Hartley Coleridge in seven volumes (London, 1904), which contains an
exhaustive bibliography of the successive editions and translations
of different poems. The most complete collection of the _Letters and
Journals_ is that by Rowland E. Prothero in six volumes (London,
1902). Any study of Byron must be largely based on these comprehensive
and scholarly works. A fairly detailed list of critical articles on
Byron was compiled by Roden Noel in his _Life of Lord Byron_; this,
however, needs to be supplemented and revised in the light of recent
investigation.
The following list includes only the more important sources of
information for this treatise.
ACKERMANN, R. _Lord Byron_, Heidelberg, 1901.
_Anti-Jacobin, Poetry of the_, edited by Charles Edmonds, London,
1890.
ARMSTRONG, J. L. _Life of Lord Byron_, London, 1858.
ARNOLD, MATTHEW. _Byron_ (In his _Essays in
Criticism_, Second Series,
London, 1903).
AUSTIN, ALFRED. _A Vindication of Lord Byron_,
London, 1869.
_Byron and Wordsworth_ (In his
_Bridling of Pegasus_, London,
1910.)
BELL, JOHN. _Fugitive Poetry_, London, 1790. 18
vols. in 9.
BEYLE, HENRI. _Lord Byron en Italie_ (In his
_Racine_, Paris, 1854).
BLEIBTREU, K. _Byron der Uebermensch, Sein Leben
und sein Dichten_, Jena, 1897.
BLESSINGTON, LADY. _Conversations with Lord Byron_,
London, 1834.
BRANDES, G. _Main Currents in 19th Century
Literature_, London, 1905.
BRYDGES, SIR SAMUEL E. _Letters on the Character and
Poetical Genius of Lord Byron_,
London, 1824.
_An Impartial Portrait of Lord Byron,
as a Poet and a Man_, Paris, 1825.
BURATTI, P. _Poesie_, Venezia, 1864. 2 vols.
CASTELAR, E. _Life of Lord Byron, and Other
Sketches_, London, 1875.
CASTI, G. B. _Gli Animali Parlanti_, Londra, 1803.
2 Tome.
_Novelle_, Parigi, 1804. 3 volumi.
_Il Poema Tartaro_, Milano, 1871.
CHASLES, V. E. P. _Vie et influence de Byron sur son
époque_ (In his _Études sur
l’Angleterre au XIX siècle_,
1850.)
CHESTERTON, G. K. _The Optimism of Byron_ (In his
_Twelve Types_, London, 1903.)
CHURCHILL, C. _Poetical Works_, Boston, 1854. (Ed.
by Tooke.)
CLINTON, G. _Memoirs of the Life and Writings of
Lord Byron_, London, 1825.
COLLINS, J. C. _Studies in Poetry and Criticism_,
London, 1905.
COURTHOPE, W. J. _The Liberal Movement in English
Literature_, London, 1885.
_A History of English Poetry_,
London, 1895–1910. 6 vols.
DALLAS, R. C. _Recollections of the Life of Lord
Byron, 1808–1814_, London, 1824.
EDGCUMBE, R. _Byron, the Last Phase_, New York,
1909.
EICHLER, A. _John Hookham Frere; Sein Leben und
seine Werke; Sein Einfluss auf
Lord Byron_, Wien und Leipsig,
1905.
ELZE, KARL. _Lord Byron: A Biography_, London,
1872.
ESTEVE. _Byron et le Romantisme français_,
Paris, 1907.
FRERE, J. H. _Works_, London, 1872. 2 vols.
FUHRMAN. _Die Belesenheit des jungen Byron._
GALT, JOHN. _The Life of Lord Byron_, London,
1830.
GAMBA, P. _A Narrative of Lord Byron’s Last
Journey to Greece_, London, 1825.
GIFFORD, W. The _Baviad_ and the _Mæviad_,
London, 1797.
GILFILLAN, G. _A Second Gallery of Literary
Portraits_, London, 1850.
GUICCIOLI, COUNTESS. _Lord Byron jugé par les temoins de
sa vie_, Paris, 1868.
HANCOCK, A. E. _The French Revolution and the
English Poets_, New York, 1899.
HANNAY, J. _Satire and Satirists_, London, 1854.
HAZLITT, W. _The Spirit of the Age_, London, 1825.
HUNT, L. _Lord Byron, and Some of his
Contemporaries_, London, 1828. 2
vols.
JACK, A. A. _Poetry and Prose_, London, 1912.
JEAFFRESON, J. C. _The Real Lord Byron_, Leipsig, 1883.
3 vols.
KENNEDY, JAMES. _Conversations on Religion, with Lord
Byron and Others_, London, 1830.
KOEPPEL, E. _Lord Byron_, Berlin, 1903.
MEDWIN, T. _Journal of the Conversations of Lord
Byron_, London, 1824.
MOORE, THOMAS. _Letters and Journals of Lord Byron,
with Notices of his Life_,
London, 1830.
_Memoirs, Journal, and
Correspondence_, London, 1856. 8
vols.
MORE, P. E. _The Wholesome Revival of Byron._
(In the _Atlantic_. Vol. 82,
December, 1898.)
NICHOL, J. _Byron_, London, 1908. (Eng. Men of
Letters Series.)
PARRY, W. _The Last Days of Lord Byron_,
London, 1825.
POPE, A. _Poetical Works_, London, 1895. 10
vols.
PREVITE-ORTON, C. W. _Political Satire in English Poetry_,
Cambridge, 1910.
PULCI, L. _Morgante Maggiore_, Venezia, 1784.
PYRE, J. F. A. _Byron in our Day._ (In the
_Atlantic_, Vol. 99, April, 1907.)
ROEVER. _Lord Byrons Gedanken ueber Alexander
Pope’s Dichtkunst_, Hanover, 1886.
STEPHEN, L. _Byron_ (In _Dict. of Nat. Biog._,
Vol. viii., pp. 132–155).
SWINBURNE, A. C. _Essays and Studies_, London, 1875.
_Miscellanies_, London, 1886.
TRELAWNEY, E. J. _Recollections of the Last Days of
Shelley and Byron_, London, 1858.
_Records of Shelley, Byron, and the
Author_, London, 1878.
TRENT, W. P. _The Byron Revival._ (In the _Forum_,
Vol. 26, October, 1898.)
TUCKER, S. M. _Verse Satire in England before the
Renaissance_, New York, 1906.
WEDDIGEN, O. _Lord Byrons Einfluss auf die
europaischen Litteraturen der
Neuzeit_, Hannover, 1884.
FOOTNOTES
[1] That satire is primarily destructive criticism was asserted by
Heinsius in a familiar passage quoted approvingly by Dryden in his
_Essay on Satire_:--“Satire is a kind of poetry--in which human vices,
ignorance, and errors, and all things besides, which are produced
from them in every man, are severely reprehended.” The same theory is
expressed by De Gubernatis in his _Storia della Satira_:--“La satira è,
sovra ogni cosa, una negazione.”
[2] See _Poetry_, VII, 1.
[3] In the Preface to _Absalom and Achitophel_, Dryden is inclined to
take pride in his fairness:--“I have but laughed at some men’s follies,
when I could have declaimed against their vices; and other men’s
virtues I have commended, as freely as I have taxed their crimes.”
[4] _Epilogue to the Satires_, Dialogue II., 212–217.
[5] See Chesterton’s _Pope and the Art of Satire_.
[6] Both methods are illustrated in a line of the _Dunciad_:--
“My H--ley’s periods, or my Blackmore’s numbers.”
[7] In the Dramatis Personæ of _Absalom and Achitophel_ only two women
appear, and they are spoken of in the poem in a complimentary way.
[8] Byron particularly emphasizes the correctness and moral tone of
Pope: he is “the most perfect of our poets and the purest of our
moralists” (_Letters_, v., 559); “his moral is as pure as his poetry is
glorious” (_Letters_, v., 555); “he is the only poet that never shocks”
(_Letters_, v., 560).
[9] Gay’s _Alexander Pope, his safe Return from Troy_ (1720) is
interesting as being one of the rare examples of the use of the English
octave stanza between _Lycidas_ and _Beppo_.
[10] _Letters_, v., 252.
[11] In speaking of the art of rhyming to Trelawney, Byron said:--“If
you are curious in these matters, look in Swift. I will send you a
volume; he beats us all hollow, his rhymes are wonderful.”
[12] Cf. Swift’s _The Puppet Show_ with Byron’s _Inscription on the
Monument of a Newfoundland Dog_.
[13] For a contemporary characterization of the unscrupulous satirists
of the period see Cowper’s _Charity_, 501–532, in the passage beginning,
“Most satirists are indeed a public scourge.”
[14] Examples are _The Thimble_ (1743) by William Hawkins (1722–1801)
and the _Scribleriad_ (1752) by Richard Owen Cambridge (1717–1802).
[15] _State Dunces_ (1733) and _The Gymnasiad_ (1738) by Paul Whitehead
(1710–1744); _The Toast_ (1736) by William King (1685–1763); and a
succession of anonymous poems, _The Battle of the Briefs_ (1752),
_Patriotism_ (1765), _The Battle of the Wigs_ (1763), _The Triumph of
Dulness_ (1781), _The Rape of the Faro-Bank_ (1797), and _The Battle of
the Bards_ (1799).
[16] The most important is Churchill’s _Rosciad_ (1761), with the
numerous replies which it elicited: the _Churchilliad_ (1761), the
_Smithfield Rosciad_ (1761), the _Anti-Rosciad_ (1761), by Thomas
Morell (1703–1784), and _The Rosciad of Covent Garden_ (1761) by
H. J. Pye (1745–1813). Among other satires of the same class may be
mentioned the _Smartiad_ (1752) by Dr. John Hill (1710–1775), with its
answer, the severe and effective _Hilliad_ (1752) by Christopher Smart
(1722–1771); the _Meretriciad_ (1764) by Arthur Murphy (1727–1806); the
_Consuliad_ (1770), a fragment by Chatterton; the _Diaboliad_ (1777),
with its sequel, the _Diabolady_ (1777) by William Combe (1741–1823);
and finally the _Criticisms on the Rolliad_, Gifford’s _Baviad_ and
_Mæviad_, the _Simpliciad_, and the _Alexandriad_ (1805).
[17] _The Scandalizade_ (1750); _The Pasquinade_ (1752) by William
Kenrick (1725–1779); _The Quackade_ (1752); _The Booksellers_ (1766);
_The Art of Rising in the Church_ (1763) by James Scott (1733–1814);
_The Senators_ (1772); and _The Tribunal_ (1787).
[18] A few typical controversial satires of this decade are: _The
Race_ (1762) by Cuthbert Shaw (1739–1771); _The Tower_ (1763); _The
Demagogue_ (1764) by William Falconer (1732–1769); _The Scourge_
(1765); and _The Politician_ (1766) by E. B. Greene (1727–1788).
[19] Some characteristic examples are the _Epistle to Cornbury_ (1745)
by Earl Nugent (1702–1788); the _Epistle to William Chambers_ (1773)
and the _Epistle to Dr. Shebbeare_ (1777) by William Mason (1724–1797);
and the _Epistle to Dr. Randolph_ (1796), as well as numerous other
epistles, by T. J. Mathias.
[20] See Macaulay’s _Essay on Horace Walpole_, page 35.
[21] _An Essay on the Different Styles of Poetry_ (1713) by Thomas
Parnell (1679–1718); _The Danger of Writing Verse_ (1741) by William
Whitehead (1715–1785); _A Prospect of Poetry_ (1733); _The Perils of
Poetry_ (1766); and _The Wreath of Fashion_ (1780) by Richard Tickell
(1751–1793).
[22] The anonymous _Manners of the Age_ (1733); _Manners_ (1738)
by Paul Whitehead; _The Man of Taste_ (1733) by James Bramston
(1694–1744); the _Modern Fine Gentleman_ (1746) and the _Modern Fine
Lady_ (1750) by Soame Jenyns (1703–1787); _Fashion_ (1748) by Joseph
Warton (1722–1800); and _Newmarket_ (1751) by Thomas Warton (1728–1790).
[23] Examples are the _Essay on Reason_ (1733) by Walter Harte
(1709–1774); the _Vanity of Human Enjoyments_ (1749) by James Cawthorn
(1718–1761), the most slavish of all Pope’s imitators; _Honour_
(1737) by John Brown; _Advice_ and _Reproof_ (1747) by Smollett;
_Of Retired and Active Life_ (1735) by William Helmoth (1710–1799);
_Ridicule_ (1743) by William Whitehead; _Taste_ (1753) by John
Armstrong (1709–1779); _An Essay on Conversation_ (1748) by Benjamin
Stillingfleet (1702–1771).
[24] _Letters_, v., 162.
[25] _Letters_, iv., 485.
[26] See _An Apology_, 376–387.
[27] In his _Letters_, Byron refers once to Churchill’s _Times_
(_Letters_, ii., 148). His _Churchill’s Grave_ (1816), a parody of
Wordsworth’s style, contains a reference to Churchill as “him who
blazed the comet of a season.” Otherwise Churchill’s actual influence
on Byron was not great.
[28] Byron praised Crabbe in _English Bards_ as “Nature’s sternest
painter, but her best.” In a letter to Moore, February 2, 1818, he
termed Crabbe and Rogers “the fathers of present Poesy,” and in his
_Reply to Blackwood’s_ (1819) he said publicly: “We are all wrong
except Crabbe, Rogers, and Campbell.” Crabbe, whom Horace Smith called
“Pope in worsted stockings,” seemed, to Byron, to represent devotion to
Pope.
[29] Byron said of Gifford in 1824: “I have always considered him as
my literary father, and myself as his ‘prodigal son’” (_Letters_, vi.,
329).
[30] The movement represented by this clique, _Gli Oziosi_, originated
in Florence with a coterie of dilettanti, among whom were Robert Merry
(1755–1799), Mrs. Piozzi (1741–1831), Bertie Greathead (1759–1826),
and William Parsons (fl. 1785–1807). They published two small volumes,
_The Arno Miscellany_ (1784) and _The Florence Miscellany_ (1785), both
marred by affectation, obscurity, tawdry ornamentation, and frantic
efforts at sublimity. The printing of Merry’s _Adieu and Recall to
Love_ started a new series of sentimental verses, in the writing of
which other scribblers took part: Hannah Cowley (1743–1809), Perdita
Robinson (1752–1800), and Thomas Vaughan (fl. 1772–1820). Their
combined contributions were gathered in Bell’s _British Album_ (1789).
[31] Merry had written a _Wreath of Liberty_ (1790) in praise of
revolutionary principles.
[32] Scott said of Gifford: “He squashed at one blow a set of humbugs
who might have humbugged the world long enough.” _New Morality_ has
a reference to “the hand which brushed a swarm of fools away.” Byron
inserted a similar passage in _English Bards_, 741–744.
[33] _Letters_, iv., 485.
[34] _English Bards_, 701.
[35] Moore speaks sarcastically of this custom in the Preface to
_Corruption and Intolerance_ (1808): “The practice which has been
lately introduced into literature, of writing very long notes upon
very indifferent verses, appears to me a very happy invention, as it
supplies us with a mode of turning dull poetry to account.”
[36] Byron said of the _Pursuits of Literature_: “It is notoriously, as
far as the poetry goes, the worst written of its kind; the World has
long been of but one opinion, viz., that it’s [sic] sole merit lies in
the notes, which are indisputably excellent” (_Letters_, ii., 4).
[37] Examples are the _Fables of Æsop_ (1692) of Roger L’Estrange
(1616–1704); _Æsop at Court, or Select Fables_ (1702) by Thomas Yalden
(1671–1736); _Æsop’s Fables_ (1722) by Samuel Croxall (1680–1752);
_Fables_ (1744) by Edward Moore (1711–1757); and collections by
Nathaniel Cotton (1707–1788) and William Wilkie (1721–1772).
[38] See the _Spleen_ (1737) by Matthew Green (1696–1737); _Variety, a
Tale for Married People_ (1732); and the poems of Isaac Hawkins Browne
(1705–1760), James Bramston (1694–1744), George Colman, the elder
(1732–1794), John Dalton (1709–1763), David Garrick (1717–1779). John
Duncombe (1729–1763), and many other poetasters.
[39] _Probationary Odes_ also anticipate the more famous _Rejected
Addresses_ (1812), and the _Poetic Mirror_ (1816) of James Hogg, the
Ettrick Shepherd.
[40] For less reserved praise of the _Rolliad_, see Trevelyan’s _Early
History of Charles James Fox_, page 285.
[41] In _A Postscript_ he speaks of “the unmeaning and noisy lines
of two things called _Baviad_ and _Mæviad_”; while in a note to _Out
at Last, or the Fallen Minister_, he presents a sketch of Gifford’s
life, accusing him of heinous crimes, and speaking of the “awkward and
obscure inversions and verbose pomposity” of the _Baviad_. Gifford
replied in the _Epistle to Peter Pindar_ (1800). Mathias and Canning
invariably treated Pindar with contempt.
[42] _Vision of Judgment_, 92.
[43] See _A Dream_ (1786), a bitterly satirical address to George III,
and the _Lines Written at Stirling_, attacking the Hanoverians.
[44] Byron knew the _New Bath Guide_ well, and admired it. In one of
his youthful poems, an _Answer to Some Elegant Verses sent by a Friend
to the Author_ he uses four lines of Anstey’s poem as a motto. He also
quotes from it not infrequently in his letters.
[45] See _Letters from Simpson the Second to his Dear Brother in Wales_
(1788) and _Groans of the Talents_ (1807), both of which deliberately
appropriate Anstey’s scheme. Both are anonymous.
[46] See the _Epistle to my Sisters_ (1734) by Thomas Lisle; _The
’Piscopade, a Panegyri-Satiri-Serio-Comical Poem_ (1748) by “Porcupinus
Pelagius”; and Goldsmith’s three graceful satires, _Retaliation_
(1774), _The Haunch of Venison_ (1776), and the _Letter to Mrs.
Bunbury_ (1777).
[47] The attitude of the _Anti-Jacobin_ was almost precisely that
already adopted by Gifford and Mathias; that is, it represented extreme
Tory feeling, and therefore was resolutely opposed to any movement in
literature which seemed new or strange.
[48] The _Anti-Jacobin_ was deserted by its original editors, largely
because it was becoming too dangerous a weapon for aspiring statesmen
to handle. A new journal, under the same name, was less successful.
[49] It was the era described by Wordsworth in his sonnets _Written in
London, 1802_, and _London, 1802_, the last beginning,
“Milton! thou should’st be living at this hour:
England hath need of thee: she is a fen
Of stagnant waters! Altar, sword, and pen,
Fireside, the heroic wealth of hall and bower,
Have forfeited their ancient English dower
Of inward happiness. We are selfish men.”
[50] See the _Nation_, volume xciv., No. 2436, March 7, 1912.
[51] Examples are _Elijah’s Mantle_ (1807) by James Sayer (1748–1823),
with its answer, the anonymous _Elijah’s Mantle Parodied_ (1807); the
_Uti Possidetis and Status Quo_ (1807), _The Devil and the Patriot_
(1807), and Canning’s famous ballad _The Pilot that Weathered the
Storm_.
[52] _Poetry_, i., 17.
[53] _Letters_, i., 209.
[54] It is probable that Byron’s verses are modelled somewhat on the
_Epistle on His Schoolfellows at Eton_ (1766) by his relative and
guardian, Lord Carlisle (1748–1825).
[55] _Letters_, i., 47.
[56] _Letters_, i., 183.
[57] _Letters_, i., 167.
[58] _Letters_, i., 211.
[59] _Letters_, i., 212.
[60] _Blackwood’s_, ix., 461.
[61] This practice was ridiculed by his enemy, Lady Montagu, in the
lines:
“On the one side we see how Horace thought,
And on the other how he never wrote.”
[62] The opening couplet of _English Bards_ is a paraphrase of the
first two lines of Juvenal, I. Other imitations occur in lines 87–88
(Juvenal, I., 17–18) and lines 93–94 (Juvenal, I., 19–21).
[63] _English Bards_, 47–48.
[64] _Satires_, iii., 15–18.
[65] _London_, 35–36.
[66] _Table Talk_, 571–572.
[67] _Baviad_, 215 ff.
[68] _All the Talents_, ii., 46–47.
[69] _English Bards_, 103–106.
[70] _Dunciad_, i., 28.
[71] _Satires_, i., 35–36.
[72] _English Bards_, 819–820.
[73] _English Bards_, 991–994.
[74] See _English Bards_, 144–145, 165–166, 202, 235, etc.
[75] Prologue to the second part of the _Conquest of Granada_, 1–2.
[76] _Essay on Criticism_, 610–630.
[77] _The Apology_ was written in response to a scathing article on
the _Rosciad_, printed in the _Critical Review_ for March, 1761. This
periodical, ultra-Tory in its principles, made a point of decrying, any
work which was by a Whig author, or expressed any sympathy with liberal
ideas. Though the editor, Tobias Smollett, was able to exculpate
himself from the charge, Churchill deemed him accountable for the
uncomplimentary review and, without naming him, described him in his
satire as “alien from God, and foe to all mankind.”
[78] _The Apology_, 110–111.
[79] _English Bards_, 429.
[80] _The Apology_, 44.
[81] _English Bards_, 71.
[82] _Gentle Alterative._
[83] _Baviad_, 200–201.
[84] It is curious that Byron’s views on poetry were not very different
from those held by Jeffrey. Both men believed in maintaining the
common-sense traditions of the eighteenth century.
[85] “There can be no worse sign for the taste of the times than the
depreciation of Pope” (_Letters_, v, 559).
[86] W. Tooke, in his edition of Churchill’s _Works_ (1804), expresses
one phase of contemporary opinion in speaking of “the simplicity of a
later school of poetry, the spawn of the lakes, consisting of a mawkish
combination of the nonsense verse of the nursery with the rhodomontade
of German Mysticism and Transcendentalism” (i., 189).
[87] _Epistles to Pope_, ii., 165.
[88] To this utterly unjust stricture Scott made a calm reply in his
Preface to _Marmion_ (1830): “I never could conceive how an arrangement
between an author and his publishers, if satisfactory to the persons
concerned, could afford matter of censure to any third party.”
Certainly Byron came to be a gross offender in this respect himself,
and when, in 1819, he was haggling with Murray over the price of _Don
Juan_, these boyish censures, if they met his eye, must have roused a
smile.
[89] “The plot is absurd, and the antique costume of the language is
disgusting, because it is unnatural” (_All the Talents_, page 68).
[90] _Pursuits of Literature_, iv., 397–398.
[91]
“Then still might Southey sing his crazy Joan,
To feign a Welshman o’er the Atlantic flown,
Or tell of Thalaba the wondrous matter,
Or with clown Wordsworth, chatter, chatter, chatter.”
(_Epics of the Ton_, 31–34.)
[92] After some praise of the three poets, the dedication of the
_Simpliciad_ closes with the words: “I lament the degradation of your
genius, and deprecate the propagation of your perverted taste.”
[93] Pope, in the _Dunciad_, had bantered Sir Richard Blackmore, author
of epics, in the lines:--
“All hail him victor in both gifts of song,
Who sings so loudly, and who sings so long.”
(_Dunciad_, ii., 267–268.)
The possibility that Byron may have had this passage in mind is
increased by his note to his lines in _English Bards_: “Must he
[Southey] be content to rival Sir Richard Blackmore in the quantity as
well as the quality of his verse?”
[94] _Simpliciad_, 212–213.
[95] It must be remembered, however, that practically every charge
that Byron brings against the “Lakists” has a counterpart in Mant’s
_Simpliciad_, printed only a year before Byron’s poem.
[96] _Baviad_, 248–261.
[97] _Letters_, v., 590.
[98] _Letters_, v., 539.
[99] _Letters_, i., 104.
[100] Mathias had asserted that Moore “had neither scrupled nor
blushed to depict, and to publish to the world, the arts of systematic
seduction, and to thrust upon the nation the most open and unqualified
blasphemy against the very code and volume of our religion” (_Pursuits
of Literature_, Preface to Dialogue IV.).
[101] Preface to _Mæviad_, page 59, Note.
[102] See the account of this period in Thorndike’s _Tragedy_, chapter
x.
[103] Byron may have taken a suggestion from some lines of _Children of
Apollo_:
“But in his diction Reynolds grossly errs;
For whether the love hero smiles or mourns,
’Tis oh! and ah! and oh! by turns.”
[104] _Satires_, iii., 197.
[105] _Dunciad_, iv., 45–70.
[106] _Rosciad_, 723–728.
[107] _The Man of Taste._
[108] One line of Byron’s attack,
“Himself a living libel on mankind,”
recalls Murphy’s address to Churchill,
“Thy look’s a libel on the human race.”
[109] In the _Scourge_, a new venture of Clarke’s begun in 1810, that
editor published another scurrilous attack on Byron, involving also the
poet’s mother. An action for libel which Byron intended to bring was
for some reason abandoned, though not without some caustic words from
him about “the cowardly calumniator of an absent man and a defenceless
woman” (_Letters_, i., 324).
[110] _Letters_, i., 314. See also _Letters_, ii., 312; iii., 192.
[111] _Letters_, ii., 326.
[112] _Letters_, v., 539.
[113] _English Bards_, 209–210; 231–232; 239–240; 253–254; 909–910.
[114] _Ibid._, 415–417; 684–686.
[115] _Ibid._, 417, 1022.
[116] _Ibid._, 608–609; 624–625; 656–657.
[117] _Letters_, ii., 27.
[118] _Recollections of Lord Byron_, page 31.
[119] _Letters_, iv., 488.
[120] See _Pope and the Art of Satire_, by G. K. Chesterton.
[121] _Corruption_, 93–98.
[122] _English Bards_, 841–848.
[123] _Poetry_, i., 291.
[124] _Letters_, ii., 330.
[125] _Letters_, ii., 24.
[126] _Letters_, iv., 425.
[127] _Letters_, v., 221.
[128] _Letters_, v., 245.
[129] _Letters_, v., 255.
[130] _Letters_, v., 77.
[131] There have been many actual translations of the _Ars Poetica_
into English. T. Drant published, in 1567, the first complete
version. Queen Elizabeth left a fragmentary version of 194 lines in
her _Englishings_ (1598). Ben Jonson’s excellent _Horace, of the Art
of Poetry_ was printed after his death. Of other translations, from
that of Roscommon (1680) in blank verse, to that of Howes (1809) in
heroic couplets, it is unnecessary to speak, except to say that they
mount into the hundreds. In such works as _The Art of Preaching_ by
Christopher Pitt (1699–1748) and _The Art of Politicks_ (1731) by
James Bramston (1694–1744) the title and method of Horace had been
transferred to other fields. _Harlequin-Horace; or the Art of Modern
Poetry_ by James Miller (1706–1744) is an ironical parody of the _Ars
Poetica_.
[132] See his treatise, _Ueber das Verhaltnis von Byrons Hints from
Horace zu Horaz und Pope_.
[133] See his article in _Anglia_, ii., 256.
[134] _Ars Poetica_, 269–270.
[135] _Essay on Criticism_, 124–125.
[136] _Hints from Horace_, 423–424.
[137] _Hints from Horace_, 399–412.
[138] _Letters_, ii., 150.
[139] _Charity_, 420–500.
[140] _Poetry_, i., 396.
[141] _Pursuits of Literature_, page 93.
[142] _Poetry_, i., 444.
[143] _Letters_, iii., 271.
[144] _Childe Harold_, II., 10–15.
[145] _Life of Byron_, ii., 145.
[146] _Don Juan_, x., 17.
[147] Churchill’s poem ends with a prophecy from the Goddess of Famine
just as Byron’s ends with Minerva’s curse.
[148]
“Blest paper-credit! last and best supply!
That lends Corruption lighter wings to fly!”
(_Epistle to Lord Bathurst, On the Use of Riches_, 40–41.)
[149] _Childe Harold_, II., 12.
[150] _The Parthenon_, stanza 3.
[151] _The Curse of Minerva_, 95–116.
[152] Byron expressed his esteem for his new friend in his Journal,
December 10, 1813:--“I have just had the kindest letter from Moore.
I _do_ think that man is the best-hearted, the only _hearted_ being
I ever encountered; and then, his talents are equal to his feelings”
(_Letters_, ii., 371).
[153] See Byron’s impromptu lines to Moore in a letter of May 19, 1812,
in which he says, speaking of a projected visit to Hunt in prison:--
“Pray Phœbus at length our political malice
May not get us lodgings within the same palace.”
(_Letters_, ii., 204–209.)
[154] See _Letters_, ii., 463–492 (Appendix vii.).
[155] _Letters_, iii., 61.
[156] _Letters_, ii., 134.
[157] _The Real Lord Byron_, ii., 51.
[158] On December 2, 1813, Byron wrote Hunt:--“I have a thorough esteem
for that independence of spirit which you have maintained with sterling
talent, and at the expense of some suffering” (_Letters_, ii., 296).
[159] _Letters_, iii., 58.
[160] Byron’s attitude towards war recalls the sardonic passage on the
same subject in _Gulliver’s Travels_, Part IV.
[161] _Letters_, iii., 64.
[162] _Letters_, iii., 66.
[163] _Letters_, ii., 324.
[164] _Childe Harold_, III., 36–52.
[165] _Letters_, ii., 176.
[166] _Letters_, ii., 202.
[167] Byron himself was asked to compete, but resolved not to risk his
reputation in such a contest. Although 112 poems were submitted, all
were adjudged unsatisfactory, and Byron was eventually requested by
Lord Holland to save the situation. His verses were recited on October
10, 1812, but met with small commendation.
[168] This little volume, published in 1812, after having been
refused by Murray and others, proved an overwhelming success. Byron
was delighted with _Cui Bono?_ a clever imitation of the gloomy and
mournful portions of _Childe Harold_, in the same stanzaic form. Among
the other writers parodied were Wordsworth, Crabbe, Moore, Coleridge,
and Lewis. Byron said:--“I think the _Rejected Addresses_ by far the
best thing of the kind since the _Rolliad_” (_Letters_, ii., 177).
[169] Byron himself said of this period:--“I felt that, if what was
whispered and murmured was true, I was unfit for England; if false,
England was unfit for me” (_Reply to Blackwood’s_, _Letters_, iv., 479).
[170] _Letters_, iii., 272.
[171] _Letters_, iii., 278.
[172] _Childe Harold_, I., 26.
[173] _Childe Harold_, I., 69–70.
[174] _Childe Harold_, I., 9.
[175] _Letters_, i., 308.
[176] _Letters_, ii., 5.
[177] See _Letters_, ii., 413 (Appendix i.).
[178] _Letters_, ii., 379; ii, 403.
[179] See Fuhrman’s _Die Belesenheit des jungen Byron_, Berlin, 1903.
[180] _Letters_, iii., 19.
[181] _Letters_, v., 70.
[182] _Life of Byron_, iv., 237.
[183] Frere was well known in 1817 as a prominent London wit. His
career as a diplomat, which apparently promised him high preferment,
had been cut short by some unlucky transactions leading to his being
held partly responsible for the failure of the Peninsular campaign, and
he had been recalled in 1809 from his position as envoy to Ferdinand
VII. of Spain. The incident drew upon him Byron’s lines on “blundering
Frere” in some expunged stanzas of _Childe Harold_, I. Piqued by the
action of the government and constitutionally inclined to inactivity,
Frere had since led an indolent and self-indulgent existence as scholar
and clubman.
[184] Dr. Eichler finds that Frere drew something from Aristophanes
and Cervantes, but more from Pulci, Berni, and Casti. For Frere’s
indebtedness to the Italians, see Eichler’s _Frere_, 115.
[185] _Letters_, iv., 172.
[186] _Letters_, iv., 176.
[187] While it is undisputed that the ottava rima is a native Italian
stanza, its origin has never been satisfactorily determined. That
it was a common measure before the time of Boccaccio is easily
demonstrable; but it is equally probable that he, in his _Teseide_, was
the earliest writer to employ it consciously for literary purposes.
With him it assumed the form which it was to preserve for centuries:
eight endecasyllabic lines, rhyming abababcc. In Pulci’s _Morgante
Maggiore_ it became freer and less dignified, without losing any of its
essential characteristics. Pulci made ottava rima the standard measure
for the Italian romantic epic and burlesque, and it was used by men
differing so greatly in nature and motive as Boiardo, Berni, Tasso,
Marino, Tassoni, Forteguerri, and Casti. To the Italian language, rich
in double and triple rhymes, it is especially well suited; and its
elasticity is proved by its effective employment in both the lofty epic
of Tasso and the vulgar verse of Casti.
In English the borrowed ottava rima has had strange vicissitudes.
Transferred to our literature, along with other Italian metrical
forms, by Wyatt and Surrey, it was managed by them crudely, but still
with some success. At least nineteen short poems by Wyatt are in
this stanza. A typical illustration of its state at this period may
be examined in Surrey’s _To His Mistresse_. In Elizabethan days the
octave had a sporadic popularity. Although Spenser made choice of his
own invented stanza for his _Faerie Queen_, he tried ottava rima in
_Virgil’s Gnat_. Daniel in _The Civille Warres_ and Drayton in _The
Barrons’ Warres_ associated it with tedium and dulness. It was, of
course, natural that Fairfax, in his fine version of Tasso, should
adopt the stanza of his original; and Harington translated Ariosto in
the same measure, giving it, probably for the first time in English,
a little of the burlesque tone which was typical of the Italians.
Milton, in the epilogue to _Lycidas_, used the octave with reserved
stateliness; while Gay, in _Mr. Pope’s Welcome from Greece_, made it a
vehicle for quiet merriment.
During the eighteenth century the predominance of the heroic couplet
hindered the spread of exotic verse forms--and the octave was still
exotic. In 1812, William Tennant (1786–1846), an obscure Scotch
schoolmaster, revived it in his burlesque epic, _Anster Fair_,
modifying the structure by changing the last line to an alexandrine.
Then came Merivale, Byron, Rose, Procter, and Keats, who settled the
measure as a standard form in modern English literature.
[188] For a detailed comparison of the versification of _Beppo_ with
that of _The Monks, and the Giants_, see Eichler’s _Frere_, 170–184.
[189] _The Monks, and the Giants_, Introduction, 1.
[190] _The Monks, and the Giants_ I., 9.
[191] Dr. Eichler has neglected to notice the important fact that at
the time of the composition of _Beppo_, Byron could have been familiar
with only the first two cantos of _The Monks, and the Giants_. A brief
comparison of dates will establish this point. Cantos I. and II. of
Frere’s poem were published in 1817; _Beppo_, written in the autumn
of 1817 (_Letters_, iv., 172), was sent to Murray on January 19, 1818
(_Letters_, iv., 193), and given out for sale on February 28 of the
same year. Not until later in 1818 were the last two cantos of Frere’s
work printed, and the full edition of four cantos came out some months
later. On July 17, 1818, Byron wrote Murray, “I shall be glad of
Whistlecraft,” referring doubtless to the newly issued complete edition
of _The Monks, and the Giants_.
[192] Only 36 of the 99 stanzas in _Beppo_ are devoted entirely to the
plot. The greater portion of the poem is occupied with digressions
upon many subjects, containing some personal satire, some comment on
political and literary topics, and much discursive chat upon social
life and morals. The plot serves only as a frame for the satire.
[193] See _Memoir of Frere_, i., 166.
[194] _Letters_, iv., 193.
[195] _The Monks, and the Giants_, III., 59.
[196] Eichler’s _Frere_, 184.
[197] In his _Studies in Poetry and Criticism_ (London, 1905), Churton
Collins pointed out Byron’s indebtedness to Casti, but mentioned only
Casti’s _Novelle_. See Collins’s volume, pp. 96–98.
[198] Eichler’s _Frere_, 163.
[199] _Letters_, iv., 217.
[200] Born in 1721 in Italy, Casti had been a precocious student at
the seminary of Montefiascone, where he became Professor of Literature
at the age of sixteen. In 1764 he moved, with the musician, Guarducci,
to Florence, where he was created Poeta di Corte by the Grand Duke
Leopold. Here he came to the attention of Joseph II., who invited
him to Vienna and bestowed upon him several posts of honor. A lucky
friendship with Count Kaunitz enabled him to visit most of the capitals
of Europe in company with that Prime Minister’s son, and he gained in
this way an inside knowledge of court life in several countries. In
1778 he took up his residence in St. Petersburg, where Catharine II.
received him cordially. Later he returned to Vienna and was crowned
Court Poet by the Emperor Leopold. The attraction of the French
Revolution drew him to Paris in 1796, where he lived until his death,
February 16, 1804.
[201] _Quarterly Review_, April, 1819.
[202] Churton Collins, however, makes the statement that “_Don Juan_
is full of reminiscences of the _Novelle_,” and points out definite
parallelisms between Novella IV., _La Diavolessa_, and the plot of
_Don Juan_. He adds: “To Casti, then, undoubtedly belongs the honour
of having suggested and furnished Byron with a model for _Don Juan_.”
(_Studies in Poetry and Criticism_, pp. 97–98.) It seems probable,
however, that Byron took even more from _Il Poema Tartaro_ than he
did from the _Novelle_. Casti’s _Gli Animali Parlanti_ and _Il Poema
Tartaro_ are not mentioned in Collins’s study.
[203] To this work Byron refers in a letter to Murray, March 25,
1818: “Rose’s _Animali_ I never saw till a few days ago,--they are
excellent.” (_Letters_, iv., 217.)
[204] _Gli Animali Parlanti_, VII., 6 ff.
[205] _Ibid._, III., 37.
[206] _Ibid._, III., 32.
[207] _Ibid._, XX., 69.
[208] _Ibid._, XIV., 47; XVII., 36, 56.
[209] _Gli Animali Parlanti_, I., 52.
[210] _Don Juan_, X., 25.
[211] _Gli Animali Parlanti_, XVIII., 33.
[212] _Don Juan_, VII., 68.
[213] _Gli Animali Parlanti_, IV., 13.
[214] _Don Juan_, XIV., 13. See also _Gli Animali Parlanti_, X., 1;
XVIII., 32, and _Don Juan_, VII., 26, 41; VIII., 124.
[215] _Gli Animali Parlanti_, IV., 73.
[216] _Don Juan_, XV., 19. See also _Gli Animali Parlanti_, III., 95;
VII., 38; _Don Juan_, VI., 8; VIII., 89; _The Vision of Judgment_, 34.
[217] _Gli Animali Parlanti_, IV., 107.
[218] _Don Juan_, I., 231. See also _Gli Animali Parlanti_, XX., 126,
and _Don Juan_, IV., 117; V., 159; VI., 120; VII., 35; IX., 85; XV., 98.
[219] In _Childe Harold_ the digression had been used, not for satire,
but for personal reminiscences, eulogy, and philosophical meditation;
see Canto I., 91–92, with its tribute to Wingfield, and Canto I., 93,
with its promise of another canto to come.
[220] _Il Poema Tartaro_, II., 8.
[221] _Don Juan_, IX., 62.
[222] _Il Poema Tartaro_, IV., 76.
[223] _Don Juan_, IX., 81. See also _Don Juan_, IX., 80.
[224] _Il Poema Tartaro_, I., 5.
[225] See _Il Poema Tartaro_, IV., 54–55, and _Don Juan_, IX., 82.
[226] See _Il Poema Tartaro_, V., 32 ff., and _Don Juan_, X., 39.
[227] See _Il Poema Tartaro_, VIII., 85, and _Don Juan_, VII., 14–15.
[228] See _Il Poema Tartaro_, III., 81, and _Don Juan_, III., 20; X.,
69.
[229] _Il Poema Tartaro_, VI., 98.
[230] _Don Juan_, VII., 18.
[231] _Il Poema Tartaro_, VIII., 12.
[232] _Ibid._, III., 68.
[233] _Ibid._, IV., 69.
[234] _Il Poema Tartaro_, VI., 47.
[235] _Ibid._, XII., 79.
[236] _Letters_, iv., 217.
[237] _Letters_, iv., 407.
[238] In structure, the _Morgante Maggiore_, is made up of the
_rifacimenti_ of two earlier works: one, the _Orlando_, rather
commonplace and monotonous in tone, was the basis of the first
twenty-three cantos; the other, _La Spagna_, in prose, loftier and more
stately, gave a foundation for the last five cantos.
[239] _Don Juan_, IV., 6.
[240] It is probable that Byron had read Merivale’s poem, _Orlando
in Roncesvalles_ (1814), for in the advertisement to his translation
of Pulci he refers to “the serious poems on Roncesvalles in the
same language [English]--and particularly the excellent one of Mr.
Merivale.” Merivale’s work, based though it is upon the _Morgante_,
is without humor, and could have given Byron nothing of the spirit of
Pulci.
[241] _Letters_, iv., 402.
[242] _Letters_, iv., 407.
[243] Cantos III. and IV. of _Don Juan_ were written in the winter
of 1819–1820, while Byron was at work on his translation of the
_Morgante_; hence it is certain that the influence of Pulci may be
looked for at least as early as Canto III. It is probable, moreover,
that Byron became acquainted with Pulci’s work before, or soon after,
the beginning of _Don Juan_ in September, 1818.
[244] _Don Juan_, X., 87.
[245] _Don Juan_, VII., 55.
[246] _Morgante Maggiore_, XIV., 7.
[247] _Ibid._, III., 51.
[248] _Ibid._, XI., 21.
[249] _Don Juan_, II., 92.
[250] _Morgante Maggiore_, XVIII., 117.
[251] _Ibid._, XVIII., 144.
[252] _Don Juan_, XII., 50.
[253] _Morgante Maggiore_, XXIV., 83.
[254] _Don Juan_, XII., 88.
[255] _Morgante Maggiore_, XXVIII., 138–9.
[256] _Don Juan_, XV., 19.
[257] _Ibid._, V., 159.
[258] Other examples occur in the _Morgante Maggiore_, I., 4; II., 1;
XIV., 1; XVI., 1; XXI., 1; XXIV., 1; XXVIII., 1.
[259] _Don Juan_, X., 4.
[260] _Morgante Maggiore_, I., 8.
[261] _Morgante Maggiore_, XXV., 283.
[262] _Ibid._, XXVIII., 35.
[263] _Don Juan_, XV., 20.
[264] It is significant that Byron was able to make his translation
of the first canto of the _Morgante_ so faithful to the original. On
September 28, 1820, he wrote Murray:--“The Pulci I am proud of; it is
superb; you have no such translation. It is the best thing I ever did
in my life” (_Letters_, i., 83). It is obvious that there were features
in Pulci’s style which appealed to Byron.
[265] Berni was a priest, who became, with Molza, La Casa, Firenzuola,
and Bini, a member of the famous Accademia della Vignajuoli in Rome,
in which circle he was accustomed to recite his humorous poetry. He
died under suspicious circumstances, perhaps poisoned by one of the
Medicean princesses. He was the bitter enemy of Pietro Aretino, the
most scurrilous satirist of the age.
[266] See, _Don Juan_, XII., 1–22, with its discussion of avarice.
[267] See, for example, the _Innamorato_, II., 70:
“Ma s’io dicesse ogni cosa al presente
Da dire un’ altra volta non aria;
Pero tornate, e s’attenti starete,
Sempre piu belle cose sentirete.”
[268] _Don Juan_, VII., 85.
[269] Many characteristics of the _Innamorato_, however, are like those
of the work of Pulci and Casti. There are the same equivocal allusions
and obscenities, the same pervasive skepticism and pessimism, and the
same colloquial style that are to be met with in the _Morgante_ and the
_Novelle_. Berni was perhaps greater as a craftsman and artist, but
otherwise had the virtues and the faults of the other burlesque poets.
[270] _Letters_, iii., 444–445.
[271] Buratti’s career is treated at length in Vittorio Malamani’s
monograph, _Il Principe dei satirici Veneziani_ (1887). An edition of
his poetry, in two volumes, was printed in 1864.
[272] Buratti’s after-life brought him once into relation with Byron.
On the birth of a son to Hoppner, the British Consul at Venice, Byron
presented the father with a short madrigal:--
“His father’s sense, his mother’s grace,
In him, I hope, will always fit so;
With--still to keep him in good case--
The health and appetite of Rizzo.”
The Count Rizzo Pattarol, named in the last line, had the verses
translated into several languages, in the Italian version changing the
word “appetite” to “buonomore.” This piece of vanity so excited the
mirth of Buratti that he commemorated the affair in an epigram. Byron,
however, seems to have paid no attention to the incident.
[273] There is less of the mock-heroic in _Don Juan_ than is ordinarily
supposed. It has little in common with the classical Mock-Epic,
represented in English by the _Dunciad_, the _Scribleriad_, and the
_Dispensary_, poems which use the epic machinery of gods and goddesses,
ridiculing the manner of the Greek and Roman epics through the method
of parody. _Don Juan_, on the other hand, is unrelated to the work
of either Homer or Virgil. Nor does it burlesque the Italian epics:
its characters, modern and unconventional as they are, are not, even
in a humorous sense, heroic, and the matter dealt with is borrowed
from none of the Italian romances. The fact that exalted emotions are
made absurd, or that fine feelings are jeered at does not warrant us
in classing _Don Juan_ with the mock-heroic poems. Indeed, the mere
absence of the typical addresses to the Muse--they occur only twice in
_Don Juan_ (II., 7; III., 1)--indicates that Byron did not imitate the
epic form.
[274] _Letters_, vi., 50.
[275] _Letters_, iv., 217.
[276] “This poem [_Don Juan_] carries with it at once the stamp of
originality and defiance of imitation.” (Shelley, Letter to Byron, Oct.
21, 1821).
[277] _Don Juan_, II., 105; II., 166; V., 4; VI., 5–6.
[278] Ibid., V., 33–39.
[279] _Don Juan_, IX., 41.
[280] _Letters_, iv., 342.
[281] _Don Juan_, I., 200.
[282] _Don Juan_, XII., 55.
[283] _Letters_, iv., 260.
[284] _Letters_, vi., 155.
[285] _Don Juan_, XIV., 99.
[286] It was begun at Venice, September 6, 1818, and the first two
cantos were published anonymously, July 15, 1819, by Murray. Despite
much hostile comment, and the reluctance and eventual refusal of Murray
to print the work, Byron continued with his project, entrusting the
publication of the poem, after Canto V., to John Hunt. Canto XVI. was
completed May 6, 1823, and appeared with Canto XV. on March 26, 1824.
Fourteen stanzas of an unfinished Canto XVII. were among his papers at
the time of his death.
[287] _Beppo_, 79.
[288] _Don Juan_, VIII., 135.
[289] _Childe Harold_, II., 74–76.
[290] _Ode to the French_, 91–104.
[291] _Childe Harold_, IV., 92.
[292] _Don Juan_, IX., 24.
[293] _Don Juan_, VIII., 50.
[294] Many details of Byron’s satire may be traced to corresponding
passages in the works of Moore, whose _Fudge Family in Paris_ (1818)
was familiar to him, and whose _Fables for the Holy Alliance_ (1823),
many of which were written while the two poets were together in Venice,
was dedicated to Byron. Moore denounced Castlereagh as a despot, a
bigot, and a time-server, ridiculing him especially for the absurdity
of his speeches, which were notorious for their mixed metaphors and
poorly chosen phrasing.
[295] Shelley in many short squibs, and particularly in the _Mask of
Anarchy_ (1819), had assailed the ministry. He had compared Castlereagh
and Sidmouth, the Home Secretary, to “two vultures, sick for battle”
and “two vipers tangled into one” (_Similes for Two Political
Characters of 1819_).
[296] Young had condemned war in _Satire VII._, 55–68; Cowper had
spoken against it in the _Task_, in the lines:--
“War is a game which, were their subjects wise,
Kings would not play at.”
Leigh Hunt and Shelley held exactly Byron’s opinions, and expressed
them repeatedly.
[297] It is possible that Byron, in his description of this assemblage,
was influenced to some extent by T. L. Peacock, the friend of Shelley,
who had published _Headlong Hall_ (1816) and _Nightmare Abbey_ (1818).
In these books Peacock had created a sort of prose Comedy of Humors by
forming groups of curious eccentrics, each one obsessed by a single
passion or hobby, and by giving each figure a name suggestive of his
peculiar folly.
[298] _Don Juan_, XI., 86.
[299] _Letters_, v., 542.
[300] _Don Juan_, I., 205.
[301] _Don Juan_, III., 78–87.
[302] _Don Juan_, III., 5.
[303] _Ibid._, III., 3.
[304] _Ibid._, III., 25.
[305] _Ibid._, VI., 6.
[306] _Ibid._, II., 205.
[307] _Ibid._, VI., 27.
[308] _Ibid._, I., 178; XI., 36.
[309] _Ibid._, VI., 14.
[310] _Ibid._, VI., 2.
[311] In Canto II., the entire shipwreck episode is a symposium
of accounts of other wrecks taken from Dalzell’s _Shipwrecks and
Disasters at Sea_ (1812), _Remarkable Shipwrecks_ (1813), Bligh’s _A
Narrative of the Mutiny of the Bounty_ (1790), and _The Narrative of
the Honourable John Byron_ (1768), the last named work being the story
of the adventures of Byron’s grandfather. His account of the siege and
capture of Ismail in Cantos VII. and VIII. is based, even, in minute
details, on Decastelnau’s _Essai sur l’histoire ancienne et moderne de
la Nouvelle Russie_.
[312] _Don Juan_, III., 101–109.
[313] _Ibid._, II., 17–23.
[314] _Ibid._, XI., 10.
[315] Byron attributed the unpopularity of _Don Juan_ with the ladies,
and particularly with the Countess Guiccioli, to the fact that it
is the “wish of all women to exalt the _sentiment_ of the passions,
and to keep up the illusion which is their empire” and that the poem
“strips off this illusion, and laughs at that and most other things”
(_Letters_, v., 321). It was the opposition of the Countess which
induced him to promise to leave off the work at the fifth canto, a
pledge which he fortunately disregarded after keeping it for several
months.
[316] _Childe Harold_, II., 7.
[317] _Don Juan_, VI., 22. See also I., 215; III., 35.
[318] _Ibid._, V., 21.
[319] _Ibid._, XI., 82, 86.
[320] _Ibid._, II., 34.
[321] _Don Juan_, XII., 86.
[322] _Poetry_, VI., 79.
[323] _Don Juan_, IX., 73.
[324] _Ibid._, XIII., 100.
[325] _Don Juan_, III., 96.
[326] See _Ibid._, I., 9; II., 8; III., 110; IV., 113; VI., 57, and
numerous other instances.
[327] Only in Canto II. does the story begin at once; every other canto
has a preliminary disquisition. Canto IX., containing eighty-five
stanzas, uses forty-one of them before the narrative begins, and of the
entire number, forty-six are clearly made up of extraneous material. Of
the ninety stanzas in Canto XI., over fifty are occupied with Byron’s
satire on English society and contemporary events. Canto II. is, of
course, filled largely with the shipwreck and the episode of Haidée;
but in Canto III., over forty of the entire one hundred and eleven
stanzas are discursive, and many others are partly so.
[328] _Beppo_, 52.
[329] For other rhymes of exceptional peculiarity, see _Don Juan_, I.,
102; II., 206; II., 207; V., 5.
[330] _Ibid._, I., 22.
[331] _Ibid._, II., 1.
[332] _Don Juan_, I., 6.
[333] _Ibid._, III., 111.
[334] _Ibid._, XIII., 94.
[335] _Ibid._, I., 62.
[336] _Ibid._, I., 11.
[337] _Ibid._, VII., 15.
[338] _Ibid._, VII., 3.
[339] _Ibid._, XIII., 8.
[340] _Ibid._, XV., 91.
[341] _Ibid._, II., 207.
[342] _Ibid._, V., 5.
[343] _Ibid._, XIV., I. See also I., 25; I., 67; XVI., 4.
[344] _Ibid._, I., 154; II., 13, 22, 38.
[345] A characteristic example is _Ibid._, IX., 34.
[346] _Don Juan_, I., 123–124; V., 8–9; V., 18–19; VIII., 109–110.
[347] _Ibid._, I., 120.
[348] _Ibid._, XV., 72.
[349] _Ibid._, VI., 64; VII., 21; VIII., 30; XIII., 75; XIV., 29, 63;
XVI., 60, 94, 98.
[350] _Ibid._, I., 34; VI., 47; VIII., 32.
[351] _Ibid._, IV., 42.
[352] _Ibid._, VII., 27.
[353] _Don Juan_, XI., 20.
[354] _Ibid._, III., 6. See also I., 63, 65, 72; II., 172, 179; IX.,
15, 59; XIII., 6, 19.
[355] Many imitations and parodies of _Don Juan_ were printed during
Byron’s lifetime, and afterwards; among them were Canto XVII. of _Don
Juan_, by One who desires to remain a very great Unknown (1832); _Don
Juan Junior_, a Poem, by Byron’s Ghost (1839); _A Sequel to Don Juan_
(1843); _The Termination of the Sixteenth Canto of Lord Byron’s Don
Juan_ (1864), by Harry W. Wetton.
[356] Byron’s influence upon the literature of the nineteenth century
may be studied in Otto Weddigen’s treatise _Lord Byron’s Einfluss auf
die Europaischen Litteraturen der Neuzeit_ and in Richard Ackermann’s
_Lord Byron_ (pp. 158–182). Collins numbers among his disciples in
Germany, Wilhelm Mueller, Heine, Von Platen, Adalbert Chamisso, Karl
Lebrecht, Immermann, and Christian Grabbe; among his French imitators,
Lamartine, Hugo, de la Vigne, and de Musset; among his followers in
Russia, Poushkin and Lermontoff. To these should be added Giovanni
Berchet in Italy, and José de Espronceda in Spain. No other English
poet, except Shakspere, has impressed his personality so strongly upon
foreign countries.
[357] _Letters_, vi., 377–399.
[358] Thus in the _Batrachomyomachia_ the elevated manner of epic
poetry is used in depicting a warfare between frogs and mice; while in
Voltaire’s _La Pucelle_, the French national heroine is made to behave
like a daughter of the streets.
[359] Some examples of the parody are _The Splendid Shilling_ (1701)
by John Philips (1676–1709); _The Pipe of Tobacco_ (1734) by Isaac
Hawkins Browne (1760); _Probationary Odes_; _Rejected Addresses_; and
Swinburne’s _Heptalogia_.
[360] The travesty flourished especially during the 17th century in the
work of Paul Scarron (1610–1660) and his followers in France, and of
Charles Cotton (1630–1687), John Philips (1631–1706), and Samuel Butler
(1612–1680) in England. During this period Virgil and Ovid were popular
subjects for travesty. Several travesties of Homer were published in
England during the 18th century, one of which, by Bridges, was read by
Byron (_Letters_, v., 166).
[361] Charles Lamb said of it that it deserved prosecution far more
than Byron’s _Vision_; and Nichol has styled it “the most quaintly
preposterous panegyric ever penned.”
[362] In his dedication Southey called George IV. “the royal and
munificent patron of science, art, and literature,” and praised the
monarch’s rule as Regent and King as an epoch remarkable for perfect
integrity in the administration of public affairs and for attempts to
“mitigate the evils incident to our state of society.”
[363] _Letters_, v., 387.
[364] _Ibid._, vi., 10.
[365] _Ibid._, vi., 93.
[366] _Letters_, vi., 129.
[367] _Ibid._, vi., 159.
[368] In the only public retort which Southey undertook, a _Letter
to the Courier_, December 8, 1824, he could do little more than make
charges of misrepresentation, and repeat his accusation that Byron
was one “who played the monster in literature, and aimed his blows at
women.” Southey unwittingly had engaged with too powerful an antagonist
and only his want of a sense of humor kept him from appreciating the
fact.
[369] _Letters_, v., 385.
[370] The recurrence in the _Vision_ of many familiar devices of
_Don Juan_ reminds us that the _Vision_ marks Byron’s resumption of
the ottava rima, which he had left off on December 27, 1820, at the
completion of _Don Juan_, Canto V., because of the request of the
Countess Guiccioli that he discontinue the work. In the meantime he
turned his attention to the drama, and _Cain_, _The Two Foscari_, and
_Sardanapalus_ were published in December, 1821. The _Vision_ then was
his only work in the octave stanza between December 27, 1820, and June,
1822, when he began Canto VI. of _Don Juan_.
[371] Byron had finished his translation of the first canto of the
_Morgante_ in February, 1820.
[372] _The Vision of Judgment_, 25.
[373] _Morgante Maggiore_, XXVI., 91.
[374] _History of English Poetry_, v., 250.
[375] _The Vision of Judgment_, 92.
[376] _Letters_, vi., 77.
[377] _Letters_, vi., 160–161.
[378] (this footnote was missing from the original book.)
[379] _Letters_, v., 338.
[380] _Letters_, v., 369.
[381] _Letters_, vi., 336.
INDEX
Ackermann, Richard, 186 (note)
_Age of Bronze, The_, 4, 6, 8, 53, 202–207.
Anstey, Christopher, 30, 32, 40.
_Anti-Jacobin_, 30–33, 37, 59, 61, 64, 85
Barrett, E. S., 36, 40
Becher, Rev. J. T., 39, 45, 48
_Beppo_, 6, 7, 8, 93, 113–127, 129–131, 144, 145, 161, 163, 182
Berni, Francesco, 8, 118 (note), 121 (note), 127, 144, 155–157, 161
Birrell, Augustine, Mr., 103, 209
_Blackwood’s Magazine_, 51
Blessington, Countess of, 115, 164.
_Blues, The_, 207–209
Bowles, Rev. Samuel, 62–63
Brougham, Lord, 48, 167
Burns, Robert, 29
Butler, Samuel, 11, 16, 122, 182
Butler, Dr., 40–41
Buratti, 157–159
Byron, Lady, 107–110, 175–176
Byron, Lord: place among English satirists, 7;
divisions of his satire, 8–9;
early satiric verse, 39–47;
position in 1798;
travels in Spain and Greece, 77;
life in London, 94;
his political beliefs, 95, 143, 168–172, 204;
life in Italy, 115–116;
death and burial, 208;
influence, 185, 186 (note)
Canning, George, 31, 32, 34, 35, 40, 203, 204
Carlisle, Lord, 43 (note), 66–67
Casti, Giambattista, 8, 117, 118–119, 127–144, 161, 162, 181
Castlereagh, Lord, 102, 170–171
Chesterton, G. K., 14
_Childe Harold_, 6, 7, 77, 78, 110–111, 122, 136 (note)
Churchill, Charles, 3, 21–22, 25;
_Apology Addressed to the Critical Reviewers_, 56–58;
_Prophecy of Famine_, 66, 88–89
Clarke, Hewson, 67
Clermont, Mrs., 108–109, 215
Cleveland, John, 11, 88
Coleridge, S. T., 60–62, 63, 84, 173
Collins, J. C., 127 (note), 129 (note)
_Corsair, The_, 97
Courthope, W. J., 6, 29
Cowper, 22, 66
Crabbe, 22–23
_Critical Review_, 56–57
_Curse of Minerva, The_, 7, 77, 86–92
Dallas, R. C., 49, 68, 77, 78
_Devil’s Drive, The_, 93, 101–102
_Don Juan_, 6, 8, 93, 114, 116, 127, 128, 133–144, 147–154, 158,
159, 161, 162, 163–187, 198, 208, 216
Dryden, 3, 7, 11–13, 14, 15, 17, 37, 52;
comparison of _Absalom and Achitophel_ and _The Vision of
Judgment_, 198–199; 210, 211, 212
_Edinburgh Review_, 48–58
_English Bards, and Scotch Reviewers_, 7–8, 33, 36, 37, 38, 47,
48–76, 79, 92, 95, 112, 162, 167, 169, 174, 187, 201, 215
Forteguerri, 160
Frere, J. H., 31, 118 (note);
_The Monks, and the Giants_, 117–127;
_Fugitive Pieces_, 39, 41, 42
George III, 34, 94, 190, 191, 192, 193, 195, 196, 200
George IV, 94, 96–98, 100, 105, 171
_Giaour, The_, 7, 94
Gifford, 8, 10, 23–25, 29, 31, 40, 42, 47, 50, 53, 54, 65;
comparison of Gifford and Byron, 71–73; 74, 85, 93, 113, 170, 213
Goethe, 195
Goldsmith, 20, 30 (note)
Guiccioli, Countess, 116, 174, 177 (note)
Hamilton, Lady Anne, 35–36, 40;
_Epics of the Ton_, 59–60, 61, 64
Henley, W. E., 200
_Hints from Horace_, 8, 77–85, 92
Hobhouse, J. C., 77, 78, 179, 216
Hodgson, F., 57, 59, 73, 78
Holland, Lord, 58, 68, 106 (note)
Hunt, Leigh, 68, 69, 95, 98, 115, 146, 202
Ireland, W. H., 36
Jeaffreson, 75, 98
Jeffrey, 45, 50, 55, 56, 84, 216
Johnson, Samuel, 21
Juvenal, 21, 51
Lamb, Lady Caroline, 107
Lewis, M. G., 63, 64
_Liberal, The_, 98, 148, 188, 191, 199, 201, 206
_Lines to a Lady Weeping_, 97, 98
Mant, Richard, 36–37, 40;
his _Simpliciad_, 59, 60, 61, 62
Mathias, T. J., 19 (note), 25–26, 29, 33, 37, 40;
his _Pursuits of Literature_, 26 (note); 118
Moore, Thomas, 1, 30, 32, 36, 38;
attacked in _English Bards_, 63–64; 74;
his quarrel and reconciliation with Byron, 95–97; 98, 99, 105, 111
Murray, John, 78, 97, 102, 109, 111, 115, 118, 147, 154 (note), 164,
165, 166 (note), 175, 179, 191, 200
Ottava rima, 9, 114, 120–121 (note);
Byron’s management of, 122, 161, 181, 202
Parody, 5, 32, 189 and note
Peacock, T. L., 172 (note)
Pigot, Elizabeth, 44, 48
Pope, 5, 7, 10;
work as a satirist, 13–16; 18, 22, 33, 36, 37, 40, 41, 53, 54, 55,
59, 62, 63;
comparison of Byron and Pope, 69–72; 74;
_Essay on Criticism_, 81–82;
_Epistle to Lord Bathurst_, 89; 93, 113, 173, 191, 214
Pulci, Luigi, 8, 117, 120, 144;
life, and influence on Byron, 145–155; 156, 161, 196–197, 199
_Rejected Addresses_, 28 (note), 106–107 and note
_Rolliad_, 27–28, 32, 40
Satire, 2–5
Scott, Walter, Sir, 5, 59–60 and note, 98
Shelley, 38, 171 (note), 178, 188
_Sketch, A_, 93, 108–109
Southey, 60–62, 84, 173;
Byron’s quarrel with him, 188, ff.;
his _Vision of Judgment_, 190–191
Swift, 16–17, 27, 122, 182
Swinburne, 200
Travesty, 5, 189 and note
Trelawney, 17 (note), 115, 182
_Vision of Judgment, The_, 7, 8, 114, 116, 162, 188–201
_Waltz, The_, 6, 7, 8, 65, 93, 103–106
_Windsor Poetics_, 93, 99
Wordsworth, 34, 36, 60–62, 71, 84, 174, 208
Young, 16, 20, 28
VITA
CLAUDE MOORE FUESS, the author of this dissertation, was born at
Waterville, New York, January 12, 1885, and prepared for college at the
Waterville High School, graduating in 1901. He took the full course of
four years at Amherst College, graduating with the degree of B. A. in
1905. During 1905–1907, he was in residence at Columbia University,
where he took courses in English and Comparative Literature under
Professors G. R. Carpenter, W. A. Neilson, W. P. Trent, J. B. Fletcher,
J. E. Spingarn, Brander Matthews, J. W. Cunliffe, G. P. Krapp, and
W. W. Lawrence. He received the degree of M. A. from Columbia in 1906,
and in 1906–7 was University Fellow in English and Editor of the
_English Graduate Record_. In 1907–8, he was Head of the Department
of English in George School, George School, Pa., and from 1908–10 was
Instructor in English at Phillips Academy, Andover, Mass., studying
abroad at Oxford during the summer of 1910. After a third year of
residence at Columbia in 1910–11, he returned to Phillips Academy,
where he is at present Instructor in English.
Transcriber’s Notes
Punctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made consistent when a
predominant preference was found in the original book; otherwise they
were not changed.
Simple typographical errors were corrected; unbalanced quotation
marks were remedied when the change was obvious, and otherwise left
unbalanced.
Footnotes, originally at the bottoms of the pages that referenced them,
have been collected, sequentially renumbered, and placed just before
the Index.
Footnote 378 (referenced on page 204) was missing from the original
book.