The Works of Lord Byron Volume IV Part 84

may be it is not my province to predicate; let him settle it with his Maker, as I must do with mine. There is something at once ludicrous and blasphemous in this arrogant scribbler of all works sitting down to deal d.a.m.nation and destruction upon his fellow-creatures, with Wat Tyler, the Apotheosis of George the Third, and the Elegy on Martin the regicide, all shuffled together in his writing-desk."

Southey must have received his copy of the _Two Foscari_ in the last week of December, 1821, and with the "Appendix" (to say nothing of the Third Canto of _Don Juan_) before him, he gave tongue, in the pages of the _Courier_, January 6, 1822. His task was an easy one. He was able to deny, _in toto_, the charge of uttering calumnies on his return from Switzerland, and he was pleased to word his denial in a very disagreeable way. He had come home with a stock of travellers' tales, but not one of them was about Lord Byron. He had "sought for no staler subject than St. Ursula." His charges of "impiety," "lewdness,"

"profanation," and "pollution," had not been answered, and were unanswerable; and as to his being a "scribbler of all work," there were exceptions--works which he had _not_ scribbled, the _nefanda_ which disfigured the writings of Lord Byron. "Satanic school" would stick.

So far, the battle went in Southey's favour. "The words of the men of Judah were fiercer than the words of the men of Israel," and Byron was reduced to silence. A challenge (sent through Kinnaird, but not delivered) was but a confession of impotence. There was, however, in Southey's letter to the _Courier_ just one sentence too many. Before he concluded he had given "one word of advice to Lord Byron"--"When he attacks me again, let it be in rhyme. For one who has so little command of himself, it will be a great advantage that his temper should be obliged to _keep tune_."

Byron had antic.i.p.ated this advice, and had already attacked the laureate in rhyme, scornfully and satirically, but with a gay and genial mockery which dispensed with "wormwood and verdigrease" or yet bitterer and more venomous ingredients.

There was a truth in Lamb's jest, that it was Southey's _Vision of Judgement_ which was worthy of prosecution; that "Lord Byron's poem was of a most good-natured description--no malevolence" (_Diary of H. C.

Robinson_, 1869, ii. 240). Good-natured or otherwise, it awoke inextinguishable laughter, and left Byron in possession of the field.

The _Vision of Judgment_, begun May 7 (but probably laid aside till September 11), was forwarded to Murray October 4, 1821. "By this post,"

he wrote to Moore, October 6, 1821 (_Letters_, 1901, v. 387), "I have sent my nightmare to balance the incubus of Southey's impudent antic.i.p.ation of the Apotheosis of George the Third." A chance perusal of Southey's letter in the _Courier_ (see Medwin's _Conversations_, 1824, p. 222, and letters to Douglas Kinnaird, February 6, 25, 1822) quickened his desire for publication; but in spite of many appeals and suggestions to Murray, who had sent Byron's "copy" to his printer, the decisive step of pa.s.sing the proofs for press was never taken. At length Byron lost patience, and desired Murray to hand over "the corrected copy of the proof with the Preface" of the _Vision of Judgment_ to John Hunt (see letters to Murray, July 3, 6, 1822, _Letters_, 1901, vi. 92, 93).

Finally, a year after the MS. had been sent to England, the _Vision of Judgment_, by Quevedo Redivivus, appeared in the first number (pp. 1-39) of the _Liberal_, which was issued October 15, 1822. The Preface, to Byron's astonishment and annoyance, was not forthcoming (see letter to Murray, October 22, 1822, _Letters_, 1901, vi. 126, and _Examiner_, Sunday, November 3, 1822, p. 697), and is not prefixed to the first issue of the _Vision of Judgment_ in the first number of the _Liberal_.

The _Liberal_ was severely handled by the press (see, for example, the _Literary Gazette_ for October 19, 26, November 2, 1822; see, too, an anonymous pamphlet ent.i.tled _A Critique on the "Liberal"_ (London, 1822, 8vo, 16 pages), which devotes ten pages to an attack on the _Vision of Judgment_). The daily press was even more violent. The _Courier_ for October 26 begins thus: "This _scoundrel-like_ publication has at length made its appearance."

There was even a threat of prosecution. Byron offered to employ counsel for Hunt, to come over to England to stand his trial in his stead, and blamed Murray for not having handed over the corrected proof, in which some of the more offensive pa.s.sages had been omitted or mitigated (see letter to Murray, December 25, 1822, and letter to John Hunt, January 8, 1823, _Letters,_ 1901, vi. 155, 159). It is to be noted that in the list of _Errata_ affixed to the table of Contents at the end of the first volume of the _Liberal,_ the words, a "weaker king ne'er," are subst.i.tuted for "a worse king never" (stanza viii. line 6), and "an unhandsome woman" for "a bad, ugly woman" (stanza xii. line 8). It would seem that these emendations, which do not appear in the MS., were slipped into the _Errata_ as precautions, not as after-thoughts.

Nevertheless, it was held that a publication "calumniating the late king, and wounding the feelings of his present Majesty," was a danger to the public peace, and on January 15, 1824, the case of the King _v._ John Hunt was tried in the Court of King's Bench. The jury brought in a verdict of "Guilty," but judgment was deferred, and it was not till July 19, 1824, three days after the author of the _Vision of Judgment_ had been laid to rest at Hucknall Torkard, that the publisher was sentenced to pay to the king a fine of one hundred pounds, and to enter into securities, for five years, for a larger amount.

For the complete text of section iii. of Southey's Preface, Byron's "Appendix" to the _Two Foscari_, etc., see _Essays Moral and Political_, by Robert Southey, 1832, ii. 183, 205. See, too, for "Quarrel between Byron and Southey," Appendix I. of vol. vi. of _Letters of Lord Byron,_ 1901.

NOTE.

The following excerpt from H. C. Robinson's _Diary_ is printed from the original MS., with the kind permission of the trustees of Dr. Williams'

Theological Library (see "Diary," 1869, ii. 437):--

"[Weimar], August 15, [1829].

"W[ordsworth] will not put the nose of B[yron] out with Frau von Goethe, but he will be appreciated by her. I am afraid of the experiment with the great poet himself....

" ... I alone to the poet....

"I read to him the _Vision of Judgment_. He enjoyed it like a child; but his criticisms went little beyond the exclamatory 'Toll!

Ganz grob! himmlisch! unubertrefflich!' etc., etc.

"In general, the more strongly peppered pa.s.sages pleased him the best. Stanza 9 he praised for the clear distinct painting; 10 he repeated with emphasis,--the last two lines conscious that his own age was eighty; 13, 14, and 15 are favourites with me. G. concurred in the suggested praise. The stanza 24 he declared to be sublime.

The characteristic speeches of Wilkes and Junius he thought most admirable.

"Byron 'hat selbst viel ubertroffen;' and the introduction of Southey made him laugh heartily.

"August 16.

"Lord B. he declared to be inimitable. Ariosto was not so _keck_ as Lord B. in the _Vision of Judgment_."

PREFACE

It hath been wisely said, that "One fool makes many;" and it hath been poetically observed--

"[That] fools rush in where angels fear to tread."

[POPE'S _Essay on Criticism_, line 625.]

If Mr. Southey had not rushed in where he had no business, and where he never was before, and never will be again, the following poem would not have been written. It is not impossible that it may be as good as his own, seeing that it cannot, by any species of stupidity, natural or acquired, be _worse._ The gross flattery, the dull impudence, the renegade intolerance, and impious cant, of the poem by the author of "Wat Tyler," are something so stupendous as to form the sublime of himself--containing the quintessence of his own attributes.

So much for his poem--a word on his preface. In this preface it has pleased the magnanimous Laureate to draw the picture of a supposed "Satanic School," the which he doth recommend to the notice of the legislature; thereby adding to his other laurels the ambition of those of an informer. If there exists anywhere, except in his imagination, such a School, is he not sufficiently armed against it by his own intense vanity? The truth is that there are certain writers whom Mr. S.

imagines, like Scrub, to have "talked of _him_; for they laughed consumedly."[492]

I think I know enough of most of the writers to whom he is supposed to allude, to a.s.sert, that they, in their individual capacities, have done more good, in the charities of life, to their fellow-creatures, in any one year, than Mr. Southey has done harm to himself by his absurdities in his whole life; and this is saying a great deal. But I have a few questions to ask.

1stly, Is Mr. Southey the author of _Wat Tyler_?

2ndly, Was he not refused a remedy at law by the highest judge of his beloved England, because it was a blasphemous and seditious publication?[493]

3rdly, Was he not ent.i.tled by William Smith, in full parliament, "a rancorous renegado?"[494]

4thly, Is he not poet laureate, with his own lines on Martin the regicide staring him in the face?[495]

And, 5thly, Putting the four preceding items together, with what conscience dare _he_ call the attention of the laws to the publications of others, be they what they may?

I say nothing of the cowardice of such a proceeding; its meanness speaks for itself; but I wish to touch upon the _motive_, which is neither more nor less than that Mr. S. has been laughed at a little in some recent publications, as he was of yore in the _Anti-jacobin_, by his present patrons. Hence all this "skimble scamble stuff" about "Satanic," and so forth. However, it is worthy of him--"_qualis ab incepto_."

If there is anything obnoxious to the political opinions of a portion of the public in the following poem, they may thank Mr. Southey. He might have written hexameters, as he has written everything else, for aught that the writer cared--had they been upon another subject. But to attempt to canonise a monarch, who, whatever were his household virtues, was neither a successful nor a patriot king,--inasmuch as several years of his reign pa.s.sed in war with America and Ireland, to say nothing of the aggression upon France--like all other exaggeration, necessarily begets opposition. In whatever manner he may be spoken of in this new _Vision_, his _public_ career will not be more favourably transmitted by history. Of his private virtues (although a little expensive to the nation) there can be no doubt.

With regard to the supernatural personages treated of, I can only say that I know as much about them, and (as an honest man) have a better right to talk of them than Robert Southey. I have also treated them more tolerantly. The way in which that poor insane creature, the Laureate, deals about his judgments in the next world, is like his own judgment in this. If it was not completely ludicrous, it would be something worse. I don't think that there is much more to say at present.

QUEVEDO REDIVIVUS.

P.S.--It is possible that some readers may object, in these objectionable times, to the freedom with which saints, angels, and spiritual persons discourse in this _Vision_. But, for precedents upon such points, I must refer him to Fielding's _Journey from this World to the next_, and to the Visions of myself, the said Quevedo, in Spanish or translated.[496] The reader is also requested to observe, that no doctrinal tenets are insisted upon or discussed; that the person of the Deity is carefully withheld from sight, which is more than can be said for the Laureate, who hath thought proper to make him talk, not "like a school-divine,"[497] but like the unscholarlike Mr. Southey. The whole action pa.s.ses on the outside of heaven; and Chaucer's _Wife of Bath_, Pulci's _Morgante Maggiore_, Swift's _Tale of a Tub_, and the other works above referred to, are cases in point of the freedom with which saints, etc., may be permitted to converse in works not intended to be serious.

Q.R.

* * * Mr. Southey being, as he says, a good Christian and vindictive, threatens, I understand, a reply to this our answer. It is to be hoped that his visionary faculties will in the meantime have acquired a little more judgment, properly so called: otherwise he will get himself into new dilemmas. These apostate jacobins furnish rich rejoinders. Let him take a specimen. Mr. Southey laudeth grievously "one Mr. Landor,"[498]

who cultivates much private renown in the shape of Latin verses; and not long ago, the poet laureate dedicated to him, it appeareth, one of his fugitive lyrics, upon the strength of a poem called "_Gebir_." Who could suppose, that in this same Gebir the aforesaid Savage Landor (for such is his grim cognomen) putteth into the infernal regions no less a person than the hero of his friend Mr. Southey's heaven,--yea, even George the Third! See also how personal Savage becometh, when he hath a mind. The following is his portrait of our late gracious sovereign:--

(Prince Gebir having descended into the infernal regions, the shades of his royal ancestors are, at his request, called up to his view; and he exclaims to his ghostly guide)--

"'Aroar, what wretch that nearest us? what wretch Is that with eyebrows white and slanting brow?

Listen! him yonder who, bound down supine, Shrinks yelling from that sword there, engine-hung; He too amongst my ancestors! [I hate The despot, but the dastard I despise.

Was he our countryman?'

'Alas,][499] O king!

Iberia bore him, but the breed accurst Inclement winds blew blighting from north-east.'

'He was a warrior then, nor fear'd the G.o.ds?'