“HINTS FROM HORACE” AND “THE CURSE OF MINERVA”
On July 2, 1809, Byron, accompanied by his friend, John Cam Hobhouse,
sailed from Falmouth for Lisbon on a trip that was to take him to
Spain, Malta, Greece, and Turkey. When he returned to England in July,
1811, after two years of travel and adventure, he brought with him
“4000 lines of one kind or another,” including the first two cantos of
_Childe Harold_ and two satires, _Hints from Horace_ and _The Curse
of Minerva_. _Hints from Horace_, written in March, 1811, during the
poet’s second visit to Athens, is dated March 14, 1811, on the last
page of the most authentic manuscript. It was composed at the Capuchin
Convent in Athens, where he had met accidentally with a copy of
Horace’s epistle _Ad Pisones, De Arte Poetica_, commonly known as the
_Ars Poetica_.
The history of the fortunes of this work is perhaps worth relating.
Byron, on his arrival, handed it over at once to Dallas, without giving
him a hint of _Childe Harold_; indeed, only the latter’s obvious
disappointment induced the poet to show him the _Pilgrimage_, which
then seemed of little importance to its author. On September 4, 1811,
Byron requested Dallas to aid him in correcting the proofs of _Hints
from Horace_, and “in adapting the parallel passages of the imitation
in such places to the original as may enable the reader not to lose
sight of the allusion.”[125] There is, however, no reason for thinking
that Dallas actually undertook the task, for on October 13th Byron
complained to Hodgson that the labor of editing was still hanging
fire, and begged the latter to assist him. Shortly after, owing partly
to the adverse criticism of Dallas, and partly to Murray’s wish not
to endanger the success of _Childe Harold_, the idea of immediate
publication was put aside for some years. In 1820, Byron, then resident
in Italy, was reminded of his unprinted satire, and wrote Murray to
inform him that the manuscript had been left, among various papers,
with Hobhouse’s father in England.[126] At intervals he expressed
anxiety about the proofs, which Murray, exercising his discretion,
delayed sending. From this revived project Byron was, for a time,
dissuaded by the wise counsel of Hobhouse, who suggested that the poem
would require much revision. Nevertheless on January 11, 1821, he
informed Murray that he saw little to alter,[127] and accused him of
having neglected to comply with his orders. A postscript to a letter
of February 16, 1821, indicates that he was contemplating printing the
_Hints_ with its Latin original.[128] After March 4, 1822, there is no
further allusion to the satire in his correspondence, and the question
of printing it seems to have been forgotten. Although a few selections,
amounting to 156 lines, were inserted in Dallas’s _Recollections_
(1824), the poem did not appear complete until the _Works_ were
published by Murray in 1831.
_Hints from Horace_, through a curious perversity of judgment, was
always a great favorite with Byron, and was estimated by him as one
of his finest performances. His mature opinion of it and a possible
cause for his preference are given in a letter to Murray, March 1,
1821: “Pray request Mr. Hobhouse to adjust the Latin to the English:
the imitation is so close that I am unwilling to deprive it of its
principal merit--its closeness. I look upon it and my Pulci as by far
the best things of my doing.”[129] On September 23, 1820, when he had
published portions of his masterpiece, _Don Juan_, he said, referring
to the period of _Hints from Horace_: “I wrote better then than
now.”[130] No intelligent reader will be likely to agree with Byron’s
preposterous verdict on his own work, for _Hints from Horace_, although
designed as a sequel to _English Bards_, is so much less vigorous and
brilliant that it suffers decidedly by a comparison with the earlier
satire. The poet, far from the scenes and associations where his rage
had been aroused, has lost the angry inspiration which raised _English
Bards_ above mere ranting, and the white heat of his passion has cooled
with the flight of time. The praise which Byron bestowed upon his poem
is additional testimony to the often repeated assertion that authors
are incompetent critics of their own productions.
Byron’s boastful claim for the accuracy of _Hints from Horace_ as a
version of the _Ars Poetica_ may possibly lead to some misconceptions.
Professor A. S. Cook, in his _Art of Poetry_, has pointed out some
particular passages in which the English poet imitated his model,
and has proved that he followed Horace, in places, with reasonable
closeness. But _Hints from Horace_ is far from being, like Byron’s
version of the first canto of Pulci’s _Morgante Maggiore_, a mere
translation. It must be remembered that Byron, in his secondary title,
defined the _Hints_ in three different ways in as many manuscripts, as
“an Allusion,” as an “Imitation,” and as a “Partial Imitation.” The
fact seems to be that the work conforms, in general, to the structure
and argument of the _Ars Poetica_, in many cases translating literally
the phrasing of the original, but altering and reorganizing the satire
to fit current conditions.
The idea of thus preserving the continuity of Horace’s poem, while
revising and readapting its text, was probably first conceived by
Oldham in his English version of the _Ars Poetica_. In his preface
Oldham stated his design as follows: “I resolved to alter the scene
from Rome to London, and to make Use of English Names of Men, Places,
and Customs, where the Parallel would decently permit, which I
conceived would give a kind of New Air to the Poem, and render it more
agreeable to the Relish of the Present Age.” Accordingly, while keeping
roughly to the text of Horace, he introduced plentiful references to
English poets. Byron also gives his satire a modern setting, but in
so doing, takes more liberties than Oldham. He substitutes Milton for
Homer as the classic example of the epic poet; he makes Shakspere
instead of Æschylus the standard writer of drama. He inserts many
passages, such as the remarks on the Italian Opera, on Methodism,
and on the versification of _Hudibras_, which have no counterparts
in the _Ars Poetica_. Oldham had refrained from satirising his
contemporaries; Byron improves every opportunity for assailing his old
antagonists. Allusions to “Granta” and her Gothic Halls, to “Cam’s
stream,” to Grub-street, and to Parliament make _Hints from Horace_
a thoroughly modern poem. We may apply to it Warburton’s comment on
Pope’s _Imitations_: “Whoever expects a paraphrase of Horace, or a
faithful copy of his genius, or manner of writing ... will be much
disappointed.” Byron restates, without much alteration, the critical
dicta which Horace had established as applicable to poetry in all times
and countries; he takes the plan of the _Ars Poetica_ as a rough guide
for his English adaptation; but he introduces so many digressions and
changes so many names that his satire is firmly stamped with his own
individuality.
There is no ground for supposing that any one of the scores of
translations and imitations of the _Ars Poetica_ had ever met Byron’s
eye[131]; the nearest prototypes in English poetry of _Hints from
Horace_ are probably Pope’s _Essay on Criticism_ and _Epistle to
Augustus_. Certain superficial resemblances have led critics to the
inference that Pope’s _Essay_ is accountable for much of Byron’s
_Hints_. It is remarkable that the two authors, born just a century
apart, should have attempted satires so similar in tone at ages
approximately the same. Pope’s _Essay on Criticism_, composed probably
in 1709, was printed in 1711, a hundred years before Byron wrote _Hints
from Horace_. In this work Pope tried to do for criticism what Horace
had done for poetry: that is, to codify and express in compact form
some generally accepted principles of the art. Pope, however, saw fit
to introduce incidentally some conventional precepts concerning the
subject-matter of literary criticism, borrowing them from Horace,
and Horace’s French imitator, Boileau. Thus in Pope’s _Essay_ are to
be found many of the maxims which Byron transferred into _Hints from
Horace_ from the Latin source. The correspondence between such passages
in the _Essay_ and their counterparts in _Hints from Horace_ has led
Weiser to conclude, from a study of parallel ideas, that Byron’s poem
is based, to a large extent, on Pope’s work.[132] His thesis, however,
has been all but conclusively refuted by Levy, who shows that in the
nine instances of parallelism adduced by Weiser as evidence, the
lines quoted from _Hints from Horace_ are really much closer to lines
from the _Ars Poetica_ than they are to the citations from the _Essay
on Criticism_.[133] Undoubtedly there are couplets in the _Hints_
that recall the _Essay_; but in view of Byron’s specific statement
of his obligation to Horace, it would be rash to assume that Pope’s
influence was more than a general one, the natural result of Byron’s
careful study of his style and manner. Pope’s _Epistle to Augustus_, a
paraphrase of Horace’s Book II, Epistle 1, is, in several respects, not
unlike _Hints from Horace_. It pursues the same method in substituting
English names for Greek and Roman ones, and in replacing classical
references by allusions to contemporary life. Moreover the _Epistle_,
with its judgment on English writers, its criticism of the drama, and
its estimate of the age, is structurally more akin to _Hints from
Horace_ than is ordinarily supposed.
It would be superfluous to attempt to add anything to Professor Cook’s
work in outlining the instances in which Byron merely translated
Horace. A single illustration will suffice to show how the same Latin
lines were treated by Pope, and, later, by Byron. Horace’s counsel:--
“Vos exemplaria Græca
Nocturna versate manu, versate diurna”[134]
is paraphrased roughly in the _Essay on Criticism_ as,
“Be Homer’s works your study and delight,
Read them by day and meditate by night.”[135]
In this case Byron’s version,
“Ye who seek finished models, never cease
By day and night to read the works of Greece,”[136]
is slightly more literal.
Horace’s treatise, technically an epistle, suffers from a want of
coherence. In plan it is merely a group of maxims, with illustrations
and amplifications. _Hints from Horace_ is even more muddled and
formless. It is like a collection of detached thoughts in verse, with
each single observation jotted down almost at haphazard without regard
to what comes before or after. It is no exaggeration to say that
whole sections of the satire might be lifted bodily from one page to
another without perceptibly affecting the continuity of thought. This
defect, obscured in Horace and Pope by the epigrammatic brilliancy of
separate phrases and the lift of “winged words,” has, in Byron’s poem,
few counterbalancing virtues. _Hints from Horace_ lacks the finished
perfection of style which distinguishes the _Ars Poetica_ and the
_Epistle to Augustus_. Its versification is, except in isolated lines,
feeble and careless, far inferior to that of _English Bards_, and even
sinking at times, as in the passage on _Hudibras_,[137] into bare
prosing. One finds in the poem confirmation of Byron’s confession to
Lord Holland in 1812:--“Latterly, I can weave a nine-line stanza faster
than a couplet, for which measure I have not the cunning.”[138] If the
dates furnished by the poet are correct, 722 lines, at least, of the
satire must have been composed in two weeks, a speed which may explain
some of the defects in execution. Certainly, even with due allowance
for Byron’s strange fondness, it must be considered one of his poorest
works in structure, diction, and versification.
Nor can it, viewed merely as a medium for satire, claim a high rank.
It is too obviously didactic in its purpose and too general in its
attacks. It does not even possess the special interest which attaches
to _English Bards_ because of the references to contemporary and famous
writers in the latter work. Only a few lines are devoted to personal
satire, and these seldom do more than repeat or amplify the criticism
embodied in the earlier poem. The result is that _Hints from Horace_,
taken as a satire only, is open to a charge of futility, in that its
motive is not definite and its satire is too scattered. It cannot go
straight to the mark, because it is aiming at no particular target.
As in _English Bards_, a large proportion of the satire is placed in
prose notes. The longest passage of satire in verse is that directed at
Jeffrey. The lines:--
“On shores of Euxine or Ægean sea,
My hate, untraveiled, fondly turned to thee,”
show that Byron’s rage at that critic was still smouldering. Repeating
the bombastic challenge uttered in the postscript to the second edition
of _English Bards_, the satirist taunts Jeffrey with disinclination
or inability to reply to the assault made upon him. It is probable
that the Scotchman never saw this passage in _Hints from Horace_; at
any rate he did not deign to answer Byron’s abuse, and maintained a
discreet silence during the period of the latter’s anger.
The lines on Southey reiterate in a commonplace fashion what Byron
had said before on the same subject, a long prose note dwelling on
the heaviness of Southey’s epics, particularly of _The Curse of
Kehama_ (1810), which had recently appeared. Another elaborate note
is aimed at the “cobbler-laureates,” Bloomfield and Blackett, whom
Byron still mentions with contempt. Scott and Bowles receive some
passing uncomplimentary remarks; Fitzgerald is referred to once as
“Fitz-scribble”; Wordsworth is barely alluded to, and Coleridge is not
spoken of at all. The review of the drama is uninteresting and dull.
Byron persists in his condemnation of the Opera on the ground of its
immorality, although, somewhat inconsistently, he defends plays against
the prudish censure of “Methodistic men.”
An occasional line suggests a similar passage from other English
satirists. Thus Byron’s couplet,
“Satiric rhyme first sprang from selfish spleen.
You doubt--see Dryden, Pope, St. Patrick’s Dean,”
recalls the words of Cowper,
“But (I might instance in St. Patrick’s Dean)
Too often rails to gratify his spleen.”[139]
The reference to Pitt’s skill in coining words may have been remembered
from many jests on the subject in the _Rolliad_ and the Works of Peter
Pindar. The scorn of “French flippancy and German sentiment” re-echoes
the violent opposition of the _Anti-Jacobin_ to the spread of foreign
ideas. A note on “the millennium of the black letter”[140] calls to
mind the hatred of Mathias for antiquaries and searchers for old
manuscripts[141] and another note[142] reinforces Gifford in abusing T.
Vaughan, Esq., the “last of the Cruscanti.”
The single striking feature of _Hints from Horace_ is its summary of
“Life’s little tale,” based upon a corresponding passage in the _Ars
Poetica_, in which Byron describes graphically the career of a young
nobleman under the Georges, from his “simple childhood’s dawning days”
to the time when “Age palsies every limb,” and he sinks into his grave
“crazed, querulous, forsaken, half-forgot.” Despite some obvious
exaggerations and some traces of affected pessimism, the poet was
undoubtedly drawing largely upon his own experience. The tone of the
lines is bitter, unrelieved by sympathy or humor, paralleled in Byron’s
work only in the _Inscription on the Monument of a Newfoundland Dog_.
_The Curse of Minerva_, composed at approximately the same time as
_Hints from Horace_,--it is dated from the Capuchin Convent at Athens,
March 17, 1811--was actually printed in 1812, but not for public
circulation. The first edition, probably unauthorized, was brought
out in Philadelphia in 1815. Meanwhile the 54 introductory lines,
beginning:--
“Slow sinks, more lovely ere his race be run,
Along Morea’s hills the setting sun,”
had appeared in Canto III of the _Corsair_ (1814). A fragmentary
version of 111 lines, entitled _The Malediction of Minerva, or the
Athenian Marble-Market_, signed “Steropes” and published in the
_New Monthly Magazine_ for April, 1815, was disowned by Byron as a
“miserable and villanous copy.”[143] The stanzas on Lord Elgin in
_Childe Harold_[144] had already expressed Byron’s condemnation of the
conduct of that nobleman, and the poet doubtless believed that nothing
was to be gained by again airing his indignation. Possibly, too, as
Moore suggests,[145] a remonstrance from Lord Elgin or some of his
relatives may have been an inducement to sacrifice a work which could
add little to his reputation.
_The Curse_, unlike _Hints from Horace_, has the advantage of a
definite and undivided aim. It is an exposure and denunciation of
Lord Elgin, who, appointed in 1799 to the embassy from England at the
Porte, had interested himself in the remains of Greek architecture
and sculpture on the Acropolis and had secured the services of the
Neapolitan painter, Lusieri, to sketch the ruins. In 1801 he obtained
a firman from the Sultan allowing him to carry away “any pieces of
stone with old inscriptions or figures thereon,” and accepting this as
a guaranty against molestation in his project, he at once proceeded,
at his own expense, to dismantle the Parthenon and to ship the finest
specimens to England. Although he left Turkey in 1803, the work
continued through his agents until 1812. His collection, the cost of
accumulating which was estimated at 74,000 pounds, was purchased by the
nation for 35,000 pounds in 1816, and now forms part of the so-called
“Elgin Marbles” in the British Museum.
Although opinions as to the propriety of Elgin’s actions differed
widely at the time, it is now fairly well established that his
foresight prevented the ultimate destruction of the statuary by war
and the elements. Byron’s conclusions, formed on the spot where the
operations were being carried on, have, however, some justification. He
felt that it was the degradation of Greece at the hands of a foreign
despoiler, and he resented the intrusion as interference in the affairs
of a helpless people. In _English Bards_ he had mentioned Elgin, along
with Aberdeen, as fond of “misshaped monuments and maimed antiques,”
and had ridiculed him for making his house a mart,
“For all the mutilated works of art.”
When later he saw the havoc that had been caused at Athens, his mood
changed from raillery to seriousness, and he burst out with fury at
the man whom he considered a wanton plunderer and at the nation which
could tolerate his depredations. Under this stimulus he wrote the
stanzas on Elgin in _Childe Harold_, but his rage found a better outlet
in _The Curse of Minerva_. This satire contains only 312 lines, but
it goes straight to its goal, with a directness and a concentration
which distinguish it above any of the other early satires, even above
_English Bards_, superior as that poem is to it in more important
respects.
The satire has a narrative basis, with a plot which is simple and
unified. The beautiful opening description of an evening at Athens
precedes, and accentuates by contrast, the ensuing indictment by
Minerva of Elgin, the desecrator of all this loveliness. The poet’s
reply to the accusing goddess disclaims any responsibility for the
vandalism on England’s part, and lays the blame on Scotland, Elgin’s
fatherland. Minerva’s answering curse and prophecy extend the scope of
the satire beyond mere personal malice, and give it a broad application
to England’s policy as oppressor and devastator. Her speech ends
somewhat abruptly, and the poem closes.
Although Byron was, by his own admission, “half a Scot by birth, and
bred a whole one,”[146] he joined, in _The Curse of Minerva_, the long
line of satirists from the authors of _Eastward Ho!_ to Cleveland with
his grim couplet,
“Had Cain been Scot, God would have changed his doom;
Not forced him wander but confined him home,”
and to Dr. Johnson, who have jeered at the Scotch and Scotland. Byron’s
antipathy for his early home evidently developed from his quarrel
with the Scotch reviewers. _English Bards_ had contained scattered
references to “Northern wolves” and to the “oat-fed phalanx” of the
critic clan, and had alluded scornfully to the children of Dun-edin
who “write for food--and feed because they write.” In _The Curse of
Minerva_, a new occasion for dislike having arisen, the attack on
the Scotch is more vicious and intolerant. Many passages have their
counterparts in portions of Churchill’s _Prophecy of Famine_ (1763),
a pastoral in the form of a dialogue, with the motto, “Nos patriam
fugimus,” ingeniously applied to the Scotch in the translation, “We
all get out of our country as fast as we can.” Churchill, who, it will
be remembered, hated the Scotch critic, Smollett, as ferociously as
Byron hated Jeffrey, had been aroused also by the growing influence
of Bute and other Scotchmen at the court of George III, and his
poem, accordingly, became a severe political invective, interspersed
with vilification of the Scotch climate and the Scotch people. It is
interesting to compare Churchill’s description of the barrenness and
dampness of Scotland with Byron’s picture of that country as “a land
of meanness, sophistry, and mist.” The former poet calls Scotchmen
“Nature’s bastards”; Byron refers to Scotland as “that bastard land.”
Both writers have caustic lines on the shrewdness, importunity, and
avarice of the Scotch people, wherever they settle. Although the
similarities between the satires warrant no deduction, there is a
possibility that Byron, who undoubtedly had read the _Prophecy of
Famine_, may have recollected certain passages in a poem the spirit of
which is very like his own.[147]
Basing his argument chiefly on the fact that a couplet of Pope[148] is
parodied in Byron’s lines,
“‘Blest paper-credit!’ who shall dare to sing?
It clogs like lead Corruption’s weary wing,”
Weiser has endeavored to prove that Byron borrowed something from
Pope’s _Epistle to Lord Bathurst_. A verbal comparison of the two
passages in question fails to bring out any striking resemblance.
Pope continues with a comment on the ease with which paper money may
be used in bribery; Byron, after quoting Pope, does not touch on this
point, and his lines seem to be merely a passing quotation, not closely
connected with what comes before or after. In no other place in _The
Curse of Minerva_ are there phrases which have even a remote likeness
to the language of Pope’s _Epistle_. On such grounds as Weiser advances
it might be shown that Byron, in _Beppo_, is imitating Cowper, because
he quotes a line from that poet.
Byron’s attack on Lord Elgin in _Childe Harold_ had been animated by a
love for Greece and a pity for her forlorn state among the nations, as
well as by resentment of England’s cold-blooded attitude in allowing
such depredations. In the passage Byron had covered Elgin with abuse:--
“Cold as the crags upon his native coast,
His mind as barren and his head as hard,
Is he whose head conceived, whose hand prepared,
Aught to displace Athena’s poor remains.”[149]
These lines were published in March, 1812. In 1813, James and Horace
Smith, famous through their _Rejected Addresses_, appeared again as
authors in _Horace in London_, a series of imitations of the first two
books of the _Odes_ of Horace. In this volume, Ode XV, _The Parthenon_,
modelled fairly closely in plot on Horace’s _Prophecy of Nereus_,
treats of the controversy concerning Elgin. A clear reference to Byron
in the poem makes it certain that the Smiths had read _Childe Harold_
and that they concurred with his expressed disapproval of Elgin’s
conduct.
_The Parthenon_, owing perhaps to mere coincidence, perhaps to the
possibility that the Smiths may have had access to _The Curse of
Minerva_ in manuscript, is in its outlines and especially in the
general features of Minerva’s curse, singularly like Byron’s satire.
The Smiths, following Horace, describe Elgin’s ship as hastening
homeward, laden with the “guilty prize.” Suddenly Minerva rises, like
Nereus, from the sea and, with the language of a prophet, pronounces a
curse on the destroyer, predicting that Elgin will suffer misfortunes
and go down through the ages remembered for his shamelessness. The
poem, like Byron’s, closes with Minerva speaking. Certain lines in _The
Parthenon_:--
“Goth, Vandal, Moslem, had their flags unfurl’d
Around my still unviolated fane,
Two thousand summers had with dews impearl’d
Its marble heights nor left a mouldering stain;
’T was thine to ruin all that all had spared in vain,”[150]
epitomize a longer passage in _The Curse of Minerva_.[151] In _Childe
Harold_ Byron had made no mention of the fact that Elgin’s marriage
had been dissolved by act of Parliament in 1818, but in _The Curse of
Minerva_ he made the goddess allude to the domestic scandal. A similar
passage is introduced into Minerva’s prophecy in _The Parthenon_. These
resemblances in structure and sometimes in phrasing may, of course,
have occurred independently, or may have arisen from the chance that
Byron, as well as the Smiths, was thinking of Horace’s _Ode_. On the
other hand, there is a possibility that the Smiths, already familiar
with the lines on Elgin in _Childe Harold_, may have read _The Curse of
Minerva_ in manuscript and have unconsciously reproduced some of its
features in their poem.
By a natural transition Minerva, in Byron’s satire, leaves Elgin and
turns to England in the words,
“Hers were the deeds that taught her lawless son
To do what oft Britannia’s self had done.”
This introduces a survey of England’s foreign affairs, designed to
expose that country’s despotic policy towards her weaker rivals and
dependents. The goddess treats briefly of England’s treachery to
Denmark in the battle of Copenhagen, of the recent uprisings of the
natives in India, and of the misfortunes of the Peninsular War in Spain
and Portugal, and finally, touching upon domestic matters, uncovers
the distress and misery of the laboring classes in England and the
inefficiency of the government in dealing with internal problems. She
ends with a picture of the Furies waving their kindled brands above the
distracted realm, while ascending fires shake their “red shadow o’er
the startled Thames.” Such a fate, says Minerva, and Byron with her, is
deserved by a nation which had lit pyres “from Tagus to the Rhine.”
This passage, commonplace enough in its style, is significant in that
it shows Byron almost for the first time taking a keen and active
interest in politics, and posing as an adverse critic of England’s
foreign policy. It was easy for the man who could condemn England’s
conduct towards Denmark and India to develop into an outspoken radical.
In neglecting and partly disowning _The Curse of Minerva_, Byron was
probably acting with good judgment. It is assuredly unworthy of the
author of _Childe Harold_. Only the opening passage is notable for
its genuine poetry, and the satire, except in structure, is inferior
to _English Bards_. It is equally true, however, that it is superior
in most respects to _Hints from Horace_ and _The Waltz_. _The Curse
of Minerva_, with its narrative basis, is a variation from the other
early classical satires; but it has the same elaborate machinery of
notes, the same method of direct attack--although in this instance
it is conveyed through the mouth of a third character--and the same
extravagance and bitterness of tone. In managing the heroic couplet,
Byron never surpassed his skill in _English Bards_. After 1811 his
acquired ability to handle other measures withdrew his attention from
the metre of Pope, with the result that his versification in the
ensuing classical satires shows signs of deterioration and weakness. It
is to this period of decline that _Hints from Horace_ and _The Curse of
Minerva_ belong.