With the exception of Sir Egerton Brydges, who contributed to the
GENTLEMAN'S MAGAZINE for 1791-2 a series of articles on the life
and writings of the subject of the present memoir, all the
biographers of Richard Lovelace have contented themselves with
following the account left by Anthony Wood of his short and unhappy
career. I do not think that I can do better than commence, at
least, by giving word for word the narrative of Wood in his own
language, to which I purpose to add such additional particulars in
the form of notes or otherwise, as I may be able to supply. But
the reader must not expect much that is new: for I regret to say
that, after the most careful researches, I have not improved, to
any large extent, the state of knowledge respecting this elegant
poet and unfortunate man.
"Richard Lovelace," writes Wood, "the eldest son of Sir William
Lovelace<2.1> of Woollidge in Kent, knight, was born in that
country [in 1618], educated in grammar learning in
Charterhouse<2.2> School near London, became a gent. commoner of
Gloucester Hall in the beginning of the year 1634,<2.3> and in that
of his age sixteen, being then accounted the most amiable and
beautiful person that ever eye beheld; a person also of innate
modesty, virtue, and courtly deportment, which made him then, but
especially after, when he retired to the great city, much admired
and adored by the female sex. In 1636, when the king and queen
were for some days entertained at Oxon, he was, at the request of a
great lady belonging to the queen, made to the Archbishop of
Canterbury [Laud], then Chancellor of the University, actually
created, among other persons of quality, Master of Arts, though but
of two years' standing; at which time his conversation being made
public, and consequently his ingenuity and generous soul
discovered, he became as much admired by the male, as before by the
female, sex. After he had left the University, he retired in great
splendour to the court, and being taken into the favour of Lord
George Goring, afterwards Earl of Norwich, was by him adopted a
soldier, and sent in the quality of an ensign, in the Scotch
expedition, an. 1639. Afterwards, in the second expedition, he was
commissionated a captain in the same regiment, and in that time
wrote a tragedy called THE SOLDIER, but never acted, because the
stage was soon after suppressed. After the pacification of
Berwick, he retired to his native country, and took possession [of
his estate] at Lovelace Place, in the parish of Bethersden,<2.4> at
Canterbury, Chart, Halden, &c., worth, at least, <pounds>500 per
annum. About which time he [being then on the commission of the
peace] was made choice of by the whole body of the county of Kent
at an assize, to deliver the Kentish petition<2.5> to the House of
Commons, for the restoring the king to his rights, and for settling
the government, &c. For which piece of service he was committed
[April 30, 1642] to the Gatehouse at Westminster,<2.6> where he
made that celebrated song called, STONE WALLS DO NOT A PRISON MAKE,
&c. After three or four months' [six or seven weeks'] imprisonment,
he had his liberty upon bail of <pounds>40,000 [<pounds>4000?]
not to stir out of the lines of communication without a pass from
the speaker. During the time of this confinement to London,
he lived beyond the income of his estate, either to keep up
the credit and reputation of the king's cause by furnishing
men with horses and arms, or by relieving ingenious men in want,
whether scholars, musicians, soldiers, &c. Also, by furnishing
his two brothers, Colonel Franc. Lovelace, and Captain William
Lovelace (afterwards slain at Caermarthen)<2.7> with men and
money for the king's cause, and his other brother, called Dudley
Posthumus Lovelace, with moneys for his maintenance in Holland,
to study tactics and fortification in that school of war. After
the rendition of Oxford garrison, in 1646, he formed a regiment
for the service of the French king, was colonel of it, and
wounded at Dunkirk;<2.8> and in 1648, returning into England, he,
with Dudley Posthumus before mentioned, then a captain under him,
were both committed prisoners to Peter House,<2.9> in London, where
he framed his poems for the press, entitled, LUCASTA: EPODES, ODES,
SONNETS, SONGS, &c., Lond. 1649, Oct. The reason why he gave that
title was because, some time before, he had made his amours to a
gentlewoman of great beauty and fortune, named Lucy Sacheverell,
whom he usually called LUX CASTA; but she, upon a stray report that
Lovelace was dead of his wound received at Dunkirk, soon after
married.<2.10> He also wrote ARAMANTHA [Amarantha], A PASTORAL,
printed with LUCASTA.<2.11> Afterwards a musical composition of two
parts was set to part of it by Henry Lawes,<2.12> sometimes servant
to king Charles I., in his public and private music.
"After the murther of king Charles I. Lovelace was set at liberty,
and, having by that time consumed all his estate,<2.13> grew
very melancholy (which brought him at length into a consumption),
became very poor in body and purse, was the object of charity,
went in ragged cloaths (whereas when he was in his glory he wore
cloth of gold and silver), and mostly lodged in obscure and dirty
places, more befitting the worst of beggars and poorest of
servants, &c. After his death his brother Dudley, before
mentioned, made a collection of his poetical papers, fitted them
for the press, and entitled them LUCASTA: POSTHUME POEMS, Lond.
1659,<2.14> Oct., the second part, with his picture before
them.<2.15> These are all the things that he hath extant; those
that were never published were his tragedy, called THE SOLDIER or
SOLDIERS, before mentioned; and his comedy, called THE
SCHOLAR,<2.16> which he composed at sixteen years of age, when he
came first to Gloucester hall, acted with applause afterwards in
Salisbury Court. He died in a very mean lodging in Gunpowder
Alley,<2.17> near Shoe Lane,<2.18> and was buried at the west-end
of the church of S. Bride, alias Bridget, in London, near to the
body of his kinsman Will. Lovelace, of Gray's Inn, Esq., in sixteen
hundred fifty and eight,<2.19> having before been accounted by all
those that well knew him to have been a person well versed in the
Greek<2.20> and Latin<2.21> poets, in music, whether practical or
theoretical, instrumental or vocal, and in other things befitting a
gentleman. Some of the said persons have also added, in my
hearing, that his common discourse was not only significant and
witty, but incomparably graceful, which drew respect from all men
and women. Many other things I could now say of him, relating
either to his most generous mind in his prosperity, or dejected
estate in his worst state of poverty, but for brevity's sake I
shall now pass them by. At the end of his Posthume Poems are
several elegies written on him by eminent poets of that time,
wherein you may see his just character."
Such is Wood's account; it is to be regretted that that writer
did not supply the additional information, which he tantalizes us
by saying that he possessed, and could have published, had he not
been afraid of being tedious. His love of brevity is, in this
case, most provoking.
As might be expected, the Journals of Parliament cast additional
light on the personal connexion of Lovelace with the Kentish
Petition of 1642, which was for the GENERAL redress of existing
grievances, not, as the editor of the VERNEY PAPERS seems to have
considered, merely for the adjustment of certain points relative to
the Militia. Parliamentary literature has not a very strong
fascination for the editors of old authors, and the biographers of
Lovelace have uniformly overlooked the mine of information which
lies in the LORDS' AND COMMONS' JOURNALS. The subject was
apparently introduced, for the first time, into Parliament on the
28th March, 1642, when a conference of both Houses took place,
respecting "a petition from Kent, which, praying for a Restoration
of the Bishops, Liturgy and Common Prayer, and other constitutional
measures, was voted seditious and against privilege and the peace
of the kingdom;" on the same occasion, Lord Bristol and Mr. Justice
Mallett were committed to the Tower for having in their possession
a copy of the document. On the 7th April it was ordered by both
Houses, that the Kentish Petition should be burned by the hands of
the common hangman.
On the 28th April, the Commons acquainted the Upper House,
by Mr. Oliver Cromwell, "that a great meeting was to be held
next day on Blackheath, to back the rejected Kentish
Petition."<2.22>
Two days later, a strange scene occurred at Westminster.
Let the Commons' Journals tell the story in their own language:--
"30 April, 1642. The House being informed that divers gentlemen
of the county of Kent were at the door, that desired to present
a petition to the House;
"They were called in, presented their Petition, and withdrew.
"And their Petition was read, and appeared to be the same
that was formerly burnt, by order of both Houses, by the hands
of the common hangman. Captain LEIGH reports that, being at
the Quarter Sessions held at MAIDSTONE, he observed certain
passages which he delivered in writing.
"Captain Lovelace, who presented the Petition, was called in;
and Mr. Speaker was commanded to ask him, from whose hand
he had this Petition, and who gave him warrant to present it.
"'Mr. GEO. CHUTE delivered him [he replied] the Petition the next
day after the Assizes.'
"'The gentlemen [he continued], that were assembled at BLACKHEATH,
commanded him to deliver it.'
"[The Speaker then inquired] whether he knew that the like was
burnt by the order of this House, and that some were here
questioned for the business.
"'He understood a general rumour, that some gentlemen were
questioned.
"'He had heard a fortnight since, that the like Petition was burned
by the hand of the common hangman.
"'He knew nothing of the bundle of printed petitions.'
"He likewise said, 'that there was a petition at the Quarter
Sessions, disavowed by all the Justices there, which he tore.'
"Sir William Boteler was likewise called in, [and] asked when he
was at Yorke.
"[He] answered, 'On Wednesday last was sevennight, he came from
Yorke, and came to his house in London.
"'He heard of a petition that was never delivered.
"'He never heard of any censure of the Parliament.
"'He heard that a paper was burnt for being irregularly burnt
[?presented].
"'He had heard that the Petition, that went under the name of
the Kentish Petition, was burnt by the hands of the common hangman.
"'He never heard of any order of either, [or] of both, the Houses
concerning [the Petition].
"'He was at Hull on Thursday or Friday was a sevennight: as he
came from Yorke, he took Hull in the way. He had heard, that
Sir Roger Twisden was questioned for the like Petition.
"'He was yesterday at BLACKHEATH.'
"Resolved, upon the question, that Captain Lovelace shall be
presently Committed prisoner to the Gatehouse.
"Resolved, upon the question, that Sir William Boteler shall be
presently committed prisoner to the Fleet.
"Ordered, that the sergeant shall apprehend them, and carry them
in safe custody, and deliver them as prisoners to the several
prisons aforesaid."
On the 4th May, 1642, the House of Commons ordered Mr. Whittlock
and others to prepare a charge against Mr. Lovelace and Sir William
Boteler with all expedition; but nothing further is heard of the
matter till the 17th June, When Lovelace<2.23> and Boteler
petitioned the House separately for their release from custody.
Hereupon Sir William was discharged on finding personal bail to the
extent of <pounds>10,000, with a surety for <pounds>5000; and in
the case of his companion in misfortune it was ordered, on the
question, that "he be forthwith bailed upon GOOD security." This
"good security," surely, did not reach the sum mentioned by Wood,
namely, <pounds>40,000; but it is likely that the author of the
ATHENAE is ONLY wrong by a cypher, and that the amount fixed was
<pounds>4000, as it has been already suggested. Thus Lovelace's
confinement did not exceed seven weeks in duration, and the
probability, is that the sole inconvenience, which he subsequently
experienced, was the loss of the bail.
The description left by Wood and Aubrey of the end of Lovelace
can only be reconciled with the fact, that his daughter and heiress
conveyed Kingsdown, Hever,<2.24> and a moiety of Chipsted,
to the Cokes by marriage with Mr. Henry Coke, by presuming that
those manors were entailed; while Lovelace Place, as well perhaps
as Bayford and Goodneston, not being similarly secured, were sold
to defray the owner's incumbrances. At any rate it is not,
upon the whole, very probable that he died in a hovel, in a state
of absolute poverty;<2.25> that he received a pound a week
(equal to about <pounds>4 of our money) from two friends,
Cotton and another, Aubrey himself admits; and we may rest
satisfied that, however painful the contrast may have been between
the opening and close of that career, the deplorable account given
in the ATHENAE, and in the so-called LIVES OF EMINENT MEN, is much
exaggerated and overdrawn.
It has not hitherto been remarked, that among the Kentish gentry
who, from time to time, elected to change the nature of their
tenure from gavelkind to primogeniture, were the Lovelaces
themselves, in the person of Thomas Lovelace,<2.26> who, by Act of
Parliament 2 and 3 Edw. VI. obtained, concurrently with several
other families, the power of conversion. This Thomas Lovelace was
not improbably the same, who was admitted a student of Gray's Inn
in 1541; and that he was of the Kentish Lovelaces there is not much
reason to doubt; although, at the same time, I am unable to fix the
precise degree of consanguinity between him and Serjeant William
Lovelace of Gray's Inn, who died in 1576, and who was great-grandfather
to the author of LUCASTA. The circumstance that the real property
of Thomas Lovelace aforesaid, situated in Kent, was released by Act
of Parliament, 2 and 3 Edw. VI. from the operations of gavelkind tenure
(assuming, as is most likely to have been the case, that he was of the
same stock as the poet, though not an immediate ancestor,) seems to
explain the following allusion by Dudley Lovelace in the verses
prefixed by him to LUCASTA, 1649:--
"Those by the landed have been writ,
Mine's but a younger-brother wit."
As well as the subjoined lines by Lovelace in the poem entitled,
"To Lucasta, from Prison," (see p. 44 of present edition):--
"Next would I court my LIBERTY,
And then my birthright, PROPERTY."
There is evidence to prove that Lovelace was on intimate terms
with some of the wits of his time, and that he had friendly
relations with many of them--such as Hall, Rawlins, Lenton, and
particularly the Cottons. John Tatham, the City Poet, and author
of THE FANCIES THEATER, 1640, knew him well, and addressed to him
some stanzas, not devoid of merit, during his stay abroad.
In 1643, Henry Glapthorne, a celebrated dramatist and poet
of the same age, dedicated to Lovelace his poem of WHITEHALL,
printed in that year in a quarto pamphlet, with elegies
on the Earls of Bedford and Manchester.<2.27> The pages
of LUCASTA bear testimony to the acquaintance of the author
with Anthony Hodges of New College, Oxford, translator of
CLITOPHON AND LEUCIPPE from the Greek of Achilles Tatius
(or rather probably from a Latin version of the original),
and with other<2.28> members of the University.<2.29>
Although it is stated by Wood that LUCASTA was prepared for the
press by Lovelace himself, on his return from the Continent in
1648, it is impossible to believe that any care was bestowed on the
correction of the text, or on the arrangement of the various pieces
which compose the volume: nor did his brother Dudley Posthumus, who
edited the second part of the book in 1659, perform his task in any
degree better. In both instances, the printer seems to have been
suffered to do the work in his own way, and very infamously he has
done it. To supply all the short-comings of the author and his
literary executor at this distance of time, is, unfortunately, out
of the power of any editor; but in the present republication I have
taken the liberty of rearranging the poems, to a certain extent in
the order in which it may be conjectured that they were written;
and where Lovelace contributed commendatory verses to other works,
either before or after the appearance of the first portion of
LUCASTA, the two texts have been collated, and improved readings
been occasionally obtained.
The few poems, on which the fame of Lovelace may be said to rest,
are emanations not only of the stirring period in which he lived,
but of the peculiar circumstances into which he was thrown
at different epochs of his life. Lovelace had not the melodious
and exquisite taste of Herrick, the wit of Suckling, or the power
of Randolph (so often second only to his master Jonson).
Mr. Singer has praised the exuberant fancy of Lovelace; but,
in my thinking, Lovelace was inferior in fancy, as well as in
grace, both to Carew and the author of HESPERIDES. Yet Lovelace
has left behind him one or two things, which I doubt if any of
those writers could have produced, and which our greatest poets
would not have been ashamed to own. Winstanley was so far right in
instituting a comparison between Lovelace and Sydney, that it is
hard to name any one in the entire circle of early English
literature except Sydney and Wither, who could have attempted, with
any chance of success, the SONG TO ALTHEA FROM PRISON; and how
differently Sydney at least would have handled it! We know what
Herrick would have made of it; it would have furnished the theme
for one more invocation to Julia. From Suckling we should have had
a bantering playfulness, or a fescennine gaiety, equally unsuited
to the subject. Waller had once an opportunity of realizing the
position, which has been described by his contemporary in immortal
stanzas; but Waller, when he was under confinement, was thinking
too much of his neck to write verses with much felicity, and
preferred waiting, till he got back to Beaconsfield (when his
inspiration had evaporated), to pour out his feelings to Lady
Dorothy or Lady Sophia. Wither's song, "Shall I wasting in
Despair," is certainly superior to the SONG TO ALTHEA. Wither was
frequently equal to Lovelace in poetical imagery and sentiment, and
he far excelled him in versification. The versification of
Lovelace is indeed more rugged and unmusical than that of any other
writer of the period, and this blemish is so conspicuous throughout
LUCASTA, and is noticeable in so many cases, where it might have
been avoided with very little trouble, that we are naturally led to
the inference that Lovelace, in writing, accepted from indolence or
haste, the first word which happened to occur to his mind. Daniel,
Drayton, and others were, it is well known, indefatigable revisers
of their poems; they "added and altered many times," mostly
for the better, occasionally for the worse. We can scarcely
picture to ourselves Lovelace blotting a line, though it would
have been well for his reputation, if he had blotted many.
In the poem of the LOOSE SARABAND (p. 34) there is some resemblance
to a piece translated from Meleager in Elton's SPECIMENS OF CLASSIC
POETS, i. 411, and entitled by Elton "Playing at Hearts."
"Love acts the tennis-player's part,
And throws to thee my panting heart;
Heliodora! ere it fall,
Let desire catch swift the ball:
Let her in the ball-court move,
Follow in the game with love.
If thou throw me back again,
I shall of foul play complain."
And an address to the Cicada by the same writer, (IBID. i. 415)
opens with these lines:--
"Oh, shrill-voiced insect that, with dew-drops sweet
Inebriate, dost in desert woodlands sing."
In the poem called "The Grasshopper" (p. 94), the author speaks
of the insect as
"Drunk ev'ry night with a delicious tear,
Dropped thee from heaven."----
The similarity, in each case, I believe to have been entirely
accidental: nor am I disposed to think that Lovelace was under any
considerable or direct obligations to the classics. I have taken
occasion to remark that Lovelace seems to have helped to furnish
a model to Cleveland, who carried to an extraordinary length that
fondness for words and figures derived from the alchymist's
vocabulary; but as regards the author of LUCASTA himself, it may
be asserted that there are few writers whose productions exhibit
less of book-lore than his, and even in those places, where he has
employed phrases or images similar to some found in Peele,
Middleton, Herrick, and others, there is great room to question,
whether the circumstance can be treated as amounting to more than
a curious coincidence.
The Master of Dulwich College has obligingly informed me,
that the picture of ALTHEA, as well as that of Lovelace himself,
bequeathed by Cartwright the actor to Dulwich College in 1687,
bears no clue to date of composition, or to the artist's name,
and that it does not assist in the identification of the lady.
This is the more vexatious, inasmuch as it seems probable that
ALTHEA, whoever she was, became the poet's wife, after LUCASTA'S
marriage to another. The CHLOES, &c. mentioned in the following
pages were merely more or less intimate acquaintances of Lovelace,
like the ELECTRA, PERILLA, CORINNA, &c. of Herrick. But at the
same time an obscurity has hitherto hung over some of the persons
mentioned under fictitious names in the poems of Lovelace,
which a little research and trouble would have easily removed.
For instance, no one who reads "Amarantha, a Pastoral,"
doubts that LUCASTA and AMARANTHA are one and the same person.
ALEXIS is Lovelace himself. ELLINDA is a female friend of
the poet, who occasionally stayed at her house, and on one
occasion (p. 79) had a serious illness there. ELLINDA marries
AMYNTOR, under which disguise, I suspect, lurks the well known
Maecenas of his time, Endymion Porter. If Porter be AMYNTOR, of
course ELLINDA must be the Lady Olivia Porter, his wife. ARIGO
(see the poem of AMYNTOR'S GROVE) signifies Porter's friend,
Henry Jermyn. It may be as well to add that the LETTICE mentioned
at p. 121, was the Lady Lettice Goring, wife of Lovelace's friend,
and third daughter of Richard Boyle, first Earl of Cork. This lady
died before her husband, to whom she brought no issue.
The following lines are prefixed to FONS LACHRYMARUM, &c.
by John Quarles, 1648, 8vo., and are subscribed, as will be seen,
R. L.; they may be from the pen of Lovelace; but, if so,
it is strange that they were not admitted, with other productions
of a similar character, into the volume published by the poet
himself in 1649, or into that edited by his brother in 1659.