COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY STUDIES IN ENGLISH
AND COMPARATIVE LITERATURE
BYRON AS A SATIRIST IN VERSE
COLUMBIA
UNIVERSITY PRESS
SALES AGENTS
NEW YORK:
LEMCKE & BUECHNER
30–32 WEST 27TH STREET
LONDON:
HENRY FROWDE
AMEN CORNER, E.C.
TORONTO:
HENRY FROWDE
25 RICHMOND STREET, W.
LORD BYRON AS A SATIRIST IN VERSE
BY
CLAUDE M. FUESS
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY, IN THE
FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
NEW YORK
1912
Copyright, 1912
BY COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS
Printed from type, July, 1912
_All rights reserved_
_This Monograph has been approved by the Department of English and
Comparative Literature in Columbia University as a contribution to
knowledge worthy of publication._
A. H. THORNDIKE,
_Secretary_.
To
MY WIFE
PREFACE
This dissertation is an out-growth of some studies in English satire,
particularly in the eighteenth century, and the book is to be regarded
merely as a chapter in the history of English satiric poetry as a
whole. The initial suggestion for this special phase of the broader
subject came from Professor W. P. Trent, to whose wide scholarship
and suggestive comment I have been throughout under great obligation.
Professor A. H. Thorndike, who, with Professor Trent, read the work
in manuscript, contributed valuable advice regarding its arrangement
and contents; while Professor J. B. Fletcher was of much assistance
in criticising the sections dealing with Byron’s indebtedness to the
Italian poets. My colleague, Mr. A. W. Leonard, read the first two
chapters, and offered much aid in connection with their style and
structure. It is a pleasure to acknowledge the stimulus given by
my studies under various members of the Departments of English and
Comparative Literature at Columbia University, among them the late
Professor G. R. Carpenter, Professor W. A. Neilson, now at Harvard, Mr.
J. E. Spingarn, and Professors Krapp, Lawrence, and Matthews.
C. M. F.
PHILLIPS ACADEMY, ANDOVER,
_June 19, 1912_.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I.--INTRODUCTORY 1
II.--ENGLISH SATIRE FROM DRYDEN TO BYRON 10
III.--BYRON’S EARLY SATIRIC VERSE 39
IV.--“ENGLISH BARDS, AND SCOTCH REVIEWERS” 48
V.--“HINTS FROM HORACE” AND “THE CURSE OF MINERVA” 77
VI.--THE PERIOD OF TRANSITION 93
VII.--THE ITALIAN INFLUENCE 113
VIII.--“DON JUAN” 163
IX.--“THE VISION OF JUDGMENT” 188
X.--“THE AGE OF BRONZE” AND “THE BLUES” 202
XI.--CONCLUSION 210
BIBLIOGRAPHY 219
INDEX 225
Lord Byron as a Satirist in Verse
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTORY
Byron’s puzzling character and fascinating career have been tempting
themes for many biographers, little and great, from Sir Egerton Brydges
and Tom Moore to Professor Emil Koeppel and Mr. Richard Edgcumbe. His
literary product, too, has been, for the most part, so carefully and
exhaustively treated by the critics of many nationalities that there
is small excuse for adding one more volume to a bibliography already
so comprehensive. It happens, however, that though his contribution to
satiric poetry was extensive and important, his actual work in that
field has been made the subject of no intensive study. It is the object
of this essay to fill this gap by considering, so far as it is possible
in a brief treatise, the special qualities which distinguish Byron’s
satiric spirit, and by analyzing and classifying the modifications
of that spirit as they are shown in his poetry. The wide range of
material to be investigated naturally precludes any attention to the
events of his life, except when these throw light on the inception or
composition of particular satires. Nor is it practicable to devote
any space, except by way of illustration or reference, to his poetry
in general, or to his letters and prose pamphlets. The scope of the
dissertation will be restricted to include a discussion only of his
satire in verse.
The lamentable absence of any established body of criteria available
as a basis for the study of satire is a difficulty which must be
recognized and met at the very outset. First of all, therefore, it is
necessary to make clear just what matter is to be included under the
rather vague heading, satire. Broadly speaking, satire comprises any
manifestation of the satiric spirit in literature; but this statement
is really evasive, since the satiric spirit, like the romantic spirit,
is intangible and not susceptible to precise definition. In general, as
Professor Tucker has pointed out, the essential feature of the satiric
spirit, wherever found, is its disposition to tear down and destroy.
Variations in temper and aim may exist in different satirists; other
subservient emotions may appear and other feelings may operate, in
individual cases, to modify the underlying mood; but fundamentally the
satiric spirit is negative and pessimistic.[1] It furthers disillusion
by confronting romance with realism and fiction with fact. The satirist
thus perceives and exposes incongruity, the discrepancy between
profession and performance. He is actuated always by a destructive
motive, and it is his function to condemn and to reprove.
Humor is, of course, usually a concomitant of satire, but authorities
differ as to its value. Dryden, considering the question from the
standpoint of the literary artist, says:--“The nicest and most delicate
touches of satire consist in fine raillery.” Gifford, posing as a
moralist, takes another position:--“To raise a laugh at vice is not
the legitimate office of satire, which is to hold up the vicious, as
objects of reprobation and scorn, for the example of others, who may be
deterred by their sufferings.” When humor is wanting and the mood is
entirely vituperative, the result is invective, which some critics are
desirous of excluding arbitrarily from satire. But however advantageous
it may be, for practical reasons, to limit the application of the word
satire, it is difficult to neglect invective; and in this essay, since
a considerable part of Byron’s so-called satire is sheer abuse, failure
to treat that portion of his work would result in much confusion. An
additional argument for including invective is furnished by the fact
that to pass it over would mean relegating outside the domain of satire
a large proportion of the work of other authors who have always been
classed as satirists, among them Churchill and Gifford.
Nor is it possible to insist upon the reformatory purpose behind the
satiric spirit. Dryden’s dictum that the satirist “is bound, and
that is _ex officio_, to give his reader some one precept of moral
virtue,” commendable as it may be, has been by no means a universal
law for satire, and one is forced to admit that whatever emphasis
particular satirists may have given to this rule in theory, the common
practice has too often been at variance with it. Ultimately the single
indispensable element of the satiric spirit is the wish to deny,
rebuke, or destroy.
It is evident that the satiric spirit may show itself, to a certain
extent, in nearly every known type of literature, even at times in the
epic or the lyric, to say nothing of the prose essay or novel. The
specific term satire ought, however, to be applied solely to a work
in which the predominating motive is attack, whether on individuals,
on institutions, or on mankind in general. Thus we say that _Childe
Harold_ has satiric features; but it is not, like _The Age of Bronze_,
strictly a satire. For present purposes, too, it is desirable to narrow
the field definitely by discussing the satiric spirit only so far as
it has chosen verse for its medium, and by discarding the drama as
belonging to another department of research. The subject may be further
confined by neglecting poems which are obviously unliterary and make no
pretensions to constructive or stylistic merit. The title verse-satire
will be used loosely to fit any formal literary production in verse
devoted ostensibly to negative criticism, whether direct or indirect,
animated by sympathy or hatred; in short, to any non-dramatic poem,
whatever its method, which has for its principal or avowed object the
holding of vice, folly, or incapacity up to ridicule or reprobation. In
Byron’s work there are many poems containing slight satiric elements,
and others which are plainly satires in the narrower sense of the term;
some are conveniently labelled, while others must be tested with regard
to their intention and manner, and classified accordingly.
Our not altogether adequate definition has been intentionally made
broad that it may comprise any formal expression of the satiric spirit
in verse. The verse-satire as thus described may select its material
from every province of human activity: literature, society, politics,
and morals. It may range in tone from half-tolerant raillery, as in the
_Satires_ of Horace, to stern intolerant invective, as in the _Satires_
of Juvenal. Its method may be either direct or indirect: direct, as in
the formal classical satire, in which the purpose is distinctly stated;
indirect, or dramatic, as in the fable, where the same end is sought
through a more subtle or less obvious channel. Finally it may appear in
one of several specialized types, each with peculiar characteristics
of its own: the so-called formal or classical satire, based on Latin,
French, or Italian models, represented in English literature in the
poetry of Hall, Oldham, and Pope; the mock-heroic, sometimes directly
satiric as in Pope’s _Dunciad_, sometimes indirectly so, as in his
_Rape of the Lock_; the epigram and lampoon, used by Prior and Swift;
the political ballad or song, illustrated in the verse of Marvell and
Charles Hanbury Williams; the satiric fable, borrowed by Yalden, Gay,
Whitehead, and others from Æsop and La Fontaine; and the burlesque,
with its two subdivisions--parody, used in Philips’ _Splendid
Shilling_, which intentionally degrades the blank verse of Milton, and
travesty, illustrated in Byron’s _Vision of Judgment_, which gives
an inferior treatment to lofty material. It is hardly necessary to
add that these types, with others of less significance, continually
encroach upon each other, so that two or more are frequently mingled
in one poem. The single feature common to them all, however, is the
tendency to deride or assail; therefore, in spite of their many
superficial differences, they are classed together because of their
general tone of negation.
A consideration of Byron’s satiric spirit as it is shown in his verse
involves an investigation of the objects of his attack, whether
individuals, classes, or institutions, and a discussion of the relation
of his satire to contemporary life in literature, society, politics,
and morals. It also necessitates a study of the forms which he adopted,
the methods which he utilized, and the manner which he was inclined to
assume. Something ought also to be said of his indebtedness to other
satirists, Latin, English, and Italian, and of his place and influence
in the evolution of English satire. Lastly, a summary is required of
the peculiar characteristics which distinguish his satiric spirit and
make his work distinctive or unique.
Sir Walter Scott’s generous assertion that his rival “embraced every
topic in human life” is, of course, hyperbole; but one may be
permitted to suspect that the variety and compass of Byron’s genius
have not always been sufficiently dwelt upon. Even sympathetic critics
have been in the habit of forgetting that in all three of what are
ordinarily reckoned the chief divisions of poetry--the narrative, the
lyrical, and the dramatic--Byron achieved distinct success. The same
may be said of his attempts at poetry of a descriptive and meditative
sort. That _Manfred_ and _Beppo_, _Childe Harold_ and “_She walks in
beauty like the night_,” bear the same writer’s signature is convincing
proof not only of the fecundity but also of the diverseness of his
talent. What is true of his work as a whole is also true of his satire.
It is to be found in several forms: the satiric tale, the formal or
classical satire, the travesty, the epigram, and the mock-heroic. It
is sometimes scurrilous, sometimes didactic, and sometimes playful.
It carries its attack into many fields: into literature in _English
Bards_; into society in _The Waltz_; into politics in _The Age of
Bronze_; and into morals in _Don Juan_. Finally in _Don Juan_, his
longest and most important poem, the satiric spirit blends with other
elements, romantic, tragic, realistic, and colloquial, to produce
what Paul Elmer More calls “to many critics the greatest Satire ever
written.”
Professor Courthope traces throughout Byron’s poetry three main
currents of feeling: the romance of the dilettante, the indignation of
the satirist, and the lyrical utterance of the man himself. Of these
three emotions, continues the critic, one comes in turn to predominate
over the others at different periods, as external circumstances
affect the poet. This analysis is, on the whole, discerning and
uncontrovertible; but despite the fact that Byron so often ventured
into romantic and lyric poetry, there is good cause for maintaining
that his mind was primarily satiric in its observation of life. If we
accept the testimony of his nurse, May Gray, as it was taken down by
Moore, Byron’s first lisping in numbers was in the nature of satire,
being a short lampoon on an old lady who had irritated him by her
curious notions regarding the destination of the soul after death.[2]
These verses, according to May Gray, date from 1798, when the boy was
ten years old. During the ensuing years he engaged in writing satire,
without many intermissions, until his career closed in 1824 with _Don
Juan_ still unfinished. In no other branch of literature was he led
to undertake such a series of poems through so long a period. His
narrative poetry cannot be said to have begun before _Childe Harold_
(1812); as a dramatist he published nothing anterior to _Manfred_
(1817); and even his lyrics appeared at infrequent intervals and in no
great numbers. During most of his life, on the other hand, he engaged
in satire of one kind or another. _The Curse of Minerva_ was brought
back from his early travels, along with the first two cantos of _Childe
Harold_; _The Waltz_ is almost synchronous with the _Giaour_; and _The
Vision of Judgment_ was being planned while he was composing _Cain_.
Even in the period between the _Waltz_ (1813) and _Beppo_ (1818),
during which no long verse-satire of his was published, he wrote
_The Devil’s Drive_ (1813), _Windsor Poetics_ (1814), and _A Sketch_
(1816), besides other shorter epigrams. Thus Byron’s satiric spirit was
persistent and conspicuous from the date of _Fugitive Pieces_ (1806)
until his death eighteen years later.
The position which Byron occupies in the history of English satire is
especially important because he is, in many respects, the last of the
powerful satirists in verse. _English Bards, and Scotch Reviewers_,
published in March, 1809, is perhaps the last of the great English
satires in the heroic couplet measure. It is a final vigorous outburst
in the _genre_ which, originating possibly with Wyatt, and improved
by Donne and Hall, culminated in the satires of Dryden, and then
passing successively through the hands of Pope, Churchill, and
Gifford, underwent many modifications, and seemed, down to the end of
the eighteenth century, to be losing gradually in universality and
permanent value. The revival in which Byron took part, but which, as
we shall see, was not altogether occasioned by him, was spasmodic and
temporary; and in the hundred years since the appearance of _English
Bards_, our literature has produced no single satire in the same manner
worthy of being placed by the side of the _Dunciad_, the _Rosciad_, or
even the _Baviad_. Byron himself, though he continued to write this
sort of satire up to the time of _The Age of Bronze_, never equalled
his early success. Eventually he turned from his standard models, Pope
and Gifford, and under the inspiration of Italy and Italian authors,
made his chief original contribution to satire in _Beppo_, _Don Juan_,
and _The Vision of Judgment_. He thus, in a significant way, closes
and sums up the work of an old and passing school, at the same time
bringing into English satire the infusion of a new spirit and method.
With these facts in view, it is convenient and not illogical to arrange
the major part of Byron’s satiric verse into two distinct groups. The
one, deeply rooted in classical and English tradition, conforming to
established conventions and obeying precedents well understood in our
language, includes _English Bards_, _Hints from Horace_, _The Curse
of Minerva_, _The Waltz_, and _The Age of Bronze_, besides other
works shorter and less noteworthy. The other, retaining something
of the “sæva indignatio” of Juvenal and Swift, but embodying it in
what may be called, for want of a better term, the Italian burlesque
spirit--that mood which, varying in individual authors, but essentially
the same, prevails in the poetry of Pulci, Berni, and Casti--comprises
_Beppo_, _Don Juan_, and _The Vision of Judgment_. Generally speaking,
this division on the basis of sources corresponds to a difference in
metre: the classical satires employ, almost from necessity, the iambic
pentameter couplet, while those in the Italian manner adopt the exotic
ottava rima. This classification is also partly chronological, for
the English satires, with the exception of _The Age of Bronze_ and
some short epigrams, were written before 1817, and the Italian satires
appeared during the eight years following that date, while Byron was in
Italy and Greece.
The numerous ballads, political verses, and personal epigrams, some
printed in the daily newspapers, others sent in letters to his friends,
constitute another interesting group of satires, about which, however,
no very satisfactory generalizations can be made. There are also lines
and passages of a satiric nature in other poems, but these, casual
as they are, need to be mentioned only because of their connection
with ideas advanced in the genuine Verse-Satires, or because of some
especial interest attaching to them.
In taking up the separate poems included in this mass of material it
seems best to observe, as far as practicable, a chronological order,
for by so doing, we may observe the steady growth and broadening of
Byron’s ability as a satirist, and trace his connection with the events
of his time. However, before proceeding directly to an analysis of
the poet’s work and methods, it is necessary to say something of his
predecessors in English satire, from many of whom he derived so much.