On the other hand, by a not uncommon connection or consequence, Keats

has proved much more of a "germinal" poet than Shelley. Although the

latter was, I think, by far the greater, his poetry had little that was

national and very little that was imitable about it. He has had a vast

influence; but it has been in the main the influence, the inspiration of

his unsurpassed exciting power. No one has borrowed or carried further

any specially Shelleian turns of phrase, rhythm, or thought. Those who

have attempted to copy and urge further the Shelleian attitude towards

politics, philosophy, ethics, and the like, have made it generally

ludicrous and sometimes disgusting. He is, in his own famous words,

"something remote and afar." His poetry is almost poetry in its

elements, uncoloured by race, language, time, circumstance, or creed. He

is not even so much a poet as Poetry accidentally impersonated and

incarnate.

With Keats it is very different. He had scarcely reached maturity of any

kind when he died, and he laboured under the very serious disadvantages,

first of an insufficient acquaintance with the great masters, and

secondly of coming early under the influence of a rather small master,

yet a master, Leigh Hunt, who taught him the fluent, gushing, slipshod

style that brought not merely upon him, but upon his mighty successor

Tennyson, the harsh but not in this respect wholly unjust lash of

conservative and academic criticism. But he, as no one of his own

contemporaries did, felt, expressed, and handed on the exact change

wrought in English poetry by the great Romantic movement. Coleridge,

Wordsworth, Scott, and even Southey to some extent, were the authors of

this; but, being the authors, they were necessarily not the results of

it. Byron was fundamentally out of sympathy with it, though by accidents

of time and chance he had to enlist; Shelley, an angel, and an effectual

angel, of poetry, was hardly a man, and still less an Englishman. But

Keats felt it all, expressed what of it he had time and strength to

express, and left the rest to his successors, helped, guided, furthered

by his own example. Keats, in short, is the father, directly or at short

stages of descent, of every English poet born within the present

century who has not been a mere "sport" or exception. He begat Tennyson,

and Tennyson begat all the rest.

The evidences of this are to be seen in almost his earliest poems--not

necessarily in those contained in his earliest volume. Of course they

are not everywhere. There were sure to be, and there were, mere echoes

of eighteenth century verse and mere imitations of earlier writers. But

these may be simply neglected. It is in such pieces as "Calidore" that

the new note is heard; and though something in this note may be due to

Hunt (who had caught the original of it from Wither and Browne), Keats

changed, enriched, and refashioned the thing to such an extent that it

became his own. It is less apparent (though perhaps not less really

present) in his sonnets, despite the magnificence of the famous one on

Chapman's _Homer_, than in the couplet poems, which are written in an

extremely fluent and peculiar verse, very much "enjambed" or overlapped,

and with a frequent indulgence in double rhymes. Hunt had to a certain

extent started this, but he had not succeeded in giving it anything like

the distinct character which it took in Keats' hands.

_Endymion_ was written in this measure, with rare breaks; and there is

little doubt that the lusciousness of the rhythm, combined as it was

with a certain lusciousness both of subject and (again in unlucky

imitation of Hunt) of handling, had a bad effect on some readers, as

also that the attacks on it were to a certain extent, though not a very

large one, prompted by genuine disgust at the mawkishness, as its author

called it, of the tone. Keats, who was always an admirable critic of his

own work, judged it correctly enough later, except that he was too harsh

to it. But it is a delightful poem to this day, and I do not think that

it is quite just to call it, as it has been called, "not Greek, but

Elizabethan-Romantic." It seems to me quite different from Marlowe or

the author of _Britain's Ida_, and really Greek, but Greek mediaeval,

Greek of the late romance type, refreshed with a wonderful new blood of

English romanticism. And this once more was to be the note of all the

best poetry of the century, the pouring of this new English blood

through the veins of old subjects--classical, mediaeval, foreign, modern.

We were to conquer the whole world of poetical matter with our English

armies, and Keats was the first leader who started the adventure.

The exquisite poetry of his later work showed this general tendency in

all its latest pieces,--clearly in the larger poems, the fine but

perhaps somewhat overpraised _Hyperion_, the admirable _Lamia_, the

exquisite _Eve of St. Agnes_, but still more in the smaller, and most of

all in those twin peaks of all his poetry, the "Ode on a Grecian Urn"

and "La Belle Dame sans Merci." He need indeed have written nothing but

these two to show himself not merely an exquisite poet but a captain and

leader of English poetry for many a year, almost for many a generation

to come. Wordsworth may have given him a little, a very quiet hint for

the first, the more Classical masterpiece; Coleridge something a little

louder for the second, the Romantic. But in neither case did the summons

amount to anything like a cue or a call-bell; it was at best seed that,

if it had not fallen on fresh and fruitful soil, could have come to

nothing.

As it is, and if we wish to see what it came to, we must simply look at

the whole later poetry of the nineteenth century in England. The

operations of the spirit are not to be limited, and it is of course

quite possible that if Keats had not been, something or somebody would

have done his work instead of him. But as it is, it is to Keats that we

must trace Tennyson, Rossetti, Mr. Swinburne, Mr. Morris; to Keats that

even not a little of Browning has to be affiliated; to Keats, directly

or indirectly, that the greater part of the poetry of nearly three

generations owes royalty and allegiance.

Of him, as of Shelley, some foolish and hurtful things have been said.

In life he was no effeminate "aesthetic" or "decadent," divided between

sensual gratification and unmanly _Katzenjammer_, between paganism and

puerility, but an honest, manly Englishman, whose strength only yielded

to unconquerable disease, whose impulses were always healthy and

generous. Despite his origin,--and, it must be added, some of his

friendships,--there was not a touch of vulgarity about him; and if his

comic vein was not very full-pulsed, he had a merry laugh in him. There

is no "poisonous honey stolen" from anywhere or extracted by himself

from anything in Keats; his sensuousness is nothing more than is, in the

circumstances, "necessary and voluptuous and right." But these moral

excellences, while they may add to the satisfaction with which one

contemplates him, hardly enhance--though his morbid admirers seem to

think that the absence of them would enhance--the greatness and the

value of his poetical position, both in the elaboration of a new poetic

style and language, and still more in the indication of a new road

whereby the great poetic exploration could be carried on.

Round or under these great Seven--for that Byron was great in a way need

not be denied; Southey, the weakest of all as a poet, had a very strong

influence, and was one of the very greatest of English men of

letters--must be mentioned a not inconsiderable number of men who in any

other age would have been reckoned great. The eldest of these, both in

years and in reputation, holds his position, and perhaps always held it,

rather by courtesy than by strict right. Samuel Rogers[7] was born in

London on 30th July 1763, and was the son of a dissenting banker, from

whom he derived Whig principles and a comfortable fortune. It is said

that he once, as a very young man, went to call on Dr. Johnson, but was

afraid to knock; but though shyness accompanied him through life, the

amiability which it is sometimes supposed to betoken did not. He

published a volume of poems in 1786, and his famous _Pleasures of

Memory_, the piece that made his reputation, in 1792. Twenty years

afterwards _Columbus_ followed, and yet two years later, in 1814,

_Jacqueline_; while in 1822 _Italy_, on which, with the _Pleasures of

Memory_, such fame as he has rests, was published, to be reissued some

years afterwards in a magnificent illustrated edition, and to have a

chance (in a classical French jest) _se sauver de planche en planche_.

He did not die till 1855, in his ninety-third year: the last, as he had

been the first, of his group.

Rogers had the good luck to publish his best piece at a time when the

general and popular level of English poetry was at the lowest point it

has reached since the sixteenth century, and to be for many years

afterwards a rich and rather hospitable man, the acquaintance if not

exactly the friend of most men of letters, of considerable influence in

political and general society, and master of an excessively sharp

tongue. A useful friend and a dangerous enemy, it was simpler to court

or to let him alone than to attack him, and his fame was derived from

pieces too different from any work of the actual generation to give them

much umbrage. It may be questioned whether Rogers ever wrote a single

line of poetry. But he wrote some polished and pleasant verse, which was

vigorous by the side of Hayley and "correct" by the side of Keats. In

literature he has very little interest; in literary history he has some.

_Felix opportunitate_ in the same way, but a far greater poet, was

Thomas Campbell, who, like Rogers, was a Whig, like him belonged rather

to the classical than to the romantic school in style if not in choice

of subject, and like him had the good luck to obtain, by a poem with a

title very similar to that of Rogers' masterpiece, a high reputation at

a time when there was very little poetry put before the public. Campbell

was not nearly so old a man as Rogers, and was even the junior of the

Lake poets and Scott, having been born at Glasgow on the 27th July 1777.

His father was a real Campbell, and as a merchant had at one time been

of some fortune; but the American War had impoverished him, and the poet

was born to comparative indigence. He did, however, well at the college

of his native city, and on leaving it took a tutorship in Mull. His

_Pleasures of Hope_ was published in 1799 and was extremely popular, nor

after it had its author much difficulty in following literature. He was

never exactly rich, but pensions, legacies, editorships, high prices for

his not extensive poetical work, and higher for certain exercises in

prose book-making which are now almost forgotten, maintained him very

comfortably. Indeed, of the many recorded ingratitudes of authors to

publishers, Campbell's celebrated health to Napoleon because "he shot a

bookseller" is one of the most ungrateful. In the last year of the

eighteenth century he went to Germany, and was present at (or in the

close neighbourhood of) the battle of Hohenlinden. This he afterwards

celebrated in really immortal verse, which, with "Ye Mariners of

England" and the "Battle of the Baltic," represents his greatest

achievement. In 1809 he published _Gertrude of Wyoming_, a short-long

poem of respectable _technique_ and graceful sentiment. In 1824 appeared

a volume of poems, of which the chief, _Theodric_ (not as it is

constantly misspelled _Theodoric_), is bad; and in 1842 another, of

which the chief, _The Pilgrim of Glencoe_, is worse. He died in 1844 at

Boulogne, after a life which, if not entirely happy (for he had

ill-health, not improved by incautious habits, some domestic

misfortunes, and a rather sour disposition), had been full of honours of

all kinds, both in his own country, of where he was Lord Rector of

Glasgow University, and out of it.

If Campbell had written nothing but his longer poems, the comparison

above made with Rogers would be wholly, instead of partly, justified.

Although both still retain a sort of conventional respect, it is

impossible to call either the _Pleasures of Hope_ or _Gertrude of

Wyoming_ very good poetry, while enough has been said of their

successors. Nor can very high praise be given to most of the minor

pieces. But the three splendid war-songs above named--the equals, if not

the superiors, of anything of the kind in English, and therefore in any

language--set him in a position from which he is never likely to be

ousted. In a handful of others--"Lochiel," the exquisite lines on "A

Deserted Garden in Argyleshire," with, for some flashes at least, the

rather over-famed "Exile of Erin," "Lord Ullin's Daughter," and a few

more--he also displays very high, though rather unequal and by no means

unalloyed, poetical faculty; and "The Last Man," which, by the way, is

the latest of his good things, is not the least. But his best work will

go into a very small compass: a single octavo sheet would very nearly

hold it, and it was almost all written before he was thirty. He is thus

an instance of a kind of poet, not by any means rare in literature, but

also not very common, who appears to have a faculty distinct in class

but not great in volume, who can do certain things better than almost

anybody else, but cannot do them very often, and is not quite to be

trusted to do them with complete sureness of touch. For it is to be

noted that even in Campbell's greatest things there are distinct

blemishes, and that these blemishes are greatest in that which in its

best parts reaches the highest level--"The Battle of the Baltic." Many

third and some tenth rate poets would never have left in their work such

things as "The might of England flushed _To anticipate the scene_,"

which is half fustian and half nonsense: no very great poet could

possibly have been guilty of it. Yet for all this Campbell holds, as has

been said, the place of best singer of war in a race and language which

are those of the best singers and not the worst fighters in the history

of the world--in the race of Nelson and the language of Shakespeare. Not

easily shall a man win higher praise than this.

In politics, as well as in a certain general kind of literary attitude

and school, another Thomas, Moore, classes himself both historically and

naturally with Rogers and Campbell; but he was a very much better poet

than Rogers, and, though he never reached quite the same height as

Campbell at his narrow and exceptional best, a far more voluminous verse

writer and a much freer writer of good verse of many different kinds. He

was born in Dublin on 28th May 1779; his father being a grocer, his

mother somewhat higher in social rank. He was well educated, and was

sent to Trinity College, Dublin, where he had but surmounted political

difficulties; for his time as an undergraduate coincided with

"Ninety-eight," and though it does not seem that he had meddled with

anything distinctly treasonable, he had "Nationalist" friends and

leanings. Partly to sever inconvenient associations, partly in quest of

fortune, he was sent to London in that year, and entered at the Temple.

In a manner not very clearly explained, but connected no doubt with his

leaning to the Whig party, which was then much in need of literary help,

he became a protege of Lord Moira's, by whom he was introduced to the

Prince of Wales. The Prince accepted the dedication of some translations

of Anacreon, etc., which Moore had brought over with him, and which were

published in 1800; while two years later the _Poems of Thomas Little_, a

punning pseudonym, appeared, and at once charmed the public by their

sugared versification and shocked it by their looseness of tone--a

looseness which is not to be judged from the comparatively decorous

appearance they make in modern editions. But there was never much harm

in them. Next year, in 1803, Moore received a valuable appointment at

Bermuda, which, though he actually went out to take possession of it and

travelled some time in North America, he was allowed to transfer to a

deputy. He came back to England, published another volume of poems, and

fought a rather famously futile duel with Jeffrey about a criticism on

it in the _Edinburgh Review_. He began the _Irish Melodies_ in 1807,

married four years later, and from that time fixed his headquarters

mostly in the country: first near Ashbourne in Derbyshire, then near

Devizes in Wiltshire, to be near his patrons Lord Moira and Lord

Lansdowne. But he was constantly in London on visits, and much in the

society of men of letters, not merely of his own party. In particular he

became, on the whole, Byron's most intimate friend, and preserved

towards that very difficult person an attitude (tinged neither with the

servility nor with the exaggerated independence of the _parvenu_) which

did him a great deal of credit. He was rather a strong partisan, and,

having a brilliant vein of poetical satire, he wrote in 1813 _The

Twopenny Post Bag_--the best satiric verse of the poetical kind since

the _Anti-Jacobin_, and the best on the Whig side since the _Rolliad_.

Nor did he fail to take advantage of the popular appetite for long poems

which Scott and Byron had created; his _Lalla Rookh_, published in 1817,

being very popular and very profitable. It was succeeded by another and

his best satirical work, _The Fudge Family_, a charming thing.

Up to this time he had been an exceedingly fortunate man; and his good

luck, aided it must be said by his good conduct,--for Moore, with all

his apparent weaknesses, was thoroughly sound at the core,--enabled him

to surmount a very serious reverse of fortune. His Bermuda deputy was

guilty of malversation so considerable that Moore could not meet the

debt, and he had to go abroad. But Lord Lansdowne discharged his

obligations; and Moore paid Lord Lansdowne. He returned to England in

1823, and was a busy writer for all but the last years of the thirty

that remained to him; but the best of his work was done, with one

exception. Byron left him his _Memoirs_, which would of course have been

enormously profitable. But Lady Byron and others of the poet's

connections were so horrified at the idea of the book appearing that, by

an arrangement which has been variously judged, but which can hardly be

regarded as other than disinterested on Moore's part, the MS. was

destroyed, and instead of it Moore brought out in 1830 his well-known

_Life of Byron_. This, some not incompetent judges have regarded as

ranking next to Lockhart's _Scott_ and Boswell's _Johnson_, and though

its main attraction may be derived from Byron's very remarkable letters,

still shows on the part of the biographer very unusual dexterity, good

feeling, and taste. The lives of _Sheridan_ and _Lord Edward Fitzgerald_

had, and deserved to have, less success; while a _History of Ireland_

was, and was bound to be, an almost complete failure. For, though a very

good prose writer, Moore had little of the erudition required, no grasp

or faculty of political argument, and was at this time of his life, if

not earlier, something of a trimmer, certain to satisfy neither the

"ascendency" nor the "nationalist" parties. His prose romance of _The

Epicurean_ is much better, and a really remarkable, piece of work; and

though the _Loves of the Angels_, his last long poem, is not very good,

he did not lose his command either of sentimental or of facetious lyric

till quite his last days. These were clouded; for, like his

contemporaries Scott and Southey, he suffered from brain disease for

some time before his death, on 25th February 1852.

During his lifetime, especially during the first half or two-thirds of

his literary career, Moore had a great popularity, and won no small

esteem even among critics; such discredit as attached to him being

chiefly of the moral kind, and that entertained only by very

strait-laced persons. But as the more high-flown and impassioned muses

of Wordsworth, of Shelley, and of Keats gained the public ear in the

third and later decades of the century, a fashion set in of regarding

him as a mere melodious trifler; and this has accentuated itself during

the last twenty years or so, though quite recently some efforts have

been made in protest. This estimate is demonstrably unjust. It is true

that of the strange and high notes of poetry he has very few, of the

very strangest and highest none at all. But his long poems, _Lalla

Rookh_ especially, though somewhat over-burdened with the then

fashionable deck cargo of erudite or would-be erudite notes, possess

merit which none but a very prejudiced critic can, or at least ought to,

overlook. And in other respects he is very nearly, if not quite, at the

top of at least two trees, which, if not quite cedars of Lebanon, are

not mere grass of Parnassus. Moore was a born as well as a trained

musician. But whereas most musicians have since the seventeenth century

been exceedingly ill at verbal numbers, he had a quite extraordinary

knack of composing what are rather disrespectfully called "words." Among

his innumerable songs there are not one or two dozens or scores, but

almost hundreds of quite charmingly melodious things, admirably adjusted

to their music, and delightful by themselves without any kind of

instrument, and as said not sung. And, what is more, among these there

is a very respectable number to which it would be absolutely absurd to

give the name of trifle. "I saw from the beach" is not a trifle, nor

"When in death I shall calm recline," nor "Oft in the stilly night," nor

"Tell me, kind sage, I pray thee," nor many others. They have become so

hackneyed to us in various ways, and some of them happen to be pitched

in a key of diction which, though not better or worse than others, is so

out of fashion, that it seems as if some very respectable judges could

not "focus" Moore at all. To those who can he will seem, not of course

the equal, or anything like the equal, of Burns or Shelley, of Blake or

Keats, but in his own way,--and that a way legitimate and not low,--one

of the first lyrical writers in English. And they will admit a

considerable addition to his claims in his delightful satirical verse,

mainly but not in the least offensively political, in which kind he is

as easily first as in the sentimental song to music.

Something not dissimilar to the position which Moore occupies on the

more classical wing of the poets of the period is occupied on the other

by Leigh Hunt. Hunt (Henry James Leigh, who called himself and is

generally known by the third only of his Christian names) was born in

London on the 19th October 1784, was educated at Christ's Hospital,

began writing very early, held for a short time a clerkship in a public

office, and then joined his brother in conducting the _Examiner_

newspaper. Fined and imprisoned for a personal libel on the Prince

Regent (1812), Hunt became the fashion with the Opposition; and the

_Story of Rimini_, which he published when he came out of gaol, and

which was written in it, had a good deal of influence. He spent some

years in Italy, to which place he had gone with his family in 1822 to

edit _The Liberal_ and to keep house with Byron--a very disastrous

experiment, the results of which he recorded in an offensive book on his

return. Hunt lived to 18th August 1859, and was rescued from the chronic

state of impecuniosity in which, despite constant literary work, he had

long lived, by a Crown pension and some other assistance in his latest

days. Personally, Leigh Hunt was an agreeable and amiable being enough,

with certain foibles which were rather unfairly magnified in the famous

caricature of him as Harold Skimpole by his friend Dickens, but which

were accompanied by some faults of taste of which Mr. Skimpole is not

accused.

In letters he was a very considerable person; though the best and far

the largest part of his work is in prose, and will be noticed hereafter.

His verse is not great in bulk, and is perhaps more original and

stimulating than positively good. His wide and ardent study of the older

English poets and of those of Italy had enabled him to hit on a novel

style of phrase and rhythm, which has been partly referred to above in

the notice of Keats; his narrative faculty was strong, and some of his

smaller pieces, from his sonnets downwards, are delightful things. "Abou

ben Adhem" unites (a rare thing for its author) amiability with dignity,

stateliness with ease; the "Nile" sonnet is splendid; "Jenny kissed me,"

charming, if not faultless; "The Man and the Fish," far above vulgarity.

The lack of delicate taste which characterised his manners also marred

his verse, which is not unfrequently slipshod, or gushing, or trivially

fluent, and perhaps never relatively so good as the best of his prose.

But he owed little to any but the old masters, and many contemporaries

owed not a little to him.

A quaint and interesting if not supremely important figure among the

poets of this period, and, if his poetry and prose be taken together, a

very considerable man of letters,--perhaps the most considerable man of

letters in English who was almost totally uneducated,--was James Hogg,

who was born in Ettrick Forest in the year 1772. He was taken from

school to mind sheep so early that much later he had to teach himself

even reading and writing afresh; and, though he must have had the

song-gift early, it was not till he was nearly thirty that he published

anything. He was discovered by Scott, to whom he and his mother supplied

a good deal of matter for the _Border Minstrelsy_, and he published

again in 1803. The rest of his life was divided between writing--with

fair success, though with some ill-luck from bankrupt publishers--and

sheep-farming, on which he constantly lost, though latterly he sat rent

free under the Duke of Buccleuch. He died on 21st November 1835.

Even during his life Hogg underwent a curious process of mythopoeia at

the hands of Wilson and the other wits of _Blackwood's Magazine_, who

made him--partly with his own consent, partly not--into the famous

"Ettrick Shepherd" of the _Noctes Ambrosianae_. "The Shepherd" has Hogg's

exterior features and a good many of his foibles, but is endowed with

considerably more than his genius. Even in his published and

acknowledged works, which are numerous, it is not always quite easy to

be sure of his authorship; for he constantly solicited, frequently

received, and sometimes took without asking, assistance from Lockhart

and others. But enough remains that is different from the work of any of

his known or possible coadjutors to enable us to distinguish his

idiosyncrasy pretty well. In verse he was a very fluent and an

exceedingly unequal writer, who in his long poems chiefly, and not too

happily, followed Scott, but who in the fairy poem of "Kilmeny"

displayed an extraordinary command of a rare form of poetry, and who has

written some dozens of the best songs in the language. The best, but

only a few of the best, of these are "Donald Macdonald," "Donald

M'Gillavry," "The Village of Balmanhapple," and the "Boy's Song." In

prose he chiefly attempted novels, which have no construction at all,

and few merits of dialogue or style, but contain some powerful passages;

while one of them, _The Confessions of a Justified Sinner_, if it is

entirely his, which is very doubtful, is by far the greatest thing he

wrote, being a story of _diablerie_ very well designed, wonderfully

fresh and enthralling in detail, and kept up with hardly a slip to the

end. His other chief prose works are entitled _The Brownie of Bodsbeck_,

_The Three Perils of Man_, _The Three Perils of Woman_, and _Altrive

Tales_, while he also wrote some important, and in parts very offensive,

but also in parts amusing, _Recollections of Sir Walter Scott_. His

verse volumes, no one of which is good throughout, though hardly one is

without good things, were _The Mountain Bard_, _The Queen's Wake_,

_Mador of the Moor_, _The Pilgrims of the Sun_, _Jacobite Relics_ (some

of the best forged by himself), _Queen Hynde_, and _The Border Garland_.

A greater writer, if his work be taken as a whole, than any who has been

mentioned since Keats, was Walter Savage Landor, much of whose

composition was in prose, but who was so alike in prose and verse that

the whole had better be noticed together here. Landor (who was of a

family of some standing in Warwickshire, and was heir to considerable

property, much of which he wasted later by selling his inheritance and

buying a large but unprofitable estate in Wales) was born at Ipsley

Court, in 1775. He went to school at Rugby, and thence to Trinity

College, Oxford, at both of which places he gained considerable

scholarship but was frequently in trouble owing to the intractable and

headstrong temper which distinguished him through life. He was indeed

rusticated from his college, and subsequently, owing to his extravagant

political views, was refused a commission in the Warwickshire Militia.

He began to write early, but the poem of _Gebir_, which contains in germ

or miniature nearly all his characteristics of style, passed almost

unnoticed by the public, though it was appreciated by good wits like

Southey and De Quincey. After various private adventures he came into

his property and volunteered in the service of Spain, where he failed,

as usual, from impracticableness. In 1811, recklessly as always, he

married a very young girl of whom he knew next to nothing, and the

marriage proved anything but a happy one. The rest of his long life was

divided into three residences: first with his family at Florence; then,

when he had quarrelled with his wife, at Bath; and lastly (when he had

been obliged to quit Bath and England owing to an outrageous lampoon on

one lady, which he had written, as he conceived, in chivalrous defence

of another) at Florence again. Here he died in September 1864, aged very

nearly ninety.

Landor's poetical productions, which are numerous, are spread over the

greater part of his life; his prose, by which he is chiefly known, dates

in the main from the last forty years of it, the best being written

between 1820 and 1840. The greater part of this prose takes the form of

"Imaginary Conversations"--sometimes published under separate general

headings, sometimes under the common title--between characters of all

ages, from the classical times to Landor's. Their bulk is very great;

their perfection of style at the best extraordinary, and on the whole

remarkably uniform; their value, when considerations of matter are added

to that of form, exceedingly unequal. For in them Landor not only

allowed the fullest play to the ungovernable temper and the childish

crotchets already mentioned, but availed himself of his opportunities

(for, though he endeavoured to maintain a pretence of dramatic

treatment, his work is nearly as personal as that of Byron) to deliver

his sentiments on a vast number of subjects, sometimes without too much

knowledge, and constantly with a plentiful lack of judgment. In

politics, in satiric treatment, and especially in satiric treatment of

politics, he is very nearly valueless. But his intense familiarity with

and appreciation of classical subjects gave to almost all his dealings

with them a value which, for parallel reasons, is also possessed by

those touching Italy. And throughout this enormous collection of work

(which in the compactest edition fills five large octavo volumes in

small print), whensoever the author forgets his crotchets and his rages,

when he touches on the great and human things, his utterance reaches the

very highest water-mark of English literature that is not absolutely the

work of supreme genius.

For supreme genius Landor had not. His brain was not a great brain, and

he did not possess the exquisite alertness to his own weaknesses, or the

stubborn knack of confinement to things suitable to him, which some

natures much smaller than the great ones have enjoyed. But he had the

faculty of elaborate style--of style elaborated by a careful education

after the best models and vivified by a certain natural gift--as no one

since the seventeenth century had had it, and as no one except Mr.

Ruskin and the late Mr. Pater has had since. Also, he was as much wider

in his range and more fertile in his production than Mr. Pater as he was

more solidly grounded on the best models than Mr. Ruskin. Where Landor

is quite unique is in the apparent indifference with which he was able

to direct this gift of his into the channels of prose and poetry--a

point on which he parts company from both the writers to whom he has

been compared, and in which his only analogue, so far as I am able to

judge, is Victor Hugo. The style of no Englishman is so alike in the two

harmonies as is that of Landor. And it is perhaps not surprising that,

this being the case, he shows at his best in prose when he tries long

pieces, in verse when he tries short ones. Some of Landor's prose

performances in _Pericles and Aspasia_, in the _Pentameron_ (where

Boccaccio and Petrarch are the chief interlocutors), and in not a few of

the separate conversations, are altogether unparalleled in any other

language, and not easy to parallel in English. They are never entirely

or perfectly natural; there is always a slight "smell of the lamp," but

of a lamp perfumed and undying. The charm is so powerful, the grace so

stately, that it is impossible for any one to miss it who has the

faculty of recognising charm and grace at all. In particular, Landor is

remarkable--and, excellent as are many of the prose writers whom we have

had since, he is perhaps the most remarkable--for the weight, the

beauty, and the absolute finish of his phrase. Sometimes these splendid

phrases do not mean very much; occasionally they mean nothing or

nonsense. But their value as phrase survives, and the judge in such

things is often inclined and entitled to say that there is none like

them.

This will prepare the reader who has some familiarity with literature

for what is to be said about Landor's verse. It always has a certain

quality of exquisiteness, but this quality is and could not but be

unequally displayed in the short poems and the long. The latter can

hardly attain, with entirely competent and impartial judges, more than a

success of esteem. _Gebir_ is couched in a Miltonic form of verse (very

slightly shot and varied by Romantic admixture) which, as is natural to

a young adventurer, caricatures the harder and more ossified style of

the master. Sometimes it is great; more usually it intends greatness.

The "Dialogues in Verse" (very honestly named, for they are in fact

rather dialogues in verse than poems), though executed by the hand of a

master both of verse and dialogue, differ in form rather than in fact

from the Conversations in prose. The _Hellenics_ are mainly dialogues in

verse with a Greek subject. All have a quality of nobility which may be

sought in vain in almost any other poet; but all have a certain

stiffness and frigidity, some a certain emptiness. They are never

plaster, as some modern antiques have been; but they never make the

marble of which they are composed wholly flesh. Landor was but a

half-Pygmalion.

The vast collection of his miscellaneous poems contains many more

fortunate attempts, some of which have, by common consent of the

fittest, attained a repute which they are never likely to lose. "Rose

Aylmer" and "Dirce," trifles in length as both of them are, are very

jewels of poetic quality. And among the hundreds and almost thousands of

pieces which Landor produced there are some which come not far short of

these, and very many which attain a height magnificent as compared with

the ordinary work of others. But the hackneyed comparison of amber does

something gall this remarkable poet and writer. Everything, great and

small, is enshrined in an imperishable coating of beautiful style; but

the small things are somewhat out of proportion to the great, and, what

is more, the amber itself always has a certain air of being deliberately

and elaborately produced--not of growing naturally. Landor--much more

than Dryden, of whom he used the phrase, but in the same class as

Dryden--is one of those who "wrestle with and conquer time." He has

conquered, but it is rather as a giant of celestial nurture than as an

unquestioned god.

Even after enumerating these two sets of names--the first all of the

greatest, and the greatest of the second, Landor, equalling the least of

the first--we have not exhausted the poetical riches of this remarkable

period. It is indeed almost dangerous to embark on the third class of

poets; yet its members here would in some cases have been highly

respectable earlier, and even at this time deserve notice either for

influence, or for intensity of poetic vein, or sometimes for the mere

fact of having been once famous and having secured a "place in the

story." The story of literature has no popular ingratitude; and, except

in the case of distinct impostors, it turns out with reluctance those

who have once been admitted to it. Sometimes even impostors deserve a

renewal of the brand, if not a freshening up of the honourable

inscription.

The first of this third class in date, and perhaps the first in

influence, though far indeed from being the first in merit, was William

Lisle Bowles, already once or twice referred to. He was born on 24th

September 1762; so that, but for the character and influence of his

verse, he belongs to the last chapter rather than to this. Educated at

Winchester, and at Trinity College, Oxford, he took orders, and spent

nearly the last half century of his very long life (he did not die till

1850) in Wiltshire, as Prebendary of Salisbury and Rector of Bremhill.

It was in the year of the French Revolution that he published his

_Fourteen Sonnets_ [afterwards enlarged in number], _written chiefly on

Picturesque Spots during a Journey_. These fell early into Coleridge's

hands; he copied and recopied them for his friends when he was a

blue-coat boy, and in so far as poetical rivers have any single source,

the first tricklings of the stream which welled into fulness with the

Lyrical Ballads, and some few years later swept all before it, may be

assigned to this very feeble fount. For in truth it is exceedingly

feeble. In the fifth edition (1796), which lies before me exquisitely

printed, with a pretty aquatint frontispiece by Alken, and a dedication

of the previous year to Dean Ogle of Winchester, the Sonnets have

increased to twenty-seven, and are supplemented by fifteen

"miscellaneous pieces." One of these latter is itself a sonnet "written

at Southampton," and in all respects similar to the rest. The

others--"On Leaving Winchester," "On the Death of Mr. Headley" the

critic, a man of worth,[8] "To Mr. Burke on his Reflections," and so

forth--are of little note. The same may be said of Bowles' later

poetical productions, which were numerous; but his edition of Pope,

finished in 1807, brought about a hot controversy not yet forgotten

(nor, to tell the truth, quite settled) on the question Whether Pope was

a poet? That Bowles can have had scant sympathy with Pope is evident

from the very first glance at the famous sonnets themselves. Besides

their form, which, as has been said, was of itself something of a

reactionary challenge, they bear strong traces of Gray, and still

stronger traces of the picturesque mania which was at the same time

working so strongly in the books of Gilpin and others. But their real

note is the note which, ringing in Coleridge's ear, echoed in all the

poetry of the generation, the note of unison between the aspect of

nature and the thought and emotion of man. In the sonnets "At

Tynemouth," "At Bamborough Castle," and indeed in all, more or less,

there is first the attempt to paint directly what the eye sees, not the

generalised and academic view of the type-scene by a type-poet which had

been the fashion for so long; and secondly, the attempt to connect this

vision with personal experience, passion, or meditation. Bowles does not

do this very well, but he tries to do it; and the others, seeing him

try, went and did it.

His extreme importance as an at least admitted "origin" has procured

him notice somewhat beyond his real deserts; over others we must pass

more rapidly. Robert Bloomfield, born in 1760, was one of those

unfortunate "prodigy" poets whom mistaken kindness encourages. He was

the son of a tailor, went early to agricultural labour, and then became

a shoemaker. His _Farmer's Boy_, an estimable but much overpraised

piece, was published in 1800, and he did other things later. He died

mad, or nearly so, in 1823--a melancholy history repeated pretty closely

a generation later by John Clare. Clare, however, was a better poet than

Bloomfield, and some of the "Poems written in an Asylum" have more than

merely touching merit. James Montgomery,[9] born at Irvine on 4th

November 1771, was the son of a Moravian minister, and intended for his

father's calling. He, however, preferred literature and journalism,

establishing himself chiefly at Sheffield, where he died as late as 1854

(30th April). He had, as editor of the _Sheffield Iris_, some troubles

with the law, and in 1835 was rewarded with a pension. Montgomery was a

rather copious and fairly pleasing minor bard, no bad hand at hymns and

short occasional pieces, and the author of longer things called _The

Wanderer of Switzerland_, _The West Indies_, _The World before the

Flood_, and _The Pelican Island_. Bernard Barton, an amiable Quaker

poet, will probably always be remembered as the friend and correspondent

of Charles Lamb; perhaps also as the father-in-law of Edward FitzGerald.

His verse commended itself both to Southey (who had a kindly but rather

disastrous weakness for minor bards) and to Byron, but has little value.

Barton died in 1849.

The same pair of enemies joined in praising Henry Kirke White, who was

born in 1785 and died when barely twenty-one. Here indeed Southey's

unsurpassed biographical skill enforced the poetaster's merit in a

charming _Memoir_, which assisted White's rather pathetic story. He was

the son of a butcher, a diligent but reluctant lawyer's clerk, an

enthusiastic student, a creditable undergraduate at St. John's,

Cambridge, and a victim of consumption. All this made his verse for a

time popular. But he really deserved the name just affixed to him: he

was a poetaster, and nothing more. The "genius" attributed to him in

Byron's well-known and noble though rather rhetorical lines may be

discovered on an average in about half a dozen poets during any two or

three years of any tolerable poetic period. His best things are

imitations of Cowper in his sacred mood, such as the familiar "Star of

Bethlehem," and even these are generally spoilt by some feebleness or

false note. At his worst he is not far from Della Crusca.[10]

In the same year with Kirke White was born a much better poet, and a

much robuster person in all ways, mental and physical. Allan Cunningham

was a Dumfriesshire man born in the lowest rank, and apprenticed to a

stone-mason, whence in after years he rose to be Chantrey's foreman.

Cunningham began--following a taste very rife at the time--with

imitated, or to speak plainly, forged ballads; but the merit of them

deserved on true grounds the recognition it obtained on false, and he

became a not inconsiderable man of letters of all work. His best known

prose work is the "Lives of the Painters." In verse he is ranked, as a

song writer in Scots, by some next to Burns, and by few lower than Hogg.

Some of his pieces, such as "Fair shines the sun in France," have the

real, the inexplicable, the irresistible song-gift. Cunningham, who was

the friend of many good men and was liked by all of them, died on 29th

October 1842. His elder by eleven years, Robert Tannahill, who was born

in 1774 and died (probably by suicide) in 1810, deserves a few lines in

this tale of Scots singers. Tannahill, like Cunningham in humble

circumstances originally, never became more than a weaver. His verse has

not the _gusto_ of Allan or of Hogg, but is sweet and tender enough.

William Motherwell too, as much younger than Allan as Tannahill was

older (he was born in 1797 and died young in 1835), deserves mention,

and may best receive it here. He was a Conservative journalist, an

antiquary of some mark, and a useful editor of Minstrelsy. Of his

original work, "Jeanie Morrison" is the best known; and those who have

read, especially if they have read it in youth, "The Sword Chant of

Thorstein Raudi," will not dismiss it as Wardour Street; while he did

some other delightful things. Earlier (1812) the heroicomic _Anster

Fair_ of William Tennant (1784-1848) received very high and deserved no

low praise; while William Thom, a weaver like Tannahill, who was a year

younger than Motherwell and lived till 1848, wrote many simple ballads

in the vernacular, of which the most touching are perhaps "The Song of

the Forsaken" and "The Mitherless Bairn."

To return to England, Bryan Waller Procter, who claimed kindred with the

poet from whom he took his second name, was born in 1790, went to

Harrow, and, becoming a lawyer, was made a Commissioner of Lunacy. He

did not die till 1874; and he, and still more his wife, were the last

sources of direct information about the great race of the first third of

the century. He was, under the pseudonym of "Barry Cornwall," a fluent

verse writer of the so-called cockney school, and had not a little

reputation, especially for songs about the sea and things in general.

They still, occasionally from critics who are not generally under the

bondage of traditional opinion, receive high praise, which the present

writer is totally unable to echo. A loyal junior friend to Lamb, a wise

and kindly senior to Beddoes, liked and respected by many or by all,

Procter, as a man, must always deserve respect. If

The sea, the sea, the open sea,

The blue, the fresh, the ever free,

and things like it are poetry, I admit myself, with a sad humility, to

be wholly destitute of poetical appreciation.

The Church of England contributed two admirable verse writers of this

period in Henry Cary and Reginald Heber. Cary, who was born in 1772 and

was a Christ Church man, was long an assistant librarian in the British

Museum. His famous translation of the _Divina Commedia_, published in

1814, is not only one of the best verse translations in English, but,

after the lapse of eighty years, during which the study of Dante has

been constantly increasing in England, in which poetic ideas have

changed not a little, and in which numerous other translations have

appeared, still attracts admiration from all competent scholars for its

combination of fidelity and vigour. Heber, born in 1783 and educated at

Brasenose, gained the Newdigate with _Palestine_, a piece which ranks

with _Timbuctoo_ and a few others among unforgotten prize poems. He took

orders, succeeding to the family living of Hodnet, and for some years

bid fair to be one of the most shining lights of the English Church,

combining admirable parochial work with good literature, and with much

distinction as a preacher. Unfortunately he thought it his duty to take

the Bishopric of Calcutta when it was offered him; and, arriving there

in 1824, worked incessantly for nearly two years and then died. His

_Journal in India_ is very pleasant reading, and some of his hymns rank

with the best in English.

Ebenezer Elliott, the "Corn-Law Rhymer," was born in Yorkshire on 7th

March 1781. His father was a clerk in an iron-foundry. He himself was

early sent to foundry work, and he afterwards became a master-founder at

Sheffield. From different points of view it may be thought a

palliation--and the reverse--of the extreme virulence with which Elliott

took the side of workmen against landowners and men of property, that he

attained to affluence himself as an employer, and was never in the least

incommoded by the "condition-of-England" question. He early displayed a

considerable affection for literature, and was one, and about the last,

of the prodigies whom Southey, in his inexhaustible kindness for

struggling men of letters, accepted. Many years later the Laureate wrote

good-naturedly to Wynn: "I mean to read the Corn-Law Rhymer a lecture,

not without some hope, that as I taught him the art of poetry I may

teach him something better." The "something better" was not in Elliott's

way; for he is a violent and crude thinker, with more smoke than fire in

his violence, though not without generosity of feeling now and then, and

with a keen admiration of the scenery--still beautiful in parts, and

then exquisite--which surrounded the smoky Hades of Sheffield. He

himself acknowledges the influence of Crabbe and disclaims that of

Wordsworth, from which the cunning may anticipate the fact that he is

deeply indebted to both. His earliest publication or at least

composition, "The Vernal Walk," is said to date from the very year of

the _Lyrical Ballads_, and of course owes no royalty to Wordsworth, but

is in blank verse, a sort of compound of Thomson and Crabbe. "Love" (in

Crabbian couplets slightly tinged with overlapping) and "The Village

Patriarch" (still smacking of Crabbe in form, though irregularly

arranged in rhymed decasyllables) are his chief other long poems. He

tried dramas, but he is best known by his "Corn-Law Rhymes" and

"Corn-Law Hymns," and deserves to be best known by a few lyrics of real

beauty, and many descriptions. How a man who could write "The Wonders of

the Lane" and "The Dying Boy to the Sloe Blossom" could stoop to

malignant drivel about "palaced worms," "this syllabub-throated

logician," and so forth, is strange enough to understand, especially as

he had no excuse of personal suffering. Even in longer poems the mystery

is renewed in "They Met Again" and "Withered Wild Flowers" compared with

such things as "The Ranter," though the last exhibits the author at both

his best and worst. However, Elliott is entitled to the charity he did

not show; and the author of such clumsy Billingsgate as "Arthur

Bread-Tax Winner," "Faminton," and so forth, may be forgiven for the

flashes of poetry which he exhibits. Even in his political poems they do

not always desert him, and his somewhat famous Chartist (or

ante-Chartist) "Battle-Song" is as right-noted as it is wrong-headed.

Sir Aubrey de Vere (1788-1846), a poet and the father of a poet still

alive, was a friend and follower of Wordsworth, and the author of

sonnets good in the Wordsworthian kind. But he cannot be spared much

room here; nor can much even be given to the mild shade of a poetess far

more famous in her day than he. "Time that breaks all things," according

to the dictum of a great poet still living, does not happily break all

in literature; but it is to be feared that he has reduced to fragments

the once not inconsiderable fame of Felicia Hemans. She was born (her

maiden name was Felicia Dorothea Browne) at Liverpool on 25th September

1794, and when she was only eighteen she married a Captain Hemans. It

was not a fortunate union, and by far the greater part of Mrs. Hemans'

married life was spent, owing to no known fault of hers, apart from her

husband. She did not live to old age, dying on 26th April 1835. But she

wrote a good deal of verse meanwhile--plays, poems, "songs of the

affections," and what not. Her blameless character (she wrote chiefly to

support her children) and a certain ingenuous tenderness in her verse,

saved its extreme feebleness from severe condemnation in an age which

was still avid of verse rather than discriminating in it; and children

still learn "The boy stood on the burning deck," and other things. It is

impossible, on any really critical scheme, to allow her genius; but she

need not be spoken of with any elaborate disrespect, while it must be

admitted that her latest work is her best--always a notable sign.

"Despondency and Aspiration," dating from her death-year, soars close to

real sublimity; and of her smaller pieces "England's Dead" is no vulgar

thing.

Between the death of Byron and the distinct appearance of Tennyson and

the Brownings there was a kind of interregnum or twilight of poetry, of

which one of its strangest if not least illuminative stars or meteors,

Beddoes, has given a graphic but uncomplimentary picture in a letter:

"owls' light" he calls it, with adjuncts. Wordsworth, Coleridge, and

Southey; Scott, Campbell, and Moore, were all living, but the poetic

production of all had on the whole ceased. Shelley and Keats would have

been in time the natural, and in genius the more than sufficient sun

and moon of the time; but they had died before Byron. So the firmament

was occupied by rather wandering stars: some of them elders already

noticed, others born in the ten or twelve years between Keats (1795) and

the eldest of the Tennysons (1807). The chief of these were the pair of

half-serious, half-humorous singers, Hood and Praed. Next in public

estimation come Talfourd, Hartley Coleridge, Macaulay, Sir Henry Taylor,

the Irish poet Mangan, R. H. Horne, and the first Lord Lytton; while a

third class--of critics' rather than readers' favourites--varying in

merit, but, at the best of the best of them, ranking higher than any of

the above, may be made up of George Darley, C. J. Wells, the Dorsetshire

poet Barnes, Beddoes, Charles Whitehead, R. S. Hawker, and Thomas Wade.

To the second class must be added "L. E. L.," the poetess who filled the

interval between Mrs. Hemans and Mrs. Browning.

Wells, Whitehead, and Wade may be dismissed without disrespect as, if

not critical mares'-nests, at any rate critical hobbies. Persons of more

or less distinction (and of less or more crotchet) have at different

times paid very high compliments to the _Joseph and his Brethren_ (1823,

revised later) of Charles Jeremiah Wells (1800-1879), a friend of Keats,

and a person who seems to have lived much as he pleased; to the

_Solitary_ of Charles Whitehead (1804-1862), a Bohemian ne'er-do-weel,

who also showed talent as a novelist and miscellanist; and to the _Mundi

et Cordis Carmina_ (1835) of Thomas Wade (1805-1875), a playwright and

journalist. Of the three, Wade appears to me to have had the greatest

poetical talent. But I do not think that any one who on the one hand

uses epithets in poetical criticism with caution, and on the other has

read a great deal of minor poetry as it appears, could put any one of

them very high. All were born late enough to breathe the atmosphere of

the new poetry young; all had poetical velleities, and a certain amount,

if not of originality, of capacity to write poetry. But they were not

poets; they were only poetical curiosities.

Darley, Beddoes, and Horne belong in the main to the same class, but

rise high, in one case immeasurably, above them. George Darley

(1795-1846) is perhaps our chief English example of "the poet who dies

in youth while the man survives," and who becomes a critic. In him,

however, the generation of the critic did not wait for the corruption of

the poet. An Irishman, and of Trinity College, Dublin, he was one of the

staff of the _London Magazine_, and wrote much verse bad and good,

including the once famous "I've been Roaming," of which it is safe to

say that not one in ten of those who have sung it could tell the author.

His best work is contained in the charming pastoral drama of _Sylvia_

(1827) and the poem entitled _Nepenthe_ (1839). He was a good but rather

a savage critic, and edited Beaumont and Fletcher. His work has never

been collected, nor, it is believed, ever fully published; and it has

the marks of a talent that never did what was in it to do, and came at

an unfortunate time. Some not bad judges in the forties ranked Darley

with Tennyson in poetic possibilities, and thought the former the more

promising of the two.

Except Donne, there is perhaps no English poet more difficult to write

about, so as to preserve the due pitch of enthusiasm on the one hand and

criticism on the other, than Thomas Lovell Beddoes, born at Clifton on

20th July 1803. He was the son of a very famous physician, and of Anna

Edgeworth, the youngest sister of the whole blood to the novelist.

Beddoes, left fatherless at six years old, was educated at the

Charterhouse and at Pembroke College, Oxford, and when he was barely of

age went to Germany to study medicine, living thenceforth almost

entirely on the Continent. Before this he had published two volumes,

_The Improvisatore_ and _The Bride's Tragedy_; but his principal work is

a wild Elizabethan play called _Death's Jest-Book_ or _The Fool's

Tragedy_, which he never absolutely finished. He died in 1848 at Basle

by a complicated and ghastly kind of suicide. Three years later his

Poems appeared, and they have been recently republished, with additions

and a curious collection of letters.

Beddoes has sometimes been treated as a mainly bookish poet deriving

from the Elizabethans and Shelley. I cannot agree with this. His very

earliest work, written when he could not know much either of Shelley or

Keats, shows as they do technique perhaps caught from Leigh Hunt. But

this is quite dropped later; and his Elizabethanism is not imitation but

inspiration. In this inspiration he does not follow, but shares with,

his greater contemporaries. He is a younger and tragic counterpart to

Charles Lamb in the intensity with which he has imbibed the Elizabethan

spirit, rather from the nightshade of Webster and Tourneur than from the

vine of Shakespeare. As wholes, his works are naught, or naught but

nightmares; though _Death's Jest-Book_, despite its infinite

disadvantages from constant rewriting and uncertainty of final form, has

a strong grasp. But they contain passages, especially lyrics, of the

most exquisite fancy and music, such as since the seventeenth century

none but Blake and Coleridge had given. Beddoes does not seem to have

been at all a pleasant person, and in his later days at any rate he

would appear to have been a good deal less than sane. But the author of

such things as the "Dirge for Wolfram" ("If thou wilt ease thine heart")

in _Death's Jest-Book_, and the stanza beginning "Dream-Pedlary," "If

there were dreams to sell," with not a few others of the same kind,

attains to that small and disputed--but not to those who have thought

out the nature of poetry disputable--class of poets who, including

Sappho, Catullus, some mediaeval hymn-writers, and a few moderns,

especially Coleridge, have, by virtue of fragments only, attained a

higher position than many authors of large, substantive, and important

poems. They may be shockingly lacking in bulk, in organisation, in

proper choice of subject, in intelligent criticism of life; but they are

like the summer lightning or the northern aurora, which, though they

shine only now and then, and only it may be for a few moments, shine,

when they do shine, with a beauty unapproachable by gas or candle,

hardly approached by sun or moon, and illuminate the whole of their

world.

Although quotation is in the main impossible in this book, Beddoes,

despite the efforts of his friend Kelsall, of Mr. Swinburne, of Mr.

Gosse (thanks to whom a quasi-complete edition has at last appeared),

and others, is still so little known, that a short one may be allowed in

his case. I have known a critic who said deliberately of the

above-mentioned stanza in "Dream-Pedlary"--

If there were dreams to sell,

What would you buy?

Some cost a passing bell,

Some a light sigh

That shakes from Life's fresh crown

Only a roseleaf down.

If there were dreams to sell--

Merry and sad to tell--

And the crier rung the bell,

What would you buy?

that these ten lines contain more pure poetry than the entire works of

Byron. And the same touch will be found not merely in the "Wolfram

Dirge" mentioned--

If thou wilt ease thine heart

Of Love and all its smart,

Then sleep, dear, sleep.

...

But wilt thou _cure_ thine heart

Of Love and all its smart,

Then die, dear, die--

but in several other dirges (for the dirge is the form natural to

Beddoes), in the "Song from Torrismond," in "Love in Idleness," in the

"Song on the Water" (which is pure early Tennyson), in the exquisite

"Threnody," and in many other things. They have been called artificial:

the epithet can be allowed in no other sense than in that in which it

applies to all the best poetry. And they have the note, which only a few

true but imperfect poets have, of anticipation. Shadows before, both of

Tennyson and Browning, especially of the latter, appear in Beddoes. But

after all his main note is his own: not theirs, not the Elizabethan, not

Shelley's, not another's. And this is what makes a poet.

As Beddoes' forte lay in short and rather uncanny snatches, so that of

Richard Hengist Horne lay in sustained and dignified composition. He was

not christened Hengist at all, but Henry. He had a curious life. In

youth he knew Keats and Wells, having been, like them, at the private

school of Mr. Clarke at Edmonton. He went to Sandhurst and was expelled

for insubordination; joined the Mexican navy in the war of liberation;

travelled widely; but seemed at about five and twenty to be settling

down to literature and journalism in England. After writing various

things, he produced in 1837 the fine but not quite "live" plays of

_Cosmo de Medici_ and _The Death of Marlowe_, and in 1843 the famous

farthing epic, _Orion_, which was literally published at a farthing.

This was the smallest part of a great literary baggage of very unequal

value. In 1852 Horne, resuming the life of adventure, went to Australia,

served in the gold police, and stayed at the Antipodes till 1869. Then

he came home again and lived for fifteen years longer, still writing

almost to his very death on 13th March 1884.

It is not true that _Orion_ is Horne's only work of value; but it is so

much better than anything else of his, and so characteristic of him,

that by all but students the rest may be neglected. And it is an example

of the melancholy but frequently exemplified truth, that few things are

so dangerous, nay, so fatal to enduring literary fame, as the production

of some very good work among a mass of, if not exactly rubbish, yet

inferior stuff. I do not think it extravagant to say that if Horne had

written nothing but _Orion_ and had died comparatively young after

writing it, he would have enjoyed very high rank among English poets.

For, though doubtless a little weighted with "purpose," it is a very

fine poem indeed, couched in a strain of stately and not second-hand

blank verse, abounding in finished and effective passages, by no means

destitute of force and meaning as a whole, and mixing some passion with

more than some real satire. But the rather childish freak of its first

publication probably did it no good, and it is quite certain that the

author's long life and unflagging production did it much harm.

Of the other persons in the list above, Macaulay, Hartley Coleridge, and

Lord Lytton are mainly something else than poets, and Talfourd, as a

dramatist, will also be noticed elsewhere. Barnes and Hawker were both

clergymen of the West of England: the former very highly ranked by some

for his studies in Dorset dialect; the latter the author of the famous

"Song of the Western Men" (long thought a genuine antique), of the

exquisite "Queen Gwennyvar's Round," of the fine "Silent Tower of

Bottreaux," of some beautiful sonnets, and of the stately "Quest of the

Sangreal." Whether James Clarence Mangan, whose most famous poem is

"Dark Rosaleen," a musical and mystic celebration of the charms and

wrongs of Erin, is a great poet to whom Saxon jealousy has refused

greatness for political reasons, or a not ungifted but not consummately

distinguished singer who added some study to the common Irish gift of

fluent, melodious verse-making, is a question best solved by reading his

work and judging for the reader's self. It is not by any sane account so

important that to dismiss it thus is a serious _rifiuto_, and it is

probably impossible for Irish enthusiasm and English judgment ever to

agree on the subject. Of "L. E. L." Sir Henry Taylor, Hood, and Praed,

some more substantive account must be given.

Although it is not easy, after two generations, to decide such a point

accurately, it is probable that "L. E. L." was the most popular of all

the writers of verse who made any mark between the death of Byron in

1824 and the time when Tennyson definitely asserted himself in 1842. She

paid for this popularity (which was earned not merely by her verse, but

by a pretty face, an odd social position, and a sad and apparently,

though it seems not really, mysterious end) by a good deal of slightly

unchivalrous satire at the time and a rather swift and complete oblivion

afterwards. She was born (her full name being Letitia Elizabeth Landon)

in London on 14th August 1802, and was fairly well connected and

educated. William Jerdan, the editor of the _Literary Gazette_ (a man

whose name constantly occurs in the literary history of this time,

though he has left no special work except an _Autobiography_), was a

friend of her family, and she began to write very early, producing

novels and criticisms as well as verse in newspapers, in the albums and

_Souvenirs_ which were such a feature of the twenties and thirties, and

in independent volumes. She was particularly active as a poet about

1824-35, when appeared the works whose titles--_The Improvisatore_, _The

Troubadour_, _The Golden Violet_--suggested parodies to Thackeray. Her

best novel is held to be _Ethel Churchill_, published in 1837. Next year

she married Mr. Maclean, the Governor of Cape Coast Castle; and, going

out with him to that not very salubrious clime, died suddenly in about

two months. All sorts of ill-natured suggestions were of course made;

but the late Colonel Ellis, the historian of the colony, seems to have

established beyond the possibility of doubt that she accidentally

poisoned herself with prussic acid, which she used to take for spasms of

the heart.

It is tolerably exact, and it is not harsh, to say that "L. E. L." is a

Mrs. Hemans with the influence of Byron added, not to the extent of any

"impropriety," but to the heightening of the Romantic tone and of a

native sentimentality. Her verse is generally musical and sweet: it is

only sometimes silly. But it is too often characterised by what can but

be called the "gush" which seems to have affected all the poetesses of

this period except Sara Coleridge (1802-50) (who has some verses worthy

of even her name in _Phantasmion_, her only independent book), and which

appears in very large measure in the work of Mrs. Browning.

Sir Henry Taylor's poetical repute illustrates the converse of the

proposition which is illustrated by that of Horne. It is probable that,

if each is measured by his best things, _Orion_ and _Philip Van

Artevelde_, Horne must be allowed to be a good deal the better poet. But

a placid official life enabled Taylor both to gain powerful friends and

to devote himself to literature merely when and how he pleased. And so

he has burdened his baggage with no mere hack-work. He was indeed a

singularly lucky person. The son of a man of fair family but reduced

fortune who had taken to farming, Henry Taylor began in the navy. But he

disliked the service very much, and either obtained or received his

discharge after only nine months' sea life as a mid-shipman during the

year 1814. Then he entered the public store-keeper's department, but was

ousted by rearrangements after four years' service. These beginnings

were not very promising; but his father allowed him to stay quietly at

home till by pure luck he obtained a third post under Government in the

Colonial Office. This he held for nearly fifty years, during which it

gave him affluence and by degrees a very high position, and left him

abundance of time for society and letters. He resigned it in 1872, and

died on 27th March 1886. He wrote some prose of various kinds, and just

before his death published a pleasant autobiography. But his literary

fame rests on a handful of plays and poems, all of them, except _St.

Clement's Eve_, which did not appear till 1862, produced at leisurely

intervals between 1827 (_Isaac Comnenus_) and 1847 (_The Eve of the

Conquest_ and other poems). The intervening works were _Philip Van

Artevelde_ (his masterpiece, 1834), _Edwin the Fair_ (1842), some minor

poems, and the romantic comedy of _A Sicilian Summer_ (first called _The

Virgin Widow_), which was published with _St. Clement's Eve_. He had

(as, it may be noted curiously, had so many of the men of the transition

decade in which he was born) a singular though scanty vein of original

lyric snatch, the best example of which is perhaps the song "Quoth

tongue of neither maid nor wife" in _Van Artevelde_; but his chief

appeal lay in a very careful study of character and the presentation of

it in verse less icy than Talfourd's and less rhetorical than Milman's.

Yet he had, unlike either of these, very little direct eye to the stage,

and therefore is classed here as a poet rather than as a dramatist.

There is always a public for what is called "thoughtful" poetry, and

Taylor's is more than merely thoughtful. But it may be suspected by

observers that when Robert Browning came into fashion Henry Taylor went

out. Citations of _Van Artevelde_, if not of the other pieces (none of

which are contemptible, while the two last, inferior in weight to their

predecessors, show advance in ease and grace), are very frequent between

1835 and 1865: rare I think between 1865 and 1895.

And so we come at last to the twin poets, in the proper sense

humorous,--that is to say, jesting with serious thoughts behind,--of the

first division of this class. They were very close in many ways--indeed

it is yet a moot point which of the two borrowed certain rhythms and

turns of word and verse from the other, or whether both hit upon these

independently. But their careers were curiously different; and, except

in comparative length of life (if that be an advantage), Praed was

luckier than his comrade. Thomas Hood, who was slightly the elder, was

born in 1798 or 1799 (for both dates are given) in the Poultry; his

father being a bookseller and publisher. This father died, not in good

circumstances, when the son was a boy, and Thomas, after receiving some

though not much education, became first a merchant's clerk and then an

engraver, but was lucky enough to enjoy between these uncongenial

pursuits a long holiday, owing to ill-health, of some three years in

Scotland. It was in 1820 or thereabouts that he fell into his proper

vocation, and, as sub-editor of the _London Magazine_, found vent for

his own talents and made acquaintance with most of its famous staff. He

married, wrote some of his best serious poems and some good comic work,

and found that while the former were neglected the latter was eagerly

welcomed. It was settled that, in his own pathetic pun, he was to be "a

lively Hood for a livelihood" thenceforward. It is difficult to say

whether English literature lost or gained, except from one very

practical point of view; for Hood did manage to live after a fashion by

his fun as he certainly could not have lived by his poetry. He had,

however, a bare pittance, much bad health, and some extremely bad luck,

which for a time made him, through no fault of his own, an exile. His

last five years were again spent in England, and in comparative, though

very comparative, prosperity; for he was editor first of the _New

Monthly Magazine_, then of a magazine of his own, _Hood's Monthly_, and

not long before his death he received from Sir Robert Peel a civil list

pension of L100 a year. The death was due to consumption, inherited and

long valiantly struggled with.

The still shorter life of Winthrop Mackworth Praed, on the other hand,

was passed under sufficiently favourable stars. He was born in 1802, and

his father, Serjeant Praed, possessed property, practice at the bar, and

official position. Praed was sent to Eton, where he became a pillar of

the famous school magazine _The Etonian_, and thence to Trinity College,

Cambridge, where he did extremely well, made the acquaintance of

Macaulay, and wrote in _Knight's Quarterly_. After a short interval of

tutoring and reading for the bar he entered Parliament in 1830, and

remained in it for the rest of his life, which closed on 15th July 1839.

He had latterly been secretary to the Board of Control, and it was

thought that, had he lived, he might have made a considerable political

reputation both as speaker and administrator.

The almost unchequered sunshine of one of these careers and the little

sun and much shadow of the other have left traces--natural though less

than might be supposed--of difference between the produce of the two

men; but perhaps the difference is less striking than the resemblance.

That Hood--obliged to write for bread, and outliving Praed by something

like a decade at the two ends--wrote a great deal more than Praed did is

of little consequence, for the more leisurely writer is as unequal as

the duty labourer. Hood had the deeper and stronger genius: of this

there is no doubt, and the advantage more than made up for Praed's

advantages in scholarship and in social standing and accomplishment. In

this serious work of Hood's--_Lycus the Centaur_, _The Plea of the

Midsummer Fairies_, _The Elm Tree_, _The Haunted House_--there is

observable--to a degree never surpassed by any of the poets of this

group except Beddoes, and more sustained and human, though less weird

and sweet, than his--a strain of the true, the real, the ineffable tone

of poetry proper. At this Praed never arrives: there are at most in him

touches which may seem to a very charitable judgment to show that in

other circumstances sorrow, passion, or the like might have roused him

to display the hidden fire. On the other hand, neither Hood's breeding,

nor, I think, his nature, allowed him to display the exquisite airiness,

the delicate artificial bloom and perfection, of Praed's best _vers de

societe_--the _Season_, the _Letter of Advice_, and the rest. This last

bloom has never been quite equalled--even Prior's touch is coarse to it,

even that of the late Mr. Locker is laboured and deliberate. So too as

there is nothing in Praed of the popular indignation--generous and fine

but a little theatrical--which endears Hood to the general in _The

Bridge of Sighs_ and _The Song of the Shirt_, so there is nothing in

Hood of the sound political sense, underlying apparent banter, of

Praed's _Speaker Asleep_ and other things.

But where the two poets come together, on a ground which they have

almost to themselves, is in a certain kind of humorous poetry ranging

from the terrific-grotesque, as in Hood's _Miss Kilmansegg_ and Praed's

_Red Fisherman_, to the simple, humorously tender study of characters,

as in a hundred things of Hood's and in not a few of Praed's with _The

Vicar_ at their head. The resemblance here is less in special points

than in a certain general view of life, conditioned in each case by the

poet's breeding, temperament, and circumstance, but alike in essence and

quality: in a certain variety of the essentially English fashion of

taking life with a mixture of jest and earnest, of humour and sentiment.

Hood, partly influenced by the need of caring for the public, partly by

his pupilship to Lamb, perhaps went to further extremes both in mere fun

and in mere sentiment than Praed did, but the central substance is the

same in both.

Yet one gift which Hood has and Praed has not remains to be noticed--the

gift of exquisite song writing. Compared with the admired inanities of

Barry Cornwall, his praised contemporary, Hood's "Fair Ines," his "Time

of Roses," his exquisite "Last Stanzas," and not a few other things, are

as gold to gilt copper. Praed has nothing to show against these; but he,

like Hood, was no inconsiderable prose writer, while the latter, thanks

to his apprenticeship to the burin, had an extraordinary faculty of

illustrating his own work with cuts, contrary to all the canons, but

inimitably grotesque.

* * * * *

It is probable that even in this long survey of the great poetical

production of the first third of this century some gaps may be detected

by specialists. But it seemed to me impossible to give more than the

barest mention here to the "single speech" accident of Charles Wolfe,

the author of the "Burial of Sir John Moore," which everybody knows, and

of absolutely nothing else that is worth a single person's knowing; to

the gigantic and impossible labours of Edwin Atherstone; to the

industrious translation of Rose and Sotheby; to the decent worth of

Caroline Bowles, and the Hood-and-water of Laman Blanchard. And there

are others perhaps who cannot be even mentioned; for there must be an

end.

FOOTNOTES:

[3] _Lyrical Ballads_, 1798, and with additions 1800; _Poems_, 1807 (in

these four volumes even adorers have allowed all his greatest work to be

included); _The Excursion_, 1814; _The White Doe of Rylston_, 1815;

_Sonnets on the River Duddon_, and others, 1819-20. In 1836 he brought

out a collected edition of his poems in six volumes. _The Prelude_ was

posthumous.

[4] It must be remembered that Wordsworth was a prose writer of

considerable excellence and of no small volume. Many people no doubt

were surprised when Dr. Grosart, by collecting his pamphlets, his

essays, his notes, and his letters, managed to fill three large octavo

volumes. But his poetry so far outweighs his prose (though, like most

poets, he could write admirably in his pedestrian style when he chose)

that his utterances in "the other harmony" need not be specially

considered. The two most considerable examples of this prose are the

pamphlet on _The Convention of Cintra_ and the five and twenty years

later _Guide to the Lakes_. But minor essays, letters of a more or less

formal character, and prefaces and notes to the poems, make up a goodly

total; and always display a genius germane to that of the poems.

[5] This word, as well as "Aspheterism," which has had a less general

currency, was a characteristic coinage of Coleridge's to designate a

kind of Communism, partly based on the speculations of Godwin, and

intended to be carried into practice in America.

[6] Yet this praise can only be assigned to Coleridge with large

allowance. He was always unjust to his own _immediate_ predecessors,

Johnson, Gibbon, etc.; and he was not too sensible of the real merits of

Pope or even of Dryden. In this respect Leigh Hunt, an immeasurably

weaker thinker, had a much more catholic taste. And it is not certain

that, as a mere prose writer, Coleridge was a very good prose writer.

[7] Curiously enough, there was another and slightly older Samuel

Rogers, a clergyman, who published verse in 1782, just before his

namesake, and who dealt with Hope--

Hope springs eternal in the _aspiring_ breast.

His verse, of which specimens are given in Southey's _Modern English

Poets_, is purely eighteenth century. He died in 1790.

[8] Henry Headley, who, like Bowles and Landor, was a member of Trinity

College, Oxford, and who died young, after publishing a few original

poems of no great value, deserves more credit for his _Select Beauties

of Ancient English Poetry_, published in two volumes, with an exquisite

title-page vignette, by Cadell in 1787, than has sometimes been allowed

him by the not numerous critics who have noticed him recently, or by

those who immediately followed him. His knowledge was soon outgrown, and

therefore looked down upon; and his taste was a very little

indiscriminate. But it was something to put before an age which was just

awakening to the appetite for such things two volumes full of selections

from the too little read poets of the seventeenth, with a few of the

sixteenth century. Moreover, Headley's biographical information shows

very praiseworthy industry, and his critical remarks a great deal of

taste at once nice and fairly catholic. A man who in his day could,

while selecting and putting forth Drayton and Carew, Daniel and King,

speak enthusiastically of Dryden and even of Goldsmith, must have had

the root of the matter in him as few critics have had.

[9] Not to be confounded with _Robert_, or "Satan" Montgomery, his

junior by many years, and a much worse poet, the victim of Macaulay's

famous classical example of what is called in English "slating," and in

French _ereintement_. There is really nothing to be said about this

person that Macaulay has not said; though perhaps one or two of the

things he has said are a little strained.

[10] Some fifteen years ago, in a little book on Dryden, I called Kirke

White a "miserable poetaster," and was rebuked for it by those who

perhaps knew Byron's lines and nothing more. Quite recently Mr. Gosse

was rebuked more loudly for a less severe denunciation. I determined

that I would read Kirke White again; and the above judgment is the

mildest I can possibly pronounce after the reading. A good young man

with a pathetic career; but a poetaster merely.

A History of Nineteenth Century Literature (1780-1895) · 第 3 / 14 章