soult.  Lord Uxbridge flies to
check the carnage.  He is severely wounded by Napoleon, and only
saved by the assistance of Lord Hill.  In the meantime the Duke
makes a tremendous carnage among the French.  He encounters
General Duhesme and vanquishes him, but spares his life.  He
kills Toubert, who kept the gaming-house in the Palais Royal, and
Maronet, who loved to spend whole nights in drinking champagne.
Clerval, who had been hooted from the stage, and had then become
a captain in the Imperial Guard, wished that he had still
continued to face the more harmless enmity of the Parisian pit.
But Larrey, the son of Esculapius, whom his father had instructed
in all the secrets of his art, and who was surgeon-general of the
French army, embraced the knees of the destroyer, and conjured
him not to give death to one whose office it was to give life.
The Duke raised him, and bade him live.

But we must hasten to the close.  Napoleon rushes to encounter
Wellington.  Both armies stand in mute amaze.  The heroes fire
their pistols; that of Napoleon misses, but that of Wellington,
formed by the hand of Vulcan, and primed by the Cyclops, wounds
the Emperor in the thigh.  He flies, and takes refuge among his
troops.  The flight becomes promiscuous.  The arrival of the
Prussians, from a motive of patriotism, the poet completely
passes over.

BOOK XII.

Things are now hastening to the catastrophe.  Napoleon flies to
London, and, seating himself on the hearth of the Regent,
embraces the household gods and conjures him, by the venerable
age of George III., and by the opening perfections of the
Princess Charlotte, to spare him.  The Prince is inclined to do
so; when, looking on his breast, he sees there the belt of the
Duke of Brunswick.  He instantly draws his sword, and is about to
stab the destroyer of his kinsman.  Piety and hospitality,
however, restrain his hand.  He takes a middle course, and
condemns Napoleon to be exposed on a desert island.  The King of
France re-enters Paris; and the poem concludes.

...


ON MITFORD'S HISTORY OF GREECE.

(November 1824.)

This is a book which enjoys a great and increasing popularity:
but, while it has attracted a considerable share of the public
attention, it has been little noticed by the critics.  Mr Mitford
has almost succeeded in mounting, unperceived by those whose
office it is to watch such aspirants, to a high place among
historians.  He has taken a seat on the dais without being
challenged by a single seneschal.  To oppose the progress of his
fame is now almost a hopeless enterprise.  Had he been reviewed
with candid severity, when he had published only his first
volume, his work would either have deserved its reputation, or
would never have obtained it.  "Then," as Indra says of Kehama,
"then was the time to strike."  The time was neglected; and the
consequence is that Mr Mitford like Kehama, has laid his
victorious hand on the literary Amreeta, and seems about to taste
the precious elixir of immortality.  I shall venture to emulate
the courage of the honest Glendoveer--
"When now
He saw the Amreeta in Kehama's hand,
An impulse that defied all self-command,
In that extremity,
Stung him, and he resolved to seize the cup,
And dare the Rajah's force in Seeva's sight,
Forward he sprung to tempt the unequal fray."

In plain words, I shall offer a few considerations, which may
tend to reduce an overpraised writer to his proper level.

The principal characteristic of this historian, the origin of his
excellencies and his defects, is a love of singularity.  He has
no notion of going with a multitude to do either good or evil.
An exploded opinion, or an unpopular person, has an irresistible
charm for him.  The same perverseness may be traced in his
diction.  His style would never have been elegant; but it might
at least have been manly and perspicuous; and nothing but the
most elaborate care could possibly have made it so bad as it is.
It is distinguished by harsh phrases, strange collocations,
occasional solecisms, frequent obscurity, and, above all, by a
peculiar oddity, which can no more be described than it can be
overlooked.  Nor is this all.  Mr Mitford piques himself on
spelling better than any of his neighbours; and this not only in
ancient names, which he mangles in defiance both of custom and of
reason, but in the most ordinary words of the English language.
It is, in itself, a matter perfectly indifferent whether we call
a foreigner by the name which he bears in his own language, or by
that which corresponds to it in ours; whether we say Lorenzo de
Medici, or Lawrence de Medici, Jean Chauvin, or John Calvin.  In
such cases established usage is considered as law by all writers
except Mr Mitford.  If he were always consistent with himself, he
might be excused for sometimes disagreeing with his neighbours;
but he proceeds on no principle but that of being unlike the rest
of the world.  Every child has heard of Linnaeus; therefore Mr
Mitford calls him Linne:  Rousseau is known all over Europe as
Jean Jacques; therefore Mr Mitford bestows on him the strange
appellation of John James.

Had Mr Mitford undertaken a History of any other country than
Greece, this propensity would have rendered his work useless and
absurd.  His occasional remarks on the affairs of ancient Rome
and of modern Europe are full of errors:  but he writes of times
with respect to which almost every other writer has been in the
wrong; and, therefore, by resolutely deviating from his
predecessors, he is often in the right.

Almost all the modern historians of Greece have shown the
grossest ignorance of the most obvious phenomena of human nature.
In their representations the generals and statesmen of antiquity
are absolutely divested of all individuality.  They are
personifications; they are passions, talents, opinions, virtues,
vices, but not men.  Inconsistency is a thing of which these
writers have no notion.  That a man may have been liberal in his
youth and avaricious in his age, cruel to one enemy and merciful
to another, is to them utterly inconceivable.  If the facts be
undeniable, they suppose some strange and deep design, in order
to explain what, as every one who has observed his own mind
knows, needs no explanation at all.  This is a mode of writing
very acceptable to the multitude who have always been accustomed
to make gods and daemons out of men very little better or worse
than themselves; but it appears contemptible to all who have
watched the changes of human character--to all who have observed
the influence of time, of circumstances, and of associates, on
mankind--to all who have seen a hero in the gout, a democrat in
the church, a pedant in love, or a philosopher in liquor.  This
practice of painting in nothing but black and white is
unpardonable even in the drama.  It is the great fault of
Alfieri; and how much it injures the effect of his compositions
will be obvious to every one who will compare his Rosmunda with
the Lady Macbeth of Shakspeare.  The one is a wicked woman; the
other is a fiend.  Her only feeling is hatred; all her words are
curses.  We are at once shocked and fatigued by the spectacle of
such raving cruelty, excited by no provocation, repeatedly
changing its object, and constant in nothing but in its in-
extinguishable thirst for blood.

In history this error is far more disgraceful.  Indeed, there is
no fault which so completely ruins a narrative in the opinion of
a judicious reader.  We know that the line of demarcation between
good and bad men is so faintly marked as often to elude the most
careful investigation of those who have the best opportunities
for judging.  Public men, above all, are surrounded with so many
temptations and difficulties that some doubt must almost always
hang over their real dispositions and intentions.  The lives of
Pym, Cromwell, Monk, Clarendon, Marlborough, Burnet, Walpole, are
well known to us.  We are acquainted with their actions, their
speeches, their writings; we have abundance of letters and well-
authenticated anecdotes relating to them: yet what candid man
will venture very positively to say which of them were honest and
which of them were dishonest men?  It appears easier to pronounce
decidedly upon the great characters of antiquity, not because we
have greater means of discovering truth, but simply because we
have less means of detecting error.  The modern historians of
Greece have forgotten this.  Their heroes and villains are as
consistent in all their sayings and doings as the cardinal
virtues and the deadly sins in an allegory.  We should as soon
expect a good action from giant Slay-good in Bunyan as from
Dionysius; and a crime of Epaminondas would seem as incongruous
as a faux-pas of the grave and comely damsel called Discretion,
who answered the bell at the door of the house Beautiful.

This error was partly the cause and partly the effect of the high
estimation in which the later ancient writers have been held by
modern scholars.  Those French and English authors who have
treated of the affairs of Greece have generally turned with
contempt from the simple and natural narrations of Thucydides and
Xenophon to the extravagant representations of Plutarch,
Diodorus, Curtius, and other romancers of the same class,--men
who described military operations without ever having handled a
sword, and applied to the seditions of little republics
speculations formed by observation on an empire which covered
half the known world.  Of liberty they knew nothing.  It was to
them a great mystery--a superhuman enjoyment.  They ranted about
liberty and patriotism, from the same cause which leads monks to
talk more ardently than other men about love and women.  A wise
man values political liberty, because it secures the persons and
the possessions of citizens; because it tends to prevent the
extravagance of rulers, and the corruption of judges; because it
gives birth to useful sciences and elegant arts; because it
excites the industry and increases the comforts of all classes of
society.  These theorists imagined that it possessed something
eternally and intrinsically good, distinct from the blessings
which it generally produced.  They considered it not as a means
but as an end; an end to be attained at any cost.  Their
favourite heroes are those who have sacrificed, for the mere name
of freedom, the prosperity--the security--the justice--from which
freedom derives its value.

There is another remarkable characteristic of these writers, in
which their modern worshippers have carefully imitated them--a
great fondness for good stories.  The most established facts,
dates, and characters are never suffered to come into competition
with a splendid saying, or a romantic exploit.  The early
historians have left us natural and simple descriptions of the
great events which they witnessed, and the great men with whom
they associated.  When we read the account which Plutarch
and Rollin have given of the same period, we scarcely know our
old acquaintance again; we are utterly confounded by the melo-
dramatic effect of the narration, and the sublime coxcombry of
the characters.

These are the principal errors into which the predecessors of Mr
Mitford have fallen; and from most of these he is free.  His
faults are of a completely different description.  It is to be
hoped that the students of history may now be saved, like Dorax
in Dryden's play, by swallowing two conflicting poisons, each of
which may serve as an antidote to the other.

The first and most important difference between Mr Mitford and
those who have preceded him is in his narration.  Here the
advantage lies, for the most part, on his side.  His principle is
to follow the contemporary historians, to look with doubt on all
statements which are not in some degree confirmed by them, and
absolutely to reject all which are contradicted by them.  While
he retains the guidance of some writer in whom he can place
confidence, he goes on excellently.  When he loses it, he falls
to the level, or perhaps below the level, of the writers whom he
so much despises: he is as absurd as they, and very much duller.
It is really amusing to observe how he proceeds with his
narration when he has no better authority than poor Diodorus.  He
is compelled to relate something; yet he believes nothing.  He
accompanies every fact with a long statement of objections.  His
account of the administration of Dionysius is in no sense a
history.  It ought to be entitled--"Historic doubts as to certain
events, alleged to have taken place in Sicily."

This scepticism, however, like that of some great legal
characters almost as sceptical as himself; vanishes whenever his
political partialities interfere.  He is a vehement admirer of
tyranny and oligarchy, and considers no evidence as feeble which
can be brought forward in favour of those forms of government.
Democracy he hates with a perfect hatred, a hatred which, in the
first volume of his history, appears only in his episodes and
reflections, but which, in those parts where he has less
reverence for his guides, and can venture to take his own way,
completely distorts even his narration.

In taking up these opinions, I have no doubt that Mr Mitford was
influenced by the same love of singularity which led him to spell
"island" without an "s," and to place two dots over the last
letter of "idea."  In truth, preceding historians have erred so
monstrously on the other side that even the worst parts of Mr
Mitford's book may be useful as a corrective.  For a young
gentleman who talks much about his country, tyrannicide, and
Epaminondas, this work, diluted in a sufficient quantity of
Rollin and Berthelemi, may be a very useful remedy.

The errors of both parties arise from an ignorance or a neglect
of the fundamental principles of political science.  The writers
on one side imagine popular government to be always a blessing;
Mr Mitford omits no opportunity of assuring us that it is always
a curse.  The fact is, that a good government, like a good coat,
is that which fits the body for which it is designed.  A man who,
upon abstract principles, pronounces a constitution to be good,
without an exact knowledge of the people who are to be governed
by it, judges as absurdly as a tailor who should measure the
Belvidere Apollo for the clothes of all his customers.  The
demagogues who wished to see Portugal a republic, and the wise
critics who revile the Virginians for not having instituted a
peerage, appear equally ridiculous to all men of sense and
candour.

That is the best government which desires to make the people
happy, and knows how to make them happy.  Neither the inclination
nor the knowledge will suffice alone; and it is difficult to find
them together.

Pure democracy, and pure democracy alone, satisfies the former
condition of this great problem.  That the governors may be
solicitous only for the interests of the governed, it is
necessary that the interests of the governors and the governed
should be the same.  This cannot be often the case where power is
intrusted to one or to a few.  The privileged part of the
community will doubtless derive a certain degree of advantage
from the general prosperity of the state; but they will derive a
greater from oppression and exaction.  The king will desire an
useless war for his glory, or a parc-aux-cerfs for his pleasure.
The nobles will demand monopolies and lettres-de-cachet.  In
proportion as the number of governors is increased the evil is
diminished.  There are fewer to contribute, and more to receive.
The dividend which each can obtain of the public plunder becomes
less and less tempting.  But the interests of the subjects and
the rulers never absolutely coincide till the subjects themselves
become the rulers, that is, till the government be either
immediately or mediately democratical.

But this is not enough.  "Will without power," said the sagacious
Casimir to Milor Beefington, "is like children playing at
soldiers."  The people will always be desirous to promote their
own interests; but it may be doubted, whether, in any community,
they were ever sufficiently educated to understand them.  Even in
this island, where the multitude have long been better informed
than in any other part of Europe, the rights of the many have
generally been asserted against themselves by the patriotism of
the few.  Free trade, one of the greatest blessings which a
government can confer on a people, is in almost every country
unpopular.  It may be well doubted, whether a liberal policy with
regard to our commercial relations would find any support from a
parliament elected by universal suffrage.  The republicans on the
other side of the Atlantic have recently adopted regulations of
which the consequences will, before long, show us,

"How nations sink, by darling schemes oppressed,
When vengeance listens to the fool's request."

The people are to be governed for their own good; and, that they
may be governed for their own good, they must not be governed by
their own ignorance.  There are countries in which it would be as
absurd to establish popular government as to abolish all the
restraints in a school, or to untie all the strait-waistcoats in
a madhouse.

Hence it may be concluded that the happiest state of society is
that in which supreme power resides in the whole body of a well-
informed people.  This is an imaginary, perhaps an unattainable,
state of things.  Yet, in some measure, we may approximate to it;
and he alone deserves the name of a great statesman, whose
principle it is to extend the power of the people in proportion
to the extent of their knowledge, and to give them every facility
for obtaining such a degree of knowledge as may render it safe to
trust them with absolute power.  In the mean time, it is
dangerous to praise or condemn constitutions in the abstract;
since, from the despotism of St Petersburg to the democracy of
Washington, there is scarcely a form of government which might
not, at least in some hypothetical case, be the best possible.

If, however, there be any form of government which in all ages
and all nations has always been, and must always be, pernicious,
it is certainly that which Mr Mitford, on his usual principle of
being wiser than all the rest of the world, has taken under his
especial patronage--pure oligarchy.  This is closely, and indeed
inseparably, connected with another of his eccentric tastes, a
marked partiality for Lacedaemon, and a dislike of Athens.  Mr
Mitford's book has, I suspect, rendered these sentiments in some
degree popular; and I shall, therefore, examine them at some
length.

The shades in the Athenian character strike the eye more rapidly
than those in the Lacedaemonian:  not because they are darker,
but because they are on a brighter ground.  The law of ostracism
is an instance of this.  Nothing can be conceived more odious
than the practice of punishing a citizen, simply and professedly,
for his eminence;--and nothing in the institutions of Athens is
more frequently or more justly censured.  Lacedaemon was free
from this.  And why? Lacedaemon did not need it.  Oligarchy is an
ostracism of itself,--an ostracism not occasional, but permanent,
--not dubious, but certain.  Her laws prevented the development
of merit instead of attacking its maturity.  They did not cut
down the plant in its high and palmy state, but cursed the soil
with eternal sterility.  In spite of the law of ostracism, Athens
produced, within a hundred and fifty years, the greatest public
men that ever existed.  Whom had Sparta to ostracise?  She
produced, at most, four eminent men, Brasidas, Gylippus,
Lysander, and Agesilaus.  Of these, not one rose to distinction
within her jurisdiction.  It was only when they escaped from the
region within which the influence of aristocracy withered
everything good and noble, it was only when they ceased to be
Lacedaemonians, that they became great men.  Brasidas, among the
cities of Thrace, was strictly a democratical leader, the
favourite minister and general of the people.  The same may be
said of Gylippus, at Syracuse.  Lysander, in the Hellespont, and
Agesilaus, in Asia, were liberated for a time from the hateful
restraints imposed by the constitution of Lycurgus.  Both
acquired fame abroad; and both returned to be watched and
depressed at home.  This is not peculiar to Sparta.  Oligarchy,
wherever it has existed, has always stunted the growth of genius.
Thus it was at Rome, till about a century before the Christian
era:  we read of abundance of consuls and dictators who won
battles, and enjoyed triumphs; but we look in vain for a single
man of the first order of intellect,--for a Pericles, a
Demosthenes, or a Hannibal.  The Gracchi formed a strong
democratical party; Marius revived it; the foundations of the old
aristocracy were shaken; and two generations fertile in really
great men appeared.

Venice is a still more remarkable instance:  in her history we
see nothing but the state; aristocracy had destroyed every seed
of genius and virtue.  Her dominion was like herself, lofty and
magnificent, but founded on filth and weeds.  God forbid that
there should ever again exist a powerful and civilised state,
which, after existing through thirteen hundred eventful years,
should not bequeath to mankind the memory of one great name or
one generous action.

Many writers, and Mr Mitford among the number, have admired the
stability of the Spartan institutions; in fact, there is little
to admire, and less to approve.  Oligarchy is the weakest and the
most stable of governments; and it is stable because it is weak.
It has a sort of valetudinarian longevity; it lives in the
balance of Sanctorius; it takes no exercise; it exposes itself to
no accident; it is seized with an hypochondriac alarm at every
new sensation; it trembles at every breath; it lets blood for
every inflammation: and thus, without ever enjoying a day of
health or pleasure, drags on its existence to a doting and
debilitated old age.

The Spartans purchased for their government a prolongation of its
existence by the sacrifice of happiness at home and dignity
abroad.  They cringed to the powerful; they trampled on the weak;
they massacred their helots; they betrayed their allies; they
contrived to be a day too late for the battle of Marathon; they
attempted to avoid the battle of Salamis; they suffered the
Athenians, to whom they owed their lives and liberties, to be a
second time driven from their country by the Persians, that they
might finish their own fortifications on the Isthmus; they
attempted to take advantage of the distress to which exertions in
their cause had reduced their preservers, in order to make them
their slaves; they strove to prevent those who had abandoned
their walls to defend them, from rebuilding them to defend
themselves; they commenced the Peloponnesian war in violation of
their engagements with Athens; they abandoned it in violation of
their engagements with their allies; they gave up to the sword
whole cities which had placed themselves under their protection;
they bartered, for advantages confined to themselves, the
interest, the freedom, and the lives of those who had served them
most faithfully; they took with equal complacency, and equal
infamy, the stripes of Elis and the bribes of Persia; they never
showed either resentment or gratitude; they abstained from no
injury, and they revenged none.  Above all, they looked on a
citizen who served them well as their deadliest enemy.  These are
the arts which protract the existence of government.

Nor were the domestic institutions of Lacedaemon less hateful or
less contemptible than her foreign policy.  A perpetual
interference with every part of the system of human life, a
constant struggle against nature and reason, characterised all
her laws.  To violate even prejudices which have taken deep root
in the minds of a people is scarcely expedient; to think of
extirpating natural appetites and passions is frantic:  the
external symptoms may be occasionally repressed; but the feeling
still exists, and, debarred from its natural objects, preys on
the disordered mind and body of its victim.  Thus it is in
convents---thus it is among ascetic sects--thus it was among the
Lacedaemonians.  Hence arose that madness, or violence
approaching to madness, which, in spite of every external
restraint, often appeared among the most distinguished citizens
of Sparta.  Cleomenes terminated his career of raving cruelty by
cutting himself to pieces.  Pausanias seems to have been
absolutely insane; he formed a hopeless and profligate scheme; he
betrayed it by the ostentation of his behaviour, and the
imprudence of his measures; and he alienated, by his insolence,
all who might have served or protected him.  Xenophon, a warm
admirer of Lacedaemon, furnishes us with the strongest evidence
to this effect.  It is impossible not to observe the brutal and
senseless fury which characterises almost every Spartan with whom
he was connected.  Clearchus nearly lost his life by his cruelty.
Chirisophus deprived his army of the services of a faithful guide
by his unreasonable and ferocious severity.  But it is needless
to multiply instances.  Lycurgus, Mr Mitford's favourite
legislator, founded his whole system on a mistaken principle.  He
never considered that governments were made for men, and not men
for governments.  Instead of adapting the constitution to the
people, he distorted the minds of the people to suit the
constitution, a scheme worthy of the Laputan Academy of
Projectors.  And this appears to Mr Mitford to constitute his
peculiar title to admiration.  Hear himself:  "What to modern
eyes most strikingly sets that extraordinary man above all other
legislators is, that in so many circumstances, apparently out of
the reach of law, he controlled and formed to his own mind the
wills and habits of his people."  I should suppose that this
gentleman had the advantage of receiving his education under the
ferula of Dr Pangloss; for his metaphysics are clearly those of
the castle of Thunder-ten-tronckh:  "Remarquez bien que les nez
ont ete faits pour porter des lunettes, aussi avons nous des
lunettes.  Les jambes sont visiblement institues pour etre
chaussees, et nous avons des chausses.  Les cochons etant faits
pour etre manges, nous mangeons du porc toute l'annee."

At Athens the laws did not constantly interfere with the tastes
of the people.  The children were not taken from their parents by
that universal step-mother, the state.  They were not starved
into thieves, or tortured into bullies; there was no established
table at which every one must dine, no established style in which
every one must converse.  An Athenian might eat whatever he could
afford to buy, and talk as long as he could find people to
listen.  The government did not tell the people what opinions
they were to hold, or what songs they were to sing.  Freedom
produced excellence.  Thus philosophy took its origin.  Thus were
produced those models of poetry, of oratory, and of the arts,
which scarcely fall short of the standard of ideal excellence.
Nothing is more conducive to happiness than the free exercise of
the mind in pursuits congenial to it.  This happiness, assuredly,
was enjoyed far more at Athens than at Sparta.  The Athenians are
acknowledged even by their enemies to have been distinguished, in
private life, by their courteous and amiable demeanour.  Their
levity, at least, was better than Spartan sullenness and their
impertinence than Spartan insolence.  Even in courage it may be
questioned whether they were inferior to the Lacedaemonians.  The
great Athenian historian has reported a remarkable observation of
the great Athenian minister.  Pericles maintained that his
countrymen, without submitting to the hardships of a Spartan
education, rivalled all the achievements of Spartan valour, and
that therefore the pleasures and amusements which they enjoyed
were to be considered as so much clear gain.  The infantry of
Athens was certainly not equal to that of Lacedaemon; but this
seems to have been caused merely by want of practice:  the
attention of the Athenians was diverted from the discipline of
the phalanx to that of the trireme.  The Lacedaemonians, in spite
of all their boasted valour, were, from the same cause, timid and
disorderly in naval action.

But we are told that crimes of great enormity were perpetrated by
the Athenian government, and the democracies under its
protection.  It is true that Athens too often acted up to the
full extent of the laws of war in an age when those laws had not
been mitigated by causes which have operated in later times.
This accusation is, in fact, common to Athens, to Lacedaemon, to
all the states of Greece, and to all states similarly situated.
Where communities are very large, the heavier evils of war are
felt but by few.  The ploughboy sings, the spinning-wheel turns
round, the wedding-day is fixed, whether the last battle were
lost or won.  In little states it cannot be thus; every man feels
in his own property and person the effect of a war.  Every man is
a soldier, and a soldier fighting for his nearest interests.  His
own trees have been cut down--his own corn has been burnt--his
own house has been pillaged--his own relations have been killed.
How can he entertain towards the enemies of his country the same
feelings with one who has suffered nothing from them, except
perhaps the addition of a small sum to the taxes which he pays?
Men in such circumstances cannot be generous.  They have too much
at stake.  It is when they are, if I may so express myself,
playing for love, it is when war is a mere game at chess, it is
when they are contending for a remote colony, a frontier town,
the honours of a flag, a salute, or a title, that they can make
fine speeches, and do good offices to their enemies.  The Black
Prince waited behind the chair of his captive; Villars
interchanged repartees with Eugene; George II. sent
congratulations to Louis XV., during a war, upon occasion of his
escape from the attempt of Damien:  and these things are fine and
generous, and very gratifying to the author of the Broad Stone of
Honour, and all the other wise men who think, like him, that God
made the world only for the use of gentlemen.  But they spring in
general from utter heartlessness.  No war ought ever to be
undertaken but under circumstances which render all interchange
of courtesy between the combatants impossible.  It is a bad thing
that men should hate each other; but it is far worse that they
should contract the habit of cutting one another's throats
without hatred.  War is never lenient, but where it is wanton;
when men are compelled to fight in selfdefence, they must hate
and avenge:  this may be bad; but it is human nature; it is the
clay as it came from the hand of the potter.

It is true that among the dependencies of Athens seditions
assumed a character more ferocious than even in France, during
the reign of terror--the accursed Saturnalia of an accursed
bondage.  It is true that in Athens itself, where such
convulsions were scarcely known, the condition of the higher
orders was disagreeable; that they were compelled to contribute
large sums for the service or the amusement of the public; and
that they were sometimes harassed by vexatious informers.
Whenever such cases occur, Mr Mitford's scepticism vanishes.  The
"if," the "but," the "it is said," the "if we may believe," with
which he qualifies every charge against a tyrant or an
aristocracy, are at once abandoned.  The blacker the story, the
firmer is his belief, and he never fails to inveigh with hearty
bitterness against democracy as the source of every species of
crime.

The Athenians, I believe, possessed more liberty than was good
for them.  Yet I will venture to assert that, while the
splendour, the intelligence, and the energy of that great people
were peculiar to themselves, the crimes with which they are
charged arose from causes which were common to them with every
other state which then existed.  The violence of faction in that
age sprung from a cause which has always been fertile in every
political and moral evil, domestic slavery.

The effect of slavery is completely to dissolve the connection
which naturally exists between the higher and lower classes of
free citizens.  The rich spend their wealth in purchasing and
maintaining slaves.  There is no demand for the labour of the
poor; the fable of Menenius ceases to be applicable; the belly
communicates no nutriment to the members; there is an atrophy in
the body politic.  The two parties, therefore, proceed to
extremities utterly unknown in countries where they have mutually
need of each other.  In Rome the oligarchy was too powerful to be
subverted by force; and neither the tribunes nor the popular
assemblies, though constitutionally omnipotent, could maintain a
successful contest against men who possessed the whole property
of the state.  Hence the necessity for measures tending to
unsettle the whole frame of society, and to take away every
motive of industry; the abolition of debts, and the agrarian
laws--propositions absurdly condemned by men who do not consider
the circumstances from which they sprung.  They were the
desperate remedies of a desperate disease.  In Greece the
oligarchical interest was not in general so deeply rooted as at
Rome.  The multitude, therefore, often redressed by force
grievances which, at Rome, were commonly attacked under the forms
of the constitution.  They drove out or massacred the rich, and
divided their property.  If the superior union or military skill
of the rich rendered them victorious, they took measures equally
violent, disarmed all in whom they could not confide, often
slaughtered great numbers, and occasionally expelled the whole
commonalty from the city, and remained, with their slaves, the
sole inhabitants.

From such calamities Athens and Lacedaemon alone were almost
completely free.  At Athens the purses of the rich were laid
under regular contribution for the support of the poor; and this,
rightly considered, was as much a favour to the givers as to the
receivers, since no other measure could possibly have saved their
houses from pillage and their persons from violence.  It is
singular that Mr Mitford should perpetually reprobate a policy
which was the best that could be pursued in such a state of
things, and which alone saved Athens from the frightful outrages
which were perpetrated at Corcyra.

Lacedaemon, cursed with a system of slavery more odious than has
ever existed in any other country, avoided this evil by almost
totally annihilating private property.  Lycurgus began by an
agrarian law.  He abolished all professions except that of arms;
he made the whole of his community a standing army, every member
of which had a common right to the services of a crowd of
miserable bondmen; he secured the state from sedition at the
expense of the Helots.  Of all the parts of his system this is
the most creditable to his head, and the most disgraceful to his
heart.

These considerations, and many others of equal importance, Mr
Mitford has neglected; but he has yet a heavier charge to answer.
He has made not only illogical inferences, but false statements.
While he never states, without qualifications and objections, the
charges which the earliest and best historians have brought
against his favourite tyrants, Pisistratus, Hippias, and Gelon,
he transcribes, without any hesitation, the grossest abuse of the
least authoritative writers against every democracy and every
demagogue.  Such an accusation should not be made without being
supported; and I will therefore select one out of many passages
which will fully substantiate the charge, and convict Mr Mitford
of wilful misrepresentation, or of negligence scarcely less
culpable.  Mr Mitford is speaking of one of the greatest men that
ever lived, Demosthenes, and comparing him with his rival,
Aeschines.  Let him speak for himself.

"In earliest youth Demosthenes earned an opprobrious nickname by
the effeminacy of his dress and manner."  Does Mr Mitford know
that Demosthenes denied this charge, and explained the nickname
in a perfectly different manner?  (See the speech of Aeschines
against Timarchus.)  And, if he knew it, should he not have
stated it?  He proceeds thus:  "On emerging from minority, by the
Athenian law, at five-and-twenty, he earned another opprobrious
nickname by a prosecution of his guardians, which was considered
as a dishonourable attempt to extort money from them."  In the
first place Demosthenes was not five-and-twenty years of age.  Mr
Mitford might have learned, from so common a book as the
Archaeologia of Archbishop Potter, that at twenty Athenian
citizens were freed from the control of their guardians, and
began to manage their own property.  The very speech of
Demosthenes against his guardians proves most satisfactorily that
he was under twenty.  In his speech against Midias, he says that
when he undertook that prosecution he was quite a boy.
(Meirakullion on komide.)  His youth might, therefore, excuse the
step, even if it had been considered, as Mr Mitford says, a
dishonourable attempt to extort money.  But who considered it as
such?  Not the judges who condemned the guardians.  The Athenian
courts of justice were not the purest in the world; but their
decisions were at least as likely to be just as the abuse of a
deadly enemy.  Mr Mitford refers for confirmation of his
statement to Aeschines and Plutarch.  Aeschines by no means bears
him out; and Plutarch directly contradicts him.  "Not long
after," says Mr Mitford, "he took blows publicly in the theater"
(I preserve the orthography, if it can be so called, of this
historian) "from a petulant youth of rank, named Meidias."  Here
are two disgraceful mistakes.  In the first place, it was long
after; eight years at the very least, probably much more.  In the
next place the petulant youth, of whom Mr Mitford speaks, was
fifty years old.  (Whoever will read the speech of Demosthenes
against Midias will find the statements in the text confirmed,
and will have, moreover, the pleasure of becoming acquainted with
one of the finest compositions in the world.)  Really Mr Mitford
has less reason to censure the carelessness of his predecessors
than to reform his own.  After this monstrous inaccuracy, with
regard to facts, we may be able to judge what degree of credit
ought to be given to the vague abuse of such a writer.  "The
cowardice of Demosthenes in the field afterwards became
notorious."  Demosthenes was a civil character; war was not his
business.  In his time the division between military and
political offices was beginning to be strongly marked; yet the
recollection of the days when every citizen was a soldier was
still recent.  In such states of society a certain degree of
disrepute always attaches to sedentary men; but that any leader
of the Athenian democracy could have been, as Mr Mitford says of
Demosthenes, a few lines before, remarkable for "an extraordinary
deficiency of personal courage," is absolutely impossible.  What
mercenary warrior of the time exposed his life to greater or more
constant perils?  Was there a single soldier at Chaeronea who had
more cause to tremble for his safety than the orator, who, in
case of defeat, could scarcely hope for mercy from the people
whom he had misled or the prince whom he had opposed?  Were not
the ordinary fluctuations of popular feeling enough to deter any
coward from engaging in political conflicts?  Isocrates, whom Mr
Mitford extols, because he constantly employed all the flowers of
his school-boy rhetoric to decorate oligarchy and tyranny,
avoided the judicial and political meetings of Athens from mere
timidity, and seems to have hated democracy only because he durst
not look a popular assembly in the face.  Demosthenes was a man
of a feeble constitution:  his nerves were weak, but his spirit
was high; and the energy and enthusiasm of his feelings supported
him through life and in death.

So much for Demosthenes.  Now for the orator of aristocracy.  I
do not wish to abuse Aeschines.  He may have been an honest man.
He was certainly a great man; and I feel a reverence, of which Mr
Mitford seems to have no notion, for great men of every party.
But, when Mr Mitford says that the private character of Aeschines
was without stain, does he remember what Aeschines has himself
confessed in his speech against Timarchus?  I can make
allowances, as well as Mr Mitford, for persons who lived under a
different system of laws and morals; but let them be made
impartially.  If Demosthenes is to be attacked on account of some
childish improprieties, proved only by the assertion of an
antagonist, what shall we say of those maturer vices which that
antagonist has himself acknowledged?  "Against the private
character of Aeschines," says Mr Mitford, "Demosthenes seems not
to have had an insinuation to oppose."  Has Mr Mitford ever read
the speech of Demosthenes on the Embassy?  Or can he have
forgotten, what was never forgotten by anyone else who ever read
it, the story which Demosthenes relates with such terrible energy
of language concerning the drunken brutality of his rival?  True
or false, here is something more than an insinuation; and nothing
can vindicate the historian, who has overlooked it, from the
charge of negligence or of partiality.  But Aeschines denied the
story.  And did not Demosthenes also deny the story respecting
his childish nickname, which Mr Mitford has nevertheless told
without any qualification?  But the judges, or some part of them,
showed, by their clamour, their disbelief of the relation of
Demosthenes.  And did not the judges, who tried the cause between
Demosthenes and his guardians, indicate, in a much clearer
manner, their approbation of the prosecution?  But Demosthenes
was a demagogue, and is to be slandered.  Aeschines was an
aristocrat, and is to be panegyrised.  Is this a history, or a
party-pamphlet?

These passages, all selected from a single page of Mr Mitford's
work, may give some notion to those readers, who have not the
means of comparing his statements with the original authorities,
of his extreme partiality and carelessness.  Indeed, whenever
this historian mentions Demosthenes, he violates all the laws of
candour and even of decency; he weighs no authorities; he makes
no allowances; he forgets the best authenticated facts in the
history of the times, and the most generally recognised
principles of human nature.  The opposition of the great orator
to the policy of Philip he represents as neither more nor less
than deliberate villany.  I hold almost the same opinion with Mr
Mitford respecting the character and the views of that great and
accomplished prince.  But am I, therefore, to pronounce
Demosthenes profligate and insincere?  Surely not.  Do we not
perpetually see men of the greatest talents and the purest
intentions misled by national or factious prejudices?  The most
respectable people in England were, little more than forty years
ago, in the habit of uttering the bitterest abuse against
Washington and Franklin.  It is certainly to be regretted that
men should err so grossly in their estimate of character.  But no
person who knows anything of human nature will impute such errors
to depravity.

Mr Mitford is not more consistent with himself than with reason.
Though he is the advocate of all oligarchies, he is also a warm
admirer of all kings, and of all citizens who raised themselves
to that species of sovereignty which the Greeks denominated
tyranny.  If monarchy, as Mr Mitford holds, be in itself a
blessing, democracy must be a better form of government than
aristocracy, which is always opposed to the supremacy, and even
to the eminence, of individuals.  On the other hand, it is but
one step that separates the demagogue and the sovereign.

If this article had not extended itself to so great a length, I
should offer a few observations on some other peculiarities of
this writer,--his general preference of the Barbarians to the
Greeks,--his predilection for Persians, Carthaginians, Thracians,
for all nations, in short, except that great and enlightened
nation of which he is the historian.  But I will confine myself
to a single topic.

Mr Mitford has remarked, with truth and spirit, that "any history
perfectly written, but especially a Grecian history perfectly
written should be a political institute for all nations."  It has
not occurred to him that a Grecian history, perfectly written,
should also be a complete record of the rise and progress of
poetry, philosophy, and the arts.  Here his work is extremely
deficient.  Indeed, though it may seem a strange thing to say of
a gentleman who has published so many quartos, Mr Mitford seems
to entertain a feeling, bordering on contempt, for literary and
speculative pursuits.  The talents of action almost exclusively
attract his notice; and he talks with very complacent disdain of
"the idle learned."  Homer, indeed, he admires; but principally,
I am afraid, because he is convinced that Homer could neither
read nor write.  He could not avoid speaking of Socrates; but he
has been far more solicitous to trace his death to political
causes, and to deduce from it consequences unfavourable to
Athens, and to popular governments, than to throw light on the
character and doctrines of the wonderful man,

"From whose mouth issued forth
Mellifluous streams that watered all the schools
Of Academics, old and new, with those
Surnamed Peripatetics, and the sect
Epicurean, and the Stoic severe."

He does not seem to be aware that Demosthenes was a great orator;
he represents him sometimes as an aspirant demagogue, sometimes
as an adroit negotiator, and always as a great rogue.  But that
in which the Athenian excelled all men of all ages, that
irresistible eloquence, which at the distance of more than two
thousand years stirs our blood, and brings tears into our eyes,
he passes by with a few phrases of commonplace commendation.  The
origin of the drama, the doctrines of the sophists, the course of
Athenian education, the state of the arts and sciences, the whole
domestic system of the Greeks, he has almost completely
neglected.  Yet these things will appear, to a reflecting man,
scarcely less worthy of attention than the taking of Sphacteria
or the discipline of the targeteers of Iphicrates.

This, indeed, is a deficiency by no means peculiar to Mr Mitford.
Most people seem to imagine that a detail of public occurrences--
the operations of sieges---the changes of administrations--the
treaties--the conspiracies--the rebellions--is a complete
history.  Differences of definition are logically unimportant;
but practically they sometimes produce the most momentous
effects.  Thus it has been in the present case.  Historians have,
almost without exception, confined themselves to the public
transactions of states, and have left to the negligent
administration of writers of fiction a province at least equally
extensive and valuable.

All wise statesmen have agreed to consider the prosperity or
adversity of nations as made up of the happiness or misery of
individuals, and to reject as chimerical all notions of a public
interest of the community, distinct from the interest of the
component parts.  It is therefore strange that those whose office
it is to supply statesmen with examples and warnings should omit,
as too mean for the dignity of history, circumstances which exert
the most extensive influence on the state of society.  In
general, the under current of human life flows steadily on,
unruffled by the storms which agitate the surface.  The happiness
of the many commonly depends on causes independent of victories
or defeats, of revolutions or restorations,--causes which can be
regulated by no laws, and which are recorded in no archives.
These causes are the things which it is of main importance to us
to know, not how the Lacedaemonian phalanx was broken at
Leuctra,--not whether Alexander died of poison or by disease.
History, without these, is a shell without a kernel; and such is
almost all the history which is extant in the world.  Paltry
skirmishes and plots are reported with absurd and useless
minuteness; but improvements the most essential to the comfort of
human life extend themselves over the world, and introduce
themselves into every cottage, before any annalist can
condescend, from the dignity of writing about generals and
ambassadors, to take the least notice of them.  Thus the progress
of the most salutary inventions and discoveries is buried in
impenetrable mystery; mankind are deprived of a most useful
species of knowledge, and their benefactors of their honest fame.
In the meantime every child knows by heart the dates and
adventures of a long line of barbarian kings.  The history of
nations, in the sense in which I use the word, is often best
studied in works not professedly historical.  Thucydides, as far
as he goes, is an excellent writer; yet he affords us far less
knowledge of the most important particulars relating to Athens
than Plato or Aristophanes.  The little treatise of Xenophon on
Domestic Economy contains more historical information than all
the seven books of his Hellenics.  The same may be said of the
Satires of Horace, of the Letters of Cicero, of the novels of Le
Sage, of the memoirs of Marmontel.  Many others might be
mentioned; but these sufficiently illustrate my meaning.

I would hope that there may yet appear a writer who may despise
the present narrow limits, and assert the rights of history over
every part of her natural domain.  Should such a writer engage in
that enterprise, in which I cannot but consider Mr Mitford as
having failed, he will record, indeed, all that is interesting
and important in military and political transactions; but he will
not think anything too trivial for the gravity of history which
is not too trivial to promote or diminish the happiness of man.
He will portray in vivid colours the domestic society, the
manners, the amusements, the conversation of the Greeks.  He will
not disdain to discuss the state of agriculture, of the
mechanical arts, and of the conveniences of life.  The progress
of painting, of sculpture, and of architecture, will form an
important part of his plan.  But, above all, his attention will
be given to the history of that splendid literature from which
has sprung all the strength, the wisdom, the freedom, and the
glory, of the western world.

Of the indifference which Mr Mitford shows on this subject I will
not speak; for I cannot speak with fairness.  It is a subject on
which I love to forget the accuracy of a judge, in the veneration
of a worshipper and the gratitude of a child.  If we consider
merely the subtlety of disquisition, the force of imagination,
the perfect energy and elegance of expression which characterise
the great works of Athenian genius, we must pronounce them
intrinsically most valuable; but what shall we say when we
reflect that from hence have sprung directly or indirectly, all
the noblest creations of the human intellect; that from hence
were the vast accomplishments and the brilliant fancy of Cicero;
the withering fire of Juvenal; the plastic imagination of Dante;
the humour of Cervantes; the comprehension of Bacon; the wit of
Butler; the supreme and universal excellence of Shakspeare?  All
the triumphs of truth and genius over prejudice and power, in
every country and in every age, have been the triumphs of Athens.
Wherever a few great minds have made a stand against violence and
fraud, in the cause of liberty and reason, there has been her
spirit in the midst of them; inspiring, encouraging, consoling;--
by the lonely lamp of Erasmus; by the restless bed of Pascal; in
the tribune of Mirabeau; in the cell of Galileo; on the scaffold
of Sidney.  But who shall estimate her influence on private
happiness?  Who shall say how many thousands have been made
wiser, happier, and better, by those pursuits in which she has
taught mankind to engage:  to how many the studies which took
their rise from her have been wealth in poverty,--liberty in
bondage,--health in sickness,--society in solitude?  Her power is
indeed manifested at the bar, in the senate, in the field of
battle, in the schools of philosophy.  But these are not her
glory.  Wherever literature consoles sorrow, or assuages pain,--
wherever it brings gladness to eyes which fail with wakefulness
and tears, and ache for the dark house and the long sleep,--there
is exhibited, in its noblest form, the immortal influence of
Athens.

The dervise, in the Arabian tale, did not hesitate to abandon to
his comrade the camels with their load of jewels and gold, while
he retained the casket of that mysterious juice which enabled him
to behold at one glance all the hidden riches of the universe.
Surely it is no exaggeration to say that no external advantage is
to be compared with that purification of the intellectual eye
which gives us to contemplate the infinite wealth of the mental
world, all the hoarded treasures of its primeval dynasties, all
the shapeless ore of its yet unexplored mines.  This is the gift
of Athens to man.  Her freedom and her power have for more than
twenty centuries been annihilated; her people have degenerated
into timid slaves; her language into a barbarous jargon; her
temples have been given up to the successive depredations of
Romans, Turks, and Scotchmen; but her intellectual empire is
imperishable.  And when those who have rivalled her greatness
shall have shared her fate; when civilisation and knowledge shall
have fixed their abode in distant continents; when the sceptre
shall have passed away from England; when, perhaps, travellers
from distant regions shall in vain labour to decipher on some
mouldering pedestal the name of our proudest chief; shall hear
savage hymns chaunted to some misshapen idol over the ruined dome
of our proudest temple; and shall see a single naked fisherman
wash his nets in the river of the ten thousand masts;--her
influence and her glory will still survive,--fresh in eternal
youth, exempt from mutability and decay, immortal as the
intellectual principle from which they derived their origin, and
over which they exercise their control.





End of this Project Gutenberg Etext of The Miscellaneous Writings
and Speeches of Lord Macaulay, Volume I.