1759-1796
[Sidenote: Currie’s _Life of Burns_.]
“Burns ... was nearly five feet ten inches in height, and of a form
that indicated agility as well as strength. His well-raised forehead,
shaded with black curling hair, indicated extensive capacity. His
eyes were large, dark, full of ardour and intelligence. His face was
well-formed, and his countenance uncommonly interesting and expressive.
His mode of dressing, which was often slovenly, and a certain fulness
and bend in his shoulders, characteristic of his original profession,
disguised in some degree the natural symmetry and elegance of his
form. The external appearance of Burns was most strikingly indicative
of the character of his mind. On a first view, his physiognomy had
a certain air of coarseness, mingled, however, with an expression
of deep penetration, and of calm thoughtfulness, approaching to
melancholy.... His dark and haughty countenance easily relaxed into
a look of good-will, of pity, or of tenderness, and, as the various
emotions succeeded each other in his mind, assumed with equal ease the
expression of the broadest humour, of the most extravagant mirth, of
the deepest melancholy, or of the most sublime emotion. The tones of
his voice happily corresponded with the expression of his features,
and with the feelings of his mind. When to these endowments are added
a rapid and distinct apprehension, a most powerful understanding,
and a happy command of language--of strength as well as brilliancy
of expression--we shall be able to account for the extraordinary
attractions of his conversation--for the sorcery which in his social
parties he seemed to exert on all around him.”
[Sidenote: Lockhart’s _Life of Scott_.]
“His person was strong and robust; his manners rustic, not clownish; a
sort of dignified plainness and simplicity, which received part of its
effect, perhaps, from one’s knowledge of his extraordinary talents. His
features are represented in Mr. Nasmyth’s picture, but to me it conveys
the idea that they are diminished, as if seen in perspective. I think
his countenance was more massive than it looks in any of the portraits.
I would have taken the poet, had I not known what he was, for a very
sagacious country farmer of the old Scotch school; _i.e._ none of your
modern agriculturists, who keep labourers for their drudgery, but the
_douce gudeman_ who held his own plough. There was a strong expression
of sense and shrewdness in all his lineaments; the eye alone, I think,
indicated the poetical character and temperament. It was large, and
of a dark cast, and glowed (I say literally _glowed_) when he spoke
with feeling or interest. I never saw such another eye in a human
head, though I have seen the most distinguished men in my time. His
conversation expressed perfect self-confidence, without the slightest
presumption. Among the men who were the most learned of their time and
country, he expressed himself with perfect firmness, but without the
least intrusive forwardness; and when he differed in opinion, he did
not hesitate to express it firmly, yet, at the same time, with modesty.
I do not remember any part of his conversation distinctly enough to be
quoted, nor did I ever see him again, except in the street, where he
did not recognise me, as I could not expect he should.”--1787.
[Sidenote: _Dumfries Journal_, 1796.]
“His personal endowments were perfectly correspondent to the
qualifications of his mind, his form was manly, his action energy
itself, devoid in a great measure perhaps of those graces, of that
polish, acquired only in the refinement of societies where in early
life he could have no opportunities of mixing; but where, such was
the irresistible power of attraction that encircled him, though his
appearance and manners were always peculiar, he never failed to delight
and to excel. His figure seemed to bear testimony to his earlier
destination and employments. It seemed rather moulded by nature for the
rough exercises of agriculture, than the gentler cultivation of the
_Belles Lettres_. His features were stamped with the hardy character
of independence, and the firmness of conscious, though not arrogant,
pre-eminence; the animated expressions of countenance were almost
peculiar to himself; the rapid lightenings of his eye were always the
harbingers of some flash of genius, whether they darted the fiery
glances of insulted and indignant superiority, or beamed with the
impassioned sentiments of fervent and impetuous affections. His voice
alone could improve upon the magic of his eye; sonorous, replete with
the finest modulations, it alternately captivated the ear with the
melody of poetic numbers, the perspicuity of nervous reasoning, or the
ardent sallies of enthusiastic patriotism.”