This is a modern-English version of The Lives of the Poets of Great Britain and Ireland (1753) Volume II., originally written by Cibber, Theophilus.
It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling,
and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If
you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.
Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.
Preparer's Note
This e-text is taken from a facsimile of the original 18th-century volume. The spelling, punctuation, and other quirks have largely been retained. Only the most obvious printer's errors have been corrected, and are marked like this. Place the mouse pointer on the correction to see the original text.
This e-text is taken from a facsimile of the original 18th-century volume. The spelling, punctuation, and other quirks have mostly been kept. Only the most obvious typos have been corrected, which are highlighted like this. Hover the mouse pointer over the correction to see the original text.
Anglistica & Americana
A Series of Reprints Selected by
Bernhard Fabian, Edgar Mertner,
Karl Schneider and Marvin Spevack
17
GEORG OLMS VERLAGSBUCHHANDLUNG
HILDESHEIM
GEORG OLMS PUBLISHERS
HILDESHEIM
THEOPHILUS CIBBER
The Lives of the Poets of
Great Britain and Ireland
(1753)
Vol. II
Vol. 2
1968
1968
GEORG OLMS VERLAGSBUCHHANDLUNG
HILDESHEIM
GEORG OLMS PUBLISHING HOUSE
HILDESHEIM
Note
Note
The present facsimile is reproduced from a copy in the possession of the Library of the University of Göttingen.
Shelfmark: H. lit. biogr. I 8464.This copy is taken from a version kept at the University of Göttingen Library.
Shelfmark: H. lit. biogr. I 8464.
Although the title-page of Volume I announces four volumes, the work is continued in a fifth volume of the same date. Like Volumes II, III, and IV, it is by "Mr. CIBBER, and other Hands" and is "Printed for R. GRIFFITHS".
Even though the title page of Volume I says there are four volumes, the work actually continues in a fifth volume that was released at the same time. Like Volumes II, III, and IV, it’s by "Mr. CIBBER and other contributors" and is "Printed for R. GRIFFITHS."
M.S.
Master of Science
Reprografischer Nachdruck der Ausgabe London 1753
Printed in Germany
Herstellung: fotokap wilhelm weihert, Darmstadt
Best.-Nr. 5102040
Reprint of the edition London 1753
Printed in Germany
Production: fotokap wilhelm weihert, Darmstadt
Order No. 5102040
THE
LIVES
OF THE
POETS
OF
UK and Ireland.
Compiled from ample Materials scattered in a Variety of Books, and especially from the MS. Notes of the late ingenious Mr. Coxeter and others, collected for this Design,
This is compiled from a rich collection of materials found in different books, especially from the manuscript notes of the late brilliant Mr. Coxeter and others, collected for this purpose,
By Mr. CIBBER, and other Hands.
VOL. II.
LONDON:
Printed for R. Griffiths, at the Dunciad in St. Paul's Church-Yard.
Printed for R. Griffiths, at the Dunciad in St. Paul's Churchyard.
Mdccliii
1853
Volume II.
Contains the
LIVES
OF
Just Published,
In one small Octavo Volume, Price bound in Calf 3s.
In one small octavo volume, price bound in leather £3.
A Translation of the Ingenious Abbé De Mably's Observations on the Romans. A learned and curious Performance; wherein the Policy of that People is set in so clear a Light, and the Characters of their great Men drawn with such a masterly Pen, as cannot but recommend it to all Lovers of Classical Learning.
A Translation of the Ingenious Abbé De Mably's Observations on the Romans. A knowledgeable and fascinating work; in which the strategies of that civilization are presented so clearly, and the portrayals of their notable figures are sketched with such skill, that it will surely appeal to all fans of Classical Learning.
In this Work many new Lights are cast upon the Characters and Conduct of the following celebrated Personages:
In this work, many new insights are provided on the characters and actions of the following famous individuals:
Romulus, | Pompey, | Otho, |
Tarquin the Elder, | Cato, | Vitellius, |
Servius Tullus, | Cæsar, | Vespasian, |
Brutus, | Cicero, | Titus, |
The Gracchi, | Antony, | Domitian, |
Marius, | Augustus, | Nerva, |
Sylla, | Tiberius, | Trajan, |
Crassus, | Caligula, | Antoninus, |
Scipio, | Claudius, | Marcus Aurelius, |
Hannibal, | Nero, | Diocletian, |
Pyrrhus, | Galba, | Constantine the Great |
&c. &c. &c. |
Printed for R. Griffiths, in Paul's Church-Yard.
Printed for R. Griffiths, in Paul's Church-Yard.
THE
LIVES
OF THE
POETS
Anthony Brewer,
A poet who flourished in the reign of Charles I. but of whose birth and life we can recover no particulars. He was highly esteemed by some wits in that reign, as appears from a Poem called Steps to Parnassus, which pays him the following well turned compliment.
A poet who thrived during the reign of Charles I, but whose birth and life details remain unknown. He was highly regarded by some clever people of that time, as shown in a poem titled Steps to Parnassus, which offers him the following nicely crafted compliment.
[2]
Let Brewer take his artful pen in hand,
Attending muses will obey command,
Invoke the aid of Shakespear's sleeping clay,
And strike from utter darkness new born day.
[2]
Let Brewer take his skilled pen in hand,
Inspired muses will follow his command,
Calling on the spirit of Shakespeare's remains,
And bring forth a new day from complete darkness.
Mr. Winstanley, and after him Chetwood, has attributed a play to our author called Lingua, or the Contention of the Tongue and the Five Senses for Superiority, a Comedy, acted at Cambridge, 1606; but Mr. Langbaine is of opinion, that neither that, Love's Loadstone, Landagartha, or Love's Dominion, as Winstanley and Philips affirm, are his; Landagartha being written by Henry Burnel, esquire, and Love's Dominion by Flecknoe. In the Comedy called Lingua, there is a circumstance which Chetwood mentions, too curious, to be omitted here. When this play was acted at Cambridge, Oliver Cromwel performed the part of Tactus, which he felt so warmly, that it first fired his ambition, and, from the possession of an imaginary crown, he stretched his views to a real one; to accomplish which, he was content to wade through a sea of blood, and, as Mr. Gray beautifully expresses it, shut the Gates of Mercy on Mankind; the speech with which he is said to have been so affected, is the following,
Mr. Winstanley, and later Chetwood, attributed a play to our author called Lingua, or the Contention of the Tongue and the Five Senses for Superiority, a comedy performed at Cambridge in 1606. However, Mr. Langbaine believes that neither this, Love's Loadstone, Landagartha, nor Love's Dominion, as Winstanley and Philips claim, belong to him. Landagartha was written by Henry Burnel, Esq., and Love's Dominion by Flecknoe. In the comedy Lingua, there's an interesting detail that Chetwood mentions and is too intriguing to leave out. When this play was performed at Cambridge, Oliver Cromwell played the role of Tactus, and he was so passionate about it that it sparked his ambition. From an imaginary crown, he began aiming for a real one; to achieve this, he was willing to wade through a sea of blood and, as Mr. Gray beautifully puts it, shut the Gates of Mercy on humanity. The speech that supposedly affected him so deeply is the following,
Roses, and bays, pack hence: this crown and robe,
My brows, and body, circles and invests;
How gallantly it fits me! sure the slave
Measured my head, that wrought this coronet;
They lie that say, complexions cannot change!
My blood's enobled, and I am transform'd
Unto the sacred temper of a king;
Methinks I hear my noble Parasites
Stiling me Cæsar, or great Alexander,
Licking my feet,—&c.
Roses and laurels, leave this place: this crown and robe,
Are on my head and body, surrounding and fitting me;
How well they suit me! I bet the servant
Measured my head to make this crown;
Those who say faces can’t change are wrong!
My blood is elevated, and I've transformed
Into the sacred nature of a king;
I think I hear my noble flatterers
Calling me Cæsar or great Alexander,
Kissing my feet,—&c.
[3] Mr. Langbaine ascribes to Brewer the two following plays,
[3] Mr. Langbaine attributes the following two plays to Brewer,
Country Girl, a Comedy, often acted with applause, printed in 4to. 1647. This play has been revived since the Restoration, under the title of Country Innocence, or the Chamber-maid turned Quaker.
Country Girl, a Comedy, often performed with applause, printed in quarto in 1647. This play has been revived since the Restoration, under the title of Country Innocence, or the Chambermaid turned Quaker.
Love-sick King, an English Tragical History, with the Life and Death of Cartesmunda, the Fair Nun of Winchester; printed in 4to. London, 1655; this play was likewise revived 1680, and acted by the name of the Perjured Nun. The historical part of the plot is founded upon the Invasion of the Danes, in the reign of King Ethelred and Alfred.
Love-sick King, an English Tragic Story, with the Life and Death of Cartesmunda, the Fair Nun of Winchester; printed in 4to. London, 1655; this play was also revived in 1680 and performed under the name of the Perjured Nun. The historical part of the plot is based on the Invasion of the Danes during the reign of King Ethelred and Alfred.
This last play of Anthony Brewer's, is one of the best irregular plays, next to those of Shakespear, which are in our language. The story, which is extremely interesting, is conducted, not so much with art, as spirit; the characters are animated, and the scene busy. Canutus King of Denmark, after having gained the city of Winchester, by the villainy of a native, orders all to be put to the sword, and at last enters the Cloister, raging with the thirst of blood, and panting for destruction; he meets Cartesmunda, whose beauty stops his ruffian violence, and melts him, as it were, into a human creature. The language of this play is as modern, and the verses as musical as those of Rowe; fire and elevation run through it, and there are many strokes of the most melting tenderness. Cartesmunda, the Fair Nun of Winchester, inspires the King with a passion for her, and after a long struggle between honour and love, she at last yields to the tyrant, and for the sake of Canutus breaks her vestal vows. Upon hearing that the enemy was about to enter the [4] Cloister, Cartesmunda breaks out into the following beautiful exclamation:
This last play by Anthony Brewer is one of the best irregular plays, second only to those of Shakespeare in our language. The story is really interesting and unfolds not so much with technique as with spirit; the characters are lively, and the scenes are bustling. Canutus, King of Denmark, having captured the city of Winchester through the treachery of a local, orders everyone to be slaughtered and finally enters the Cloister, consumed with bloodlust and craving destruction. He encounters Cartesmunda, whose beauty halts his brutal aggression and softens him into a more human being. The language of this play is as contemporary, and the verses as lyrical, as those of Rowe; it has energy and passion throughout, and there are many moments filled with deep tenderness. Cartesmunda, the Fair Nun of Winchester, ignites a passion in the King, and after a long conflict between honor and love, she eventually succumbs to the tyrant, forsaking her vows for Canutus. Upon hearing that the enemy is about to invade the Cloister, Cartesmunda bursts out with the following beautiful exclamation:
The raging foe pursues, defend us Heaven!
Take virgin tears, the balm of martyr'd saints
As tribute due, to thy tribunal throne;
With thy right hand keep us from rage and murder;
Let not our danger fright us, but our sins;
Misfortunes touch our bodies, not our souls.
The furious enemy is coming after us, protect us, Heaven!
Take the tears of the innocent, the healing of martyred saints
As a rightful offering to your judgment seat;
With your right hand, shield us from anger and killing;
Don't let our danger scare us, but let our sins;
Misfortunes may affect our bodies, but not our souls.
When Canutus advances, and first sees Cartesmunda, his speech is poetical, and conceived in the true spirit of Tragedy.
When Canutus approaches and first sees Cartesmunda, his words are poetic and inspired by the true essence of Tragedy.
Ha! who holds my conquering hand? what power unknown,
By magic thus transforms me to a statue,
Senseless of all the faculties of life?
My blood runs back, I have no power to strike;
Call in our guards and bid 'em all give o'er.
Sheath up your swords with me, and cease to kill:
Her angel beauty cries, she must not die,
Nor live but mine: O I am strangely touch'd!
Methinks I lift my sword, against myself,
When I oppose her—all perfection!
O see! the pearled dew drops from her eyes;
Arise in peace, sweet soul.
Ha! Who’s holding my victorious hand? What unknown power,
By magic, turns me into a statue?
I’m oblivious to all the feelings of life?
My blood runs cold; I can't even strike;
Call our guards and tell them to back off.
Put away your swords and stop the killing:
Her angelic beauty begs, she must not die,
Nor live for anyone but me: Oh, I’m oddly affected!
I feel like I’m lifting my sword against myself,
When I oppose her—all perfection!
Oh look! The pearly tears are falling from her eyes;
Rise in peace, sweet soul.
In the same scene the following is extremely beautiful.
In the same scene, the following is incredibly beautiful.
I'm struck with light'ning from the torrid zone;
Stand all between me, and that flaming sun!
Go Erkinwald, convey her to my tent.
Let her be guarded with more watchful eyes
Than heaven has stars:
If here she stay I shall consume to death,
[5]
'Tis time can give my passions remedy,
Art thou not gone! kill him that gazeth on her;
For all that see her sure must doat like me,
And treason for her, will be wrought against us.
Be sudden—to our tents—pray thee away,
The hell on earth is love that brings delay.
I’m hit by lightning from the danger zone;
Stand between me and that blazing sun!
Go, Erkinwald, take her to my tent.
Let her be watched more closely
Than the stars in heaven:
If she stays here, I’ll waste away to nothing,
[5]
Only time can ease my feelings,
Haven’t you left! Kill anyone who gazes at her;
For everyone who sees her will surely fall for her like I have,
And traitors will rise against us for her.
Be quick—to our tents—please, hurry,
The hell on earth is love that makes us wait.
Thomas May,
A Poet and historian of the 17th century, was descended of an ancient, but decayed family in the county of Sussex, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth[1], and was educated a fellow commoner in Sidney Sussex College in Cambridge. He afterwards removed to London, and lived about the court, where he contracted friendships with several gentlemen of fashion and distinction, especially with Endymion Porter esquire, one of the gentlemen of the bedchamber to King Charles I. While he resided at court he wrote five plays, which are extant under his name. In 1622, he published at London, in 8vo. a translation of Virgil's Georgics with annotations; and in 1635, a Poem on King Edward III. It was printed under the title of the Victorious Reign of Edward III. written in seven books, by his Majesty's command. In the dedication to Charles I. our author writes thus; "I should humbly have craved your Majesty's pardon for my omission of the latter part of King Edward's reign, but that the sense of mine own defects hath put me in mind of a most necessary suit, so beg forgiveness for that part which is here written. Those great actions of Edward III. are the arguments of this poem, which is here [6] ended, where his fortune began to decline, where the French by revolts, and private practices regained that which had been won from them by eminent and famous victories; which times may afford fitter observations for an acute historian in prose, than strains of heighth for an heroic poem." The poem thus begins,
A poet and historian from the 17th century came from an old but declining family in Sussex during the reign of Queen Elizabeth. He was educated as a fellow commoner at Sidney Sussex College in Cambridge. Later, he moved to London and spent time around the royal court, where he became friends with several notable gentlemen, especially Endymion Porter, a gentleman of the bedchamber to King Charles I. While living at court, he wrote five plays that are still known by his name. In 1622, he published a translation of Virgil's Georgics with annotations in London, and in 1635, he released a poem titled "The Victorious Reign of Edward III," written in seven books at the request of the King. In his dedication to Charles I, the author states, "I should humbly have asked your Majesty’s pardon for not including the latter part of King Edward's reign, but my awareness of my own shortcomings has reminded me of a necessary request, so I ask forgiveness for the portion included here. The great actions of Edward III form the basis of this poem, which concludes where his fortune began to decline, where the French, through revolts and private dealings, regained what had been taken from them by significant and celebrated victories. This period may provide more appropriate material for a sharp-witted historian writing in prose than for soaring phrases in an epic poem." The poem thus begins,
The third, and greatest Edward's reign we sing,
The high atchievements of that martial King,
Where long successful prowesse did advance,
So many trophies in triumphed France,
And first her golden lillies bare; who o're
Pyrennes mountains to that western shore,
Where Tagus tumbles through his yellow sand
Into the ocean; stretch'd his conquering hand.
The reign of the third and greatest Edward is what we celebrate,
The impressive achievements of that warrior king,
Where his long string of victories brought forth,
So many trophies in conquered France,
And first her golden lilies bore; who across
The Pyrenees mountains to that western shore,
Where the Tagus flows through its yellow sand
Into the ocean; extended his conquering hand.
From the lines quoted, the reader will be able to judge what sort of versifier our author was, and from this beginning he has no great reason to expect an entertaining poem, especially as it is of the historical kind; and he who begins a poem thus insipidly, can never expect his readers to accompany him to the third page. May likewise translated Lucan's Pharsalia, which poem he continued down to the death of Julius Cæsar, both in Latin and English verse.
From the quoted lines, readers can get a sense of what kind of poet our author is. Starting off like this, he shouldn't expect his poem to be entertaining, especially since it's historical. A poet who begins in such a dull way can't expect readers to stick with him for more than a couple of pages. May also translated Lucan's Pharsalia, a poem he continued until the death of Julius Caesar, in both Latin and English verse.
Dr. Fuller says, that some disgust was given to him at court, which alienated his affections from it, and determined him, in the civil wars to adhere to the Parliament.
Dr. Fuller says that he was turned off by some things at court, which made him lose his feelings for it and led him to support the Parliament during the civil wars.
Mr. Philips in his Theatrum Poetarum, observes, that he stood candidate with Sir William Davenant for the Laurel, and his ambition being frustrated, he conceived the most violent aversion to the King and Queen. Sir William Davenant, besides the acknowledged superiority of his abilities, had ever distinguished himself for loyalty, and was patronized and favoured by men of power, especially the Marquis of Newcastle: a circumstance which [7] we find not to have happened to May: it is true, they were both the friends of the amiable Endymion Porter, esq; but we are not informed whether that gentleman interested himself on either side.
Mr. Philips, in his Theatrum Poetarum, notes that he ran against Sir William Davenant for the Laurel. When his ambition was thwarted, he developed a strong dislike for the King and Queen. Sir William Davenant, in addition to being recognized for his superior talent, was always known for his loyalty and had the support of influential people, especially the Marquis of Newcastle. This is something we don't see happening with May. It's true that they were both friends of the charming Endymion Porter, Esq., but we aren't told if that gentleman took sides in their rivalry.
In the year 1647, was published in London in folio, The History of the Parliament of England, which began November 3, 1640, with a Short and Necessary View of some precedent Years, written by Thomas May, Esq; Secretary to the Parliament, and published by their authority. In 1650 he published in 8vo. A Breviary of the History of the Parliament of England. Besides these works, Mr. Philips tells us, he wrote a History of Henry IV. in English verse, the Comedy of the Old Wives Tale, and the History of Orlando Furioso; but the latter, Mr. Langbaine, who is a higher authority than Philips, assures us was written before May was able to hold a pen, much less to write a play, being printed in 4to. London, 1594. Mr. Winstanley says, that in his history, he shews all the spleen of a mal-content, and had he been preferred to the Bays, as he happened to be disappointed, he would have embraced the Royal interest with as much zeal, as he did the republican: for a man who espouses a cause from spite only, can be depended upon by no party, because he acts not upon any principles of honour or conviction.
In 1647, The History of the Parliament of England was published in London in a large format. It details events starting from November 3, 1640, along with a Brief Overview of some previous years, written by Thomas May, Esq., who served as Secretary to the Parliament and published it with their permission. In 1650, he released a shorter version titled A Breviary of the History of the Parliament of England. Additionally, Mr. Philips informs us that he wrote a History of Henry IV. in English verse, the Comedy of the Old Wives Tale, and the History of Orlando Furioso; however, the latter, according to Mr. Langbaine, who is a more reliable source than Philips, was actually written before May could even hold a pen, let alone write a play, as it was printed in London in 1594. Mr. Winstanley comments that in his history, he reveals all the bitterness of a disgruntled individual and suggests that had May been awarded the Laurel, which he missed out on, he would have supported the Royalist cause with just as much fervor as he did the republican one: for a person who picks a side out of resentment cannot be trusted by any group, since they don’t act on any principles of honor or belief.
Our author died suddenly in the year 1652, and was interred near the tomb of Camden, on the West side of the North isle of Westminster Abbey, but his body, with several others, was dug up after the restoration, and buried in a pit in St. Margaret's church yard[2]. Mr. May's plays are,
Our author passed away unexpectedly in 1652 and was buried near Camden's tomb on the west side of the north aisle of Westminster Abbey, but his remains, along with several others, were exhumed after the restoration and interred in a pit in St. Margaret's churchyard[2]. Mr. May's plays are,
- Agrippina, Empress of Rome, a Tragedy, printed in 12mo. London, 1639. Our author has [8] followed Suetonius and Tacitus, and has translated and inserted above 30 lines from Petronius Arbiter; this circumstance we advance on the authority of Langbaine, whose extensive reading has furnished him with the means of tracing the plots of most part of our English plays; we have heard that there is a Tragedy on this subject, written by Mr. Gray of Cambridge, the author of the beautiful Elegy in a Country Church Yard; which play Mr. Garrick has sollicited him to bring upon the stage; to which the author has not yet consented.
- Antigone, the Theban Princess, a Tragedy, printed in 8vo. London, 1631, and dedicated to Endymion Porter, Esq; Our author in the contexture of this Tragedy, has made use of the Antigone of Sophocles, and the Thebais of Seneca.
- Cleopatra, Queen of Egypt, a Tragedy, acted 1626, and printed in 12mo. London, 1639, and dedicated to Sir Kenelme Digby: The author has followed the historians of those times. We have in our language two other plays upon the same subject, one by Shakespear, and the other by Dryden.
- Heir, a Comedy, acted by the company of
revels, 1620; this play is much commended by
Mr. Thomas Carew, in a copy of verses prefixed
to the play, where, amongst other commendations
bestowed on the stile, and natural working up of
the passions, he says thus of the oeconomy of the
play.
The whole plot doth alike itself disclose,
Thro' the five Acts, as doth a lock, that goes
With letters, for 'till every one be known,
The lock's as fast, as if you had found none.The entire plot reveals itself just like a lock with letters,
Through the five Acts, because until every piece is known,
The lock stays just as secure, as if you hadn't found any. - Old Couple, a Comedy, printed in 4to; this play is intended to expose the vice of covetousness.
John Taylour, Water Poet
Was born in Gloucestershire, where he went to school with one Green, and having got into his accidence, was bound apprentice to a Waterman in London, which, though a laborious employment, did not so much depress his mind, but that he sometimes indulged himself in poetry. Taylour relates a whimsical story of his schoolmaster Mr. Green, which we shall here insert upon the authority of Winstanley. "Green loved new milk so well, that in order to have it new, he went to the market to buy a cow, but his eyes being dim, he cheapened a bull, and asking the price of the beast, the owner and he agreed, and driving it home, would have his maid to milk it, which she attempting to do, could find no teats; and whilst the maid and her master were arguing the matter, the bull very fairly pissed into the pail;" whereupon his scholar John Taylour wrote these verses,
Was born in Gloucestershire, where he went to school with a guy named Green. After learning the basics, he became an apprentice to a Waterman in London. Even though it was hard work, it didn’t totally bring him down, and he sometimes treated himself to writing poetry. Taylour relates a funny story about his schoolmaster Mr. Green, which we’ll include here based on Winstanley's account. "Green loved fresh milk so much that to get it straight from the source, he went to the market to buy a cow. However, his eyesight was poor, and he ended up haggling over a bull instead. Once they agreed on a price and brought it home, he told his maid to milk it, but she couldn’t find any teats. While the maid and her master were arguing about it, the bull casually urinated into the pail;" That’s when his student, John Taylour, wrote these verses,
Our master Green was overseen
In buying of a bull,
For when the maid did mean to milk,
He piss'd the pail half full.
Our master Green was in charge
Of buying a bull,
Because when the maid was about to milk,
He peed in the pail that was half full.
[10] Our Water-poet found leisure to write fourscore books, some of which occasioned diversion enough in their time, and were thought worthy to be collected in a folio volume. Mr. Wood observes, that had he had learning equal to his natural genius, which was excellent, he might have equalled, if not excelled, many who claim a great share in the temple of the muses. Upon breaking out of the rebellion, 1642, he left London, and retired to Oxford, where he was much esteemed for his facetious company; he kept a common victualling house there, and thought he did great service to the Royal cause, by writing Pasquils against the round-heads. After the garrison of Oxford surrendered, he retired to Westminster, kept a public house in Phænix Alley near Long Acre, and continued constant in his loyalty to the King; after whose death, he set up a sign over his door, of a mourning crown, but that proving offensive, he pulled it down, and hung up his own picture[1], under which were these words,
[10] Our Water-poet found time to write eighty books, some of which provided enough entertainment in their day and were considered worthy of being collected into a folio volume. Mr. Wood notes that if he had the education to match his natural talent, which was exceptional, he could have matched, if not surpassed, many who have a prominent place in the realm of poetry. When the rebellion broke out in 1642, he left London and went to Oxford, where he was highly regarded for his witty company; he ran a tavern there and believed he was doing great service for the Royal cause by writing satirical pieces against the roundheads. After the Oxford garrison surrendered, he moved to Westminster, operated a public house in Phænix Alley near Long Acre, and remained steadfast in his loyalty to the King; after the King’s death, he put up a sign over his door featuring a mourning crown, but when that was deemed offensive, he took it down and hung up his own portrait[1], under which were these words,
There's many a head stands for a sign,
Then gentle reader why not mine?
There are many heads that symbolize something,
So, dear reader, why not mine?
On the other side,
On the flip side,
Tho' I deserve not, I desire
The laurel wreath, the poet's hire.
Though I may not deserve it, I want
The laurel wreath, the poet's reward.
He died in the year 1654, aged 74, and was buried in the church yard of St. Paul's Covent-Garden; his nephew, a Painter at Oxford, who lived in Wood's time, informed him of this circumstance, who gave his picture to the school gallery there, where it now hangs, shewing [11] him to have had a quick and smart countenance. The following epitaph was written upon him,
He died in 1654 at the age of 74 and was buried in the churchyard of St. Paul's Covent-Garden. His nephew, a painter in Oxford who lived during Wood's time, told him about this, leading Wood to donate his portrait to the school gallery there, where it now hangs, showing [11] him with a lively and sharp expression. The following epitaph was written for him,
Here lies the Water-poet, honest John,
Who row'd on the streams of Helicon;
Where having many rocks and dangers past,
He at the haven of Heaven arrived at last.
Here lies the Water-poet, honest John,
Who rowed on the streams of Helicon;
After navigating many rocks and dangers,
He finally reached the haven of Heaven.
William Habington,
Son of Thomas Habington, Esq; was born at Hendlip in Worcestershire, on the 4th of November 1605, and received his education at St. Omers and Paris, where he was earnestly pressed to take upon him the habit of a Jesuit; but that sort of life not suiting with his genius, he excused himself and left them[1]. After his return from Paris, he was instructed by his father in history, and other useful branches of literature, and became, says Wood, a very accomplished gentleman. This author has written,
Son of Thomas Habington, Esq., was born at Hendlip in Worcestershire, on November 4, 1605, and was educated at St. Omers and Paris, where he was strongly encouraged to join the Jesuit order; however, that lifestyle didn't match his personality, so he politely declined and left them[1]. After returning from Paris, his father taught him history and other useful subjects, and he became, according to Wood, a very accomplished gentleman. This author has written,
- Poems, 1683, in 8vo. under the title of Castara: they are divided into three parts under different titles, suitable to their subject. The first, which was written when he was courting his wife, Lucia, the beautiful daughter of William Lord Powis, is introduced by a character, written in prose, of a mistress. The second are copies to her after marriage, by the character of a wife; after which is a character of a friend, before several funeral elegies. The third part consists of divine poems, some of which are paraphrases on several texts out of Job, and the book of psalms.
- [12] The Queen of Arragon, a Tragi-Comedy, which play he shewed to Philip Earl of Pembroke, who having a high opinion of it, caused it to be acted at court, and afterwards to be published, the contrary to the author's inclination.
- Observations on History, Lond. 1641, 8vo.
- History of Edward IV. Lond. 1640, in a thin folio, written and published at the desire of King Charles I. which in the opinion of some critics of that age, was too florid for history, and fell short of that calm dignity which is peculiar to a good historian, and which in our nation has never been more happily attained than by the great Earl of Clarendon and Bishop Burnet. During the civil war, Mr. Habington, according to Wood, temporized with those in power, and was not unknown to Oliver Cromwell; but there is no account of his being raised to any preferment during the Protector's government. He died the 30th of November, 1654.
We shall present the readers with the prologue to the Queen of Arragon, acted at Black-Fryars, as a specimen of this author's poetry.
We will share the prologue to the Queen of Arragon, performed at Black-Fryars, as an example of this author's poetry.
Ere we begin that no man may repent,
Two shillings, and his time, the author sent
The prologue, with the errors of his play,
That who will, may take his money and away.
First for the plot, 'tis no way intricate
By cross deceits in love, nor so high in state,
That we might have given out in our play-bill
This day's the Prince, writ by Nick Machiavil.
The language too is easy, such as fell
Unstudied from his pen; not like a spell
Big with mysterious words, such as inchant
The half-witted, and confound the ignorant.
Then, what must needs, afflict the amourist,
No virgin here, in breeches casts a mist
[13]
Before her lover's eyes; no ladies tell
How their blood boils, how high their veins do swell.
But what is worse no baudy mirth is here;
(The wit of bottle-ale, and double beer)
To make the wife of citizen protest,
And country justice swear 'twas a good jest.
Now, Sirs, you have the errors of his wit,
Like, or dislike, at your own perils be't.
Before we start, let me clarify that no one should regret this,
The author put in two shillings and his time
For the prologue, along with the mistakes in his play,
So if you want, you can take your money back and leave.
As for the plot, it's not that complicated
With confusing love twists, nor is it so lofty
That we could’ve put in our playbill
Today’s the Prince, written by Nick Machiavelli.
The language is straightforward, flowing easily
From his pen without effort; not like a riddle
Full of big fancy words that confuse
The clueless and baffle the ignorant.
Also, what should certainly trouble the romantic,
There’s no virgin here, hiding behind a skirt
Before her lover's eyes; no ladies describe
How their blood races or how their veins swell.
But what's worse, there’s no raunchy humor here;
(The humor of cheap ale and strong beer)
To make the wife of a citizen protest,
And the local magistrate swear it’s a good joke.
Now, gentlemen, you have the flaws of his wit,
Like it or not, that’s up to you.
Francis Goldsmith.
Was the son of Francis Goldsmith, of St. Giles in the Fields in Middlesex, Esq; was educated under Dr. Nicholas Grey, in Merchant-Taylor's School, became a gentleman commoner in Pembroke-College in the beginning of 1629, was soon after translated to St. John's College, and after he had taken a degree in arts, to Grey's-Inn, where he studied the common law several years, but other learning more[1]. Mr. Langbaine says, that he could recover no other memoirs of this gentleman, but that he lived in the reign of King Charles the First, and obliged the World with a translation of a play out of Latin called, Sophompaneas, or the History of Joseph, with Annotations, a Tragedy, printed 4to. Lond. 1640, and dedicated to the Right Hon. Henry Lord Marquis of Dorchester. This Drama was written by the admirable Hugo Grotius, published by him at Amsterdam 1635, and dedicated to Vossius, Professor of History and Civil Arts in [14] Amsterdam. He stiles it a Tragedy, notwithstanding it ends successfully, and quotes for his authority in so doing, Æschilus, Euripides, and even Vossius, in his own Art of Poetry. Some make it a Question, whether it be lawful to found a dramatic Poem on any sacred subject, and some people of tender consciences have murmured against this Play, and another of the same cast called Christ's Passion; but let us hear the opinion of Vossius himself, prefixed to this Play. "I am of opinion, (says he) it is better to chuse another argument than sacred. For it agrees not with the majesty of sacred things, to be made a play and a fable. It is also a work of very dangerous consequence, to mingle human inventions with things sacred; because the poet adds uncertainties of his own, sometimes falsities; which is not only to play with holy things, but also to graft in men's minds opinions, now and then false. These things have place, especially when we bring in God, or Christ speaking, or treating of the mysteries of religion. I will allow more where the history is taken out of the sacred scriptures; but yet in the nature of the argument is civil, as the action of David flying from his son Absolom; or of Joseph sold by his brethren, advanced by Pharaoh to the government of Egypt, and that dignity adored by, and made known unto his brethren. Of which argument is Sophompaneas, written by Hugo Grotius, embassador from the Queen of Sweden to the King of France; which tragedy, I suppose, may be set for a pattern to him, that would handle an argument from the holy scriptures." This is the opinion of Vossius, and with him all must agree who admire the truly admirable Samson Agonistes of Milton.
Was the son of Francis Goldsmith, from St. Giles in the Fields, Middlesex. He was educated under Dr. Nicholas Grey at Merchant-Taylor's School, became a gentleman commoner at Pembroke College at the beginning of 1629, and was soon transferred to St. John's College. After earning his degree in arts, he moved to Grey's Inn, where he studied common law for several years, but pursued other learning more[1]. Mr. Langbaine says that he couldn't find any other details about this gentleman, but he lived during the reign of King Charles the First and contributed to the world with a translation of a Latin play called Sophompaneas, or the History of Joseph, with Annotations, a tragedy printed in 4to. Lond. 1640, and dedicated to the Right Hon. Henry Lord Marquis of Dorchester. This drama was written by the remarkable Hugo Grotius and published by him in Amsterdam in 1635, dedicated to Vossius, Professor of History and Civil Arts in [14] Amsterdam. He calls it a tragedy, despite its successful ending, and cites for his authority Aeschylus, Euripides, and even Vossius in his own Art of Poetry. Some question whether it's acceptable to create a dramatic poem based on any sacred subject, and some sensitive individuals have expressed discontent with this play and another similar one called Christ's Passion; however, let’s consider the view of Vossius himself, which is prefixed to this play. “I believe,” he says, “it’s better to choose a different theme than a sacred one. It doesn’t align with the majesty of sacred things to turn them into a play and a fable. It is also very dangerous to mix human inventions with sacred matters because the poet adds uncertainties of his own, sometimes falsehoods; this not only trivializes holy things but can also plant false opinions in people's minds. These concerns arise especially when we involve God or Christ speaking or dealing with the mysteries of religion. I allow more leeway when the story is drawn from sacred scriptures, but only if the nature of the argument is civil, like David fleeing from his son Absalom or Joseph sold by his brothers and elevated by Pharaoh to govern Egypt, a dignity recognized and acknowledged by his brothers. The argument of Sophompaneas fits this, written by Hugo Grotius, ambassador from the Queen of Sweden to the King of France; this tragedy, I believe, can serve as a model for anyone who wishes to handle an argument from holy scriptures.” This is Vossius's opinion, and everyone must concur who admires Milton's truly admirable Samson Agonistes.
As we have frequently mentioned Grotius, the short account of so great a man, which is inserted in Langbaine, will not be unpleasing to the reader.
As we've often referred to Grotius, the brief overview of such a remarkable individual found in Langbaine will be enjoyable for the reader.
[15] "Hugo Grotius, says he, was an honour to his country: he was born in the year 1583, and will be famous to posterity, in regard of those many excellent pieces he has published. In some of his writings he defended Arminianism, for which he suffered imprisonment in the castle of Louverstein, in the year 1618; at which time his associate Barnevelt lost his head on the same account. Afterwards Grotius escaped out of prison, by means of Maria Reigersberg his wife, and fled into Flanders; and thence into France, where he was kindly received by Lewis XIII. He died at Rostock in Mecclebourg, Sept. 1, 1645. His life is written at large by Melchoir Adamus, in Latin."
[15] "Hugo Grotius, he says, was a pride for his country: he was born in 1583 and will be remembered by future generations for his many outstanding works. In some of his writings, he defended Arminianism, which led to his imprisonment in the Louverstein Castle in 1618; during that time, his associate Barnevelt lost his head for the same reason. Later, Grotius managed to escape from prison, thanks to his wife Maria Reigersberg, and fled to Flanders; from there, he went to France, where he was warmly welcomed by Louis XIII. He died in Rostock, Mecklenbourg, on September 1, 1645. His life is extensively documented by Melchoir Adamus, in Latin."
As to our author's translation, which is in heroic verse, it is much commended by verses from four of his friends.
As for our author's translation, which is in heroic verse, it has received a lot of praise from verses by four of his friends.
He also translated Grotius's consolatory oration to his father, with epitaphs; and also his Catechism into English verse.
He also translated Grotius's comforting speech to his father, along with epitaphs, and his Catechism into English verse.
Mr. Goldsmith died at Ashton in Northamptonshire, in September 1655, and was buried there, leaving behind him an only daughter named Katherine, afterwards the wife of Sir Henry Dacres.
Mr. Goldsmith died in Ashton, Northamptonshire, in September 1655, and was buried there, leaving behind an only daughter named Katherine, who later became the wife of Sir Henry Dacres.
John Cleveland,
Was the son of a vicar of Hinkley, in Leicestershire, where he was born, and received his grammatical education, under one Mr. Richard Vines, a zealous Puritan. After he had compleated his school education, he was sent to Christ's College in Cambridge, and in a short time distinguishing himself for his knowledge of the Latin tongue, and for Oratory, he was preferred to a fellowship in St. John's-College, in the said university. He continued there about nine years, and made during that time some successful attempts in poetry. At length, upon the eruption of the civil war, he was the first who espoused the Royal cause in verse, against the Presbyterians, who persecuted him in their turn with more solid severity; for he was ejected, as soon as the reins of power were in their hands. Dr. Fuller bestows upon our author the most lavish panegyric: He was (says he) a general artist, pure latinist, an exquisite orator, and what was his masterpiece, an eminent poet. Dr. Fuller thus characterizes him, but as Cleveland has not left remains behind him sufficient to convey to posterity so high an idea of his merit, it may be supposed that the Doctor spoke thus in his favour, meerly on account of their agreement in political principles. He addressed an oration, says Winstanley, to Charles I. who was so well pleased with it, that he sent for him, and gave him his hand to kiss, with great expressions of kindness. When Oliver Cromwell [17] was in election to be member for the town of Cambridge, as he engaged all his friends and interests to oppose it; so when it was carried but by one vote, he cried out with much passion, that, that single vote had ruined church and kingdom[1], such fatal events did he presage from the success of Oliver. Mr. Cleveland was no sooner forced from the College, by the prevalence of the Parliament's interest, but he betook himself to the camp, and particularly to Oxford the head quarters of it, as the most proper sphere for his wit, learning and loyalty. Here he began a paper war with the opposite party, and wrote some smart satires against the Rebels, especially the Scots. His poem called the Mixt Assembly; his character of a London Diurnal, and a Committee-man, are thought to contain the true spirit of satire, and a just representation of the general confusion of the times. From Oxford he went to the garrison of Newark, where he acted as judge advocate till that garrison was surrendered, and by an excellent temperature, of both, says Winstanley, he was a just and prudent judge for the King, and a faithful advocate for the Country.
He was the son of a vicar from Hinkley in Leicestershire, where he was born and got his early education under Mr. Richard Vines, a devoted Puritan. After completing his schooling, he went to Christ's College in Cambridge, where he quickly gained recognition for his knowledge of Latin and his oratory skills. He was awarded a fellowship at St. John's College at the university. He stayed there for about nine years, during which he made some successful attempts at poetry. Eventually, when the civil war broke out, he was the first to support the Royal cause in verse against the Presbyterians, who retaliated against him with even harsher measures, resulting in his ejection as soon as they took power. Dr. Fuller praises our author lavishly, calling him a versatile talent, an excellent Latin scholar, a skilled orator, and, most notably, a distinguished poet. While Dr. Fuller describes him this way, it can be assumed that Cleveland didn’t leave behind enough evidence to confirm such a high opinion of his greatness, suggesting that the Doctor's praise was influenced by their shared political views. Winstanley mentions that he delivered a speech to Charles I, which pleased the king so much that he summoned him and warmly allowed him to kiss his hand. When Oliver Cromwell was running to be a member for Cambridge, he rallied all his friends to oppose him; when it was decided by just one vote, he passionately exclaimed that this single vote had doomed the church and the kingdom, predicting dire consequences from Oliver’s success. As soon as Mr. Cleveland was forced out of the College due to the Parliament's influence, he joined the camp, particularly Oxford, the main base, as it provided the best setting for his wit, knowledge, and loyalty. Here he began a literary battle with the opposing side, writing sharp satires against the Rebels, especially the Scots. His poem "The Mixt Assembly," along with his critiques of a London Diurnal and a Committee member, are seen as capturing the true spirit of satire and accurately reflecting the chaos of the times. From Oxford, he moved to the garrison at Newark, where he served as judge advocate until the garrison surrendered, and according to Winstanley, he was both a fair and wise judge for the King and a loyal advocate for the Country.
Here he drew up a bantering answer and rejoinder to a Parliament officer, who had written to him on account of one Hill, that had deserted their side, and carried off with him to Newark, the sum of 133 l. and 8 d. We shall give part of Mr. Cleveland's answer to the officer's first letter, by which an estimate may be formed of the rest.
Here he crafted a playful response to a Parliament officer who had contacted him about a guy named Hill, who had left their side and taken off to Newark with £133 and 8d. We will share part of Mr. Cleveland's reply to the officer's initial letter, which will give an idea of the rest.
Sixthly Beloved!
Sixthly, dear friends!
"It is so, that our brother and fellow-labourer in the gospel, is start aside; then this may serve for an use of instruction, not to trust in man, or in the son of man. Did [18] not Demas leave Paul? Did not Onesimus run from his master Philemon? Also this should teach us to employ our talents, and not to lay them up in a napkin; had it been done among the cavaliers, it had been just, then the Israelite had spoiled the Egyptian; but for Simeón to plunder Levi, that—that, &c."
"It’s true that our brother and fellow worker in the gospel has gone astray; this should serve as a lesson not to put our trust in people or in the son of man. Did not Demas leave Paul? Did not Onesimus run away from his master Philemon? This should also teach us to use our talents and not hide them away. If this had happened among the knights, it would have been fair, then the Israelite would have taken from the Egyptian; but for Simeon to take from Levi, that—that, etc."
The garrison of Newark defended themselves with much courage and resolution against the besiegers, and did not surrender but by the King's special command, after he had thrown himself into the hands of the Scots; which action of his Majesty's Cleveland passionately resented, in his poem called, the King's Disguise: Upon some private intelligence, three days before the King reached them, he foresaw, that the army would be bribed to surrender him, in which he was not mistaken. As soon as this event took place, Cleveland, who warmly adhered to the regal party, was obliged to atone for his loyalty by languishing in a jail, at Yarmouth, where he remained for some time under all the disadvantages of poverty, and wretchedness: At last being quite spent with the severity of his confinement, he addressed Oliver Cromwell in a petition for liberty, in such pathetic and moving terms, that his heart was melted with the prisoner's expostulation, and he ordered him to be set at liberty. In this address, our author did not in the least violate his loyalty, for he made no concessions to Oliver, but only a representation of the hardships he suffered, without acknowledging his sovereignty, tho' not without flattering his power. Having thus obtained his liberty, he settled himself in Gray's-Inn, and as he owed his releasement to the Protector, he thought it his duty to be passive, and not at least to act against him: But Cleveland did not long enjoy his state of unenvied ease, for he was seized with an intermitting fever, and died the 29th of April, 1685.
The garrison of Newark defended themselves with a lot of courage and determination against the enemy and only surrendered by the King’s special order, after he had surrendered himself to the Scots. Cleveland strongly resented this action of His Majesty in his poem, "The King’s Disguise." A few days before the King arrived, he had a hunch that the army would be tempted to surrender him, which turned out to be true. Once this happened, Cleveland, who was a dedicated supporter of the royal cause, had to pay for his loyalty by spending time in a prison in Yarmouth, where he endured poverty and misery. Eventually, worn out by the harshness of his confinement, he wrote a petition to Oliver Cromwell pleading for his freedom in such heartfelt and compelling terms that it moved Cromwell, leading him to order Cleveland’s release. In this appeal, our author didn’t betray his loyalty at all; he didn’t make any concessions to Oliver—he just described the hardships he was facing without acknowledging his authority, although he did acknowledge his power. After gaining his freedom, he settled in Gray’s Inn and felt it was his duty to remain neutral, at least not acting against Cromwell. However, Cleveland didn’t get to enjoy his brief period of relative peace for long, as he fell ill with a recurring fever and died on April 29, 1685.
[19] [2]On the first of May he was buried, and his dear friend Dr. John Pearson, afterwards lord bishop of Chester, preached his funeral sermon, and gave this reason, why he declined commending the deceased, "because such praising of him would not be adequate to the expectation of the audience, seeing some who knew him must think it far below him."—There were many who attempted to write elegies upon him, and several performances of this kind, in Latin and English, are prefixed to the edition of Cleveland's works, in verse and prose, printed in 8vo, in 1677, with his effigies prefixed.
[19] [2]On the first of May, he was buried, and his close friend Dr. John Pearson, who later became the bishop of Chester, delivered the funeral sermon. He explained why he chose not to praise the deceased, stating, "because such praise would not meet the expectations of the audience, especially since some who knew him might think it falls far short." Many tried to write elegies for him, and several of these works, in both Latin and English, are included in the edition of Cleveland's writings, in verse and prose, published in 1677 in 8vo format, featuring his portrait at the beginning.
From the verses of his called Smectymnuus, we shall give the following specimen, in which the reader will see he did not much excel in numbers.
From the verses of his work called Smectymnuus, we'll provide the following example, where the reader will notice he didn't really shine in meter.
Smectymnuus! the goblin makes me start,
I'th' name of Rabbi-Abraham, what art?
Syriack? or Arabick? or Welsh? what skilt?
Up all the brick-layers that Babel built?
Some conjurer translate, and let me know it,
'Till then 'tis fit for a West Saxon Poet.
But do the brotherhood then play their prizes?
Like murmurs in religion with disguises?
Out-brave us with a name in rank and file,
A name, which if 'twere trained would spread a mile;
The Saints monopoly, the zealous cluster,
Which like a porcupine presents a muster.
Smectymnuus! The goblin makes me jump,
In the name of Rabbi Abraham, what are you?
Syriac? Or Arabic? Or Welsh? What skill?
Did all the bricklayers that Babel built?
Some magician translate this, and let me know,
Until then it’s fit for a West Saxon poet.
But do the brotherhood play their games then?
Like whispers in religion with disguises?
Outshine us with a name in rank and file,
A name that, if polished, would go a mile;
The Saints’ monopoly, the zealous bunch,
Which, like a porcupine, presents a crowd.
The following lines from the author's celebrated satire, entitled, the Rebel-Scot, will yet more amply shew his turn for this species of poetry.
The following lines from the author's famous satire, called the Rebel-Scot, will further demonstrate his talent for this type of poetry.
"Nature herself doth Scotchmen beasts confess,
Making their country such a wilderness;
A land that brings in question and suspence
God's omnipresence; but that Charles came thence;
[20]
But that Montrose and Crawford's loyal band
Aton'd their sin, and christen'd half their land.—
A land where one may pray with curst intent,
O may they never suffer banishment!
Had Cain been Scot, God would have chang'd his doom,
Not forc'd him wander, but confin'd him home.—
"Nature herself acknowledges that Scots are uncivilized,
Turning their country into such a wasteland;
A land that raises doubts and questions
About God's presence; but that Charles came from there;
[20]
But that Montrose and Crawford's loyal group
Made up for their sins and blessed half their land.—
A land where one can pray with bad intentions,
Oh, may they never face exile!
If Cain had been Scottish, God would have changed his fate,
Not forced him to wander, but kept him home.—
"Lord! what a goodly thing is want of shirts!
How a Scotch stomach and no meat converts!
They wanted food and rayment, so they took
Religion for their temptress and their cook.—
Hence then you proud impostors get you gone,
You Picts in gentry and devotion.
You scandal to the stock of verse, a race
Able to bring the gibbet in disgrace.—
"Wow! How amazing is it to not have enough shirts!"
How a Scottish appetite turns with no food!
They needed food and clothing, so they made
Religion their seductress and their provider.—
So now, you arrogant fakes, get lost,
You pretenders in nobility and faith.
You bring shame to the line of poetry, a group
Capable of making the gallows look bad.—
"The Indian that heaven did forswear,
Because he heard some Spaniards were there,
Had he but known what Scots in Hell had been,
He would, Erasmus-like, have hung between."
"The Indian that heaven rejected,
Because he heard some Spaniards were there,
If he had only known what Scots were like in Hell,
He would, like Erasmus, have hung in the middle."
It is probable that this bitterness against our brethren of North-Britain, chiefly sprang from Mr. Cleveland's resentment of the Scots Army delivering up the King to the Parliament.
It’s likely that this bitterness towards our brothers from North Britain mainly came from Mr. Cleveland’s anger about the Scottish Army handing the King over to Parliament.
Dr. Barten Holyday,
Son of Thomas Holyday, a taylor, was born at All Saints parish, within the city of Oxford, about the latter end of Queen Elizabeth's reign; he was entered early into Christ Church, in the time of Dr, Ravis, his relation and patron, by [21] whom he was chosen student, and having taken his degrees of batchelor and master of arts, he became archdeacon of Oxfordshire. In 1615, he entered into holy orders[1], and was in a short time taken notice of as an eloquent or rather popular preacher, by which he had two benefices confered on him both in the diocese of Oxford.
Son of Thomas Holyday, a tailor, was born in the All Saints parish within the city of Oxford, around the end of Queen Elizabeth's reign. He was admitted early to Christ Church during the time of Dr. Ravis, his relative and supporter, by whom he was chosen as a student. After earning his bachelor's and master's degrees in arts, he became the archdeacon of Oxfordshire. In 1615, he was ordained, and soon after, he became known as an eloquent, or rather popular, preacher, which led to him receiving two benefices, both in the diocese of Oxford.
In the year 1618 he went as chaplain to Sir Francis Stewart, when he accompanied to Spain the Count Gundamore, after he had continued several Years at our court as embassador, in which journey Holyday behaved in a facetious and pleasant manner, which ingratiated him in the favour of Gundamore[2].
In 1618, he became the chaplain to Sir Francis Stewart when he traveled to Spain with Count Gundamore, who had been our ambassador at court for several years. During this journey, Holyday was witty and charming, which won him the favor of Gundamore[2].
Afterwards our author became chaplain to King Charles I. and succeeded Dr. Bridges in the archdeaconry of Oxon, before the year 1626. In 1642 he was by virtue of the letters of the said King, created, with several others, Dr. of divinity. When the rebellion broke out, he sheltered himself near Oxford; but when he saw the royal party decline so much that their cause was desperate, he began to tamper with the prevailing power; and upon Oliver Cromwell's being raised to the Protectorship, he so far coincided with the Usurper's interests, as to undergo the examination of the Friers, in order to be inducted into the rectory of Shilton in Berks, in the place of one Thomas Lawrence, ejected on account of his being non compos mentis. For which act he was much blamed and censured by his ancient friends the clergy, who adhered to the King, and who rather chose to live in poverty during the usurpation, than by a mean compliance with the times, betray the interest of the church, and the cause of their exiled sovereign.
Afterward, our author became chaplain to King Charles I and took over Dr. Bridges' position in the archdeaconry of Oxford before 1626. In 1642, he was appointed Doctor of Divinity by letters from the King, along with several others. When the rebellion began, he sought refuge near Oxford; however, when he realized the royal party was weakening and their cause was hopeless, he started to align with the prevailing power. Once Oliver Cromwell was elevated to the Protectorship, he aligned himself with the Usurper's interests enough to undergo an examination by the Friars to be appointed to the rectory of Shilton in Berkshire, replacing Thomas Lawrence, who was removed due to mental incapacity. For this decision, he faced significant criticism from his former friends in the clergy, who remained loyal to the King and preferred to live in poverty during the usurpation rather than compromise their beliefs and betray the church’s interests and their exiled sovereign.
[22] After the King's restoration he quitted the living he held under Cromwell, and returned to Eisley near Oxon, to live on his archdeaconry; and had he not acted a temporizing part it was said he might have been raised to a see, or some rich deanery. His poetry however, got him a name in those days, and he stood very fair for preferment; and his philosophy discovered in his book de Anima, and well languaged sermons, (says Wood) speaks him eminent in his generation, and shew him to have traced the rough parts, as well as the pleasant paths of poetry.
[22] After the King was restored, he left the position he held under Cromwell and went back to Eisley near Oxford to live off his archdeaconry. It was said that had he not played it safe, he might have been promoted to a bishopric or some wealthy deanery. However, his poetry earned him recognition during that time, and he was in a good position for advancement. His philosophical work in his book *de Anima* and his well-crafted sermons (as Wood noted) marked him as prominent in his generation, showing that he explored both the challenging and the enjoyable aspects of poetry.
His works are,
His work is,
- Three Sermons, on the Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension of our Saviour, Lond. 1626.
- Two Sermons at Paul's Cross.
- A Sermon on the Nature of Faith.
- Motives to a godly Life, in Ten Sermons, Oxon, 1657.
- Four Sermons against Disloyalty, Oxon, 1661.
Technogamia; or the Marriage of Arts, a Comedy, acted publicly in Christ's Church Hall, with no great applause 1617. But the Wits of those times being willing to distinguish themselves before the King, were resolved, with leave, to act the same comedy at Woodstock, whereupon (says Wood) the author making some foolish alterations in it, it was accordingly acted on Sunday night the 26th of August 1621, but it being too grave for the King, and too scholastic for the Audience, or as some said, that the actors in order to remove their timidity, had taken too much wine before, they began, his Majesty after two acts offered several times to withdraw; at length being persuaded by some of those who were near to him, to have patience till it was ended, lest the young men should be discouraged, he sat it out, tho' much against his will; [23] upon which these Verses were made by a certain scholar;
Technogamia; or the Marriage of Arts, a Comedy, performed publicly in Christ's Church Hall, but not with much applause in 1617. However, the clever people of that time wanted to impress the King, so they decided, with permission, to perform the same comedy at Woodstock. Wood mentions that the author made some silly changes to it, and it was staged on Sunday night, August 26, 1621. Unfortunately, it was too serious for the King and too academic for the audience, or as some said, the actors, to calm their nerves, had drunk too much wine beforehand. After two acts, His Majesty attempted to leave several times; eventually, some close to him convinced him to stay until the end, fearing it might discourage the young performers. He endured it, though it was against his will; [23] after which a certain scholar wrote these verses;
At Christ Church Marriage done before the King
Lest that those Mates should want an offering,
The King himself did offer; what I pray?
He offered twice or thrice to go away.At Christ Church, marriage took place in front of the King.
In case those partners needed a gift,
The King himself made an offer; what do I say?
He offered to leave twice or three times. - Survey of the World in Ten Books, a Poem,
Oxon, 1661, which was judged by Scholars to
be an inconsiderable piece, and by some not to
be his. But being published just before his death,
it was taken for a posthumous work, which had
been composed by him in his younger Days[3].
He translated out of Latin into English the Satires of Persius, Oxon. 1616, in apologizing for the defects of this work, he plays upon the word translate: To have committed no faults in this translation, says he, would have been to translate myself, and put off man. Wood calls this despicable pun, an elegant turn.
He translated the Satires of Persius from Latin into English in 1616. While apologizing for the flaws in his work, he makes a play on the word translate: "To have made no mistakes in this translation," he says, "would have meant translating myself and shedding my humanity." Wood describes this seemingly trivial pun as an elegant twist.
- Satires of Juvenal illustrated with Notes, Oxon. folio 1673. At the end of which is the Fourth Edition of Persius, before mentioned.
- Odes of Horace, Lond. 1652; this Translation Wood says, is so near that of Sir Thomas Hawkins, printed 1638, or that of Hawkins so near this, that to whom to ascribe it he is in doubt.
Dr. Holyday, who according to the same author was highly conceited of his own worth, especially in his younger Days, but who seems not to have much reason for being so, died at a Village called Eisley on the 2d day of October 1661, and was three days after buried at the foot of Bishop King's monument, under the south wall of the aisle joining on the south side to the choir of Christ Church Cathedral, near the remains of William Cartwright, and Jo. Gregory.
Dr. Holyday, who according to the same author was really full of himself, especially in his younger days, but didn’t have much reason to be, died in a village called Eisley on October 2, 1661. He was buried three days later at the foot of Bishop King's monument, under the south wall of the aisle connecting to the south side of the choir of Christ Church Cathedral, near the remains of William Cartwright and Jo. Gregory.
Thomas Nabbes.
A writer, in the reign of Charles I, whom we may reckon, says Langbaine, among poets of the third rate, but who in strict justice cannot rise above a fifth. He was patronized by Sir John Suckling. He has seven plays and masks extant, besides other poems, which Mr. Langbaine says, are entirely his own, and that he has had recourse to no preceding author for assistance, and in this respect deserves pardon if not applause from the critic. This he avers in his prologue to Covent-Garden.
A writer during the reign of Charles I, whom Langbaine considers to be among third-rate poets but, in fairness, can't rank higher than fifth. He was supported by Sir John Suckling. He has seven plays and masks that still exist, along with other poems, which Mr. Langbaine claims are completely his own, and that he didn't rely on any previous authors for help. In this regard, he deserves forgiveness if not praise from critics. He asserts this in his prologue to Covent-Garden.
He justifies that 'tis no borrowed strain,
From the invention of another's brain.
Nor did he steal the fancy. 'Tis the fame
He first intended by the proper name.
'Twas not a toil of years: few weeks brought forth,
This rugged issue, might have been more worth,
If he had lick'd it more. Nor doth he raise
From the ambition of authentic plays,
Matter or words to height, nor bundle up
Conceits at taverns, where the wits do sup;
His muse is solitary, and alone
Doth practise her low speculation.
He claims that it's not a borrowed idea,
From someone else's brain.
Nor did he steal the concept. It's the reputation
He originally intended with the right name.
It wasn't a long struggle: just a few weeks produced,
This rough outcome, which might have been better,
If he had polished it more. Nor does he elevate
From the ambition of genuine plays,
Ideas or words to a higher level, nor pack
Thoughts together at pubs, where the clever gather;
His muse is isolated, and alone
She practices her quiet thinking.
The reader from the above specimen may see what a poet he was; but as he was in some degree of esteem in his time, we thought it improper to omit him.
The reader from the above example can see what a poet he was; but since he had some level of esteem during his time, we thought it was inappropriate to leave him out.
[25] The following are his plays;
Here are his scripts;
- The Bride, a Comedy; acted in the Year 1638 at a private House in Drury-Lane by their Majesty's Servants, printed 4to. 1640.
- Covent Garden, a Comedy; acted in the Year 1632.
- Hannibal and Scipio, an Historical Tragedy, acted in the year 1635.
- Microcosmus, a Moral Masque, represented at a private house in Salisbury Court, printed 1637.
- Spring's Glory, Vindicating Love by Temperance, against the Tenet, Sine Cerere & Baccho friget Venus; moralized in a Masque. With other Poems, Epigrams, Elegies, and Epithalamiums of the author's, printed in 4to, London, 1638. At the end of these poems is a piece called A Presentation, intended for the Prince's Birth day, May 29, 1638, annually celebrated.
- Tottenham-Court, a Comedy, acted in the year 1633, at a private house in Salisbury Court, printed in 4to. 1638.
- Unfortunate Lovers, a Tragedy, never acted, printed in 4to. London, 1640.
Mr. Philips and Mr. Winstanley, according to their old custom, have ascribed two other anonymous plays to our author: The Woman Hater Arraigned, a Comedy, and Charles the First, a Tragedy, which Langbaine has shewn not to be his.
Mr. Philips and Mr. Winstanley, following their usual practice, have attributed two more anonymous plays to our author: The Woman Hater Arraigned, a Comedy, and Charles the First, a Tragedy, which Langbaine has demonstrated are not his.
James Shirley,
A very voluminous dramatic author, was born in the city of London, and: was descended from the Shirleys in Suffex or Warwickshire; he was educated in grammar learning in Merchant Taylors school, and transplanted thence to St. John's College, but in what station he lived there, we don't find.
A very prolific playwright was born in London and came from the Shirleys in Sussex or Warwickshire. He received a classical education at Merchant Taylors' School and then moved to St. John's College, but we don't know what position he held there.
Dr. William Laud, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, presiding over that house, conceived a great affection for our author, and was willing to cherish and improve those promising abilities early discoverable in him. Mr. Shirley had always an inclination to enter into holy orders, but, for a very particular reason, was discouraged from attempting it by Dr. Laud; this reason to some may appear whimsical and ridiculous, but has certainly much weight and force in it.
Dr. William Laud, who later became the archbishop of Canterbury, headed that house and developed a strong fondness for our author. He wanted to nurture and enhance the promising talents that were evident in him from an early age. Mr. Shirley had always wanted to pursue a religious vocation, but for a very specific reason, Dr. Laud discouraged him from trying. This reason may seem odd and silly to some, but it definitely carries significant weight and importance.
Shirley had unfortunately a large mole upon his left cheek, which much disfigured him, and gave him a very forbidding appearance. Laud observed very justly, that an audience can scarce help conceiving a prejudice against a man whose appearance shocks them, and were he to preach with the tongue of an angel, that prejudice could never be surmounted; besides the danger of women with child fixing their eyes on him in the pulpit, and as the imagination of pregnant women has strange influence on the unborn infants, it is somewhat cruel to expose them to that danger, and by these means do them great injury, as [27] ones fortune in some measure depends upon exterior comeliness[1]. But Shirley, who was resolute to be in orders, left that university soon after, went to Cambridge, there took the degrees in arts, and became a minister near St. Alban's in Hertfordshire; but never having examined the authority, and purity of the Protestant Church, and being deluded by the sophistry of some Romish priests, he changed his religion for theirs[2], quitted his living, and taught a grammar school in the town of St. Alban's; which employment he finding an intolerable drudgery, and being of a fickle unsteady temper, he relinquished it, came up to London, and took lodgings in Gray's Inn, where he commenced a writer for the stage with tolerable success. He had the good fortune to gain several wealthy and beneficent patrons, especially Henrietta Maria the Queen Consort, who made him her servant.
Shirley unfortunately had a large mole on his left cheek that disfigured him and gave him a very unappealing look. Laud rightly pointed out that an audience can hardly help but form a prejudice against someone whose appearance shocks them, and even if he were to preach like an angel, that bias would never go away. Plus, there’s the risk of pregnant women staring at him in the pulpit, and since the imagination of expectant mothers can greatly affect their unborn babies, it’s quite cruel to put them in that position and potentially cause them harm, as a child's future depends to some extent on physical attractiveness. However, Shirley, determined to enter the clergy, left that university soon after, went to Cambridge, earned his degrees in arts, and became a minister near St. Albans in Hertfordshire. But since he never examined the authority and purity of the Protestant Church and was misled by some deceitful Catholic priests, he converted to their religion, left his position, and started teaching at a grammar school in St. Albans. He found that job unbearably tedious and, being of an inconsistent and restless nature, he gave it up, moved to London, and rented a place in Gray's Inn, where he began writing for the stage with reasonable success. He was fortunate to attract several wealthy and generous patrons, especially Henrietta Maria, the Queen Consort, who made him her servant.
When the civil war broke out, he was driven from London, and attended upon his Royal Mistress, while his wife and family were left in a deplorable condition behind him. Some time after that, when the Queen of England was forced, by the fury of opposition, to sollicit succours from France, in order to reinstate her husband; our author could no longer wait upon her, and was received into the service of William Cavendish, marquis of Newcastle, to take his fortune with him in the wars. That noble spirited patron had given him such distinguishing marks of his liberality, as Shirley thought himself happy in his service, especially as by these means he could at the same time serve the King.
When the civil war started, he was forced to leave London and went to serve his Royal Mistress, while his wife and family were left in a terrible situation. Some time later, when the Queen of England had to ask for help from France to restore her husband due to the fierce opposition, our author could no longer stay with her and joined the service of William Cavendish, marquis of Newcastle, to pursue his fortune in the wars. That noble patron had shown him such generous support that Shirley felt fortunate to be in his service, especially since this allowed him to support the King at the same time.
Having mentioned Henrietta Maria, Shirley's Royal Mistress, the reader will pardon a digression, which flows from tenderness, and is no more than an expression of humanity. Her life-time in England [28] was embittered with a continued persecution; she lived to see the unhappy death of her Lord; she witnessed her exiled sons, not only oppressed with want, but obliged to quit France, at the remonstrance of Cromwel's ambassador; she herself was loaded with poverty, and as Voltaire observes, "was driven to the most calamitous situation that ever poor lady was exposed to; she was obliged to sollicit Cromwel to pay her an allowance, as Queen Dowager of England, which, no doubt, she had a right to demand; but to demand it, nay worse, to be obliged to beg it of a man who shed her Husband's blood upon a scaffold, is an affliction, so excessively heightened, that few of the human race ever bore one so severe."
Having mentioned Henrietta Maria, Shirley's Royal Mistress, the reader will forgive a brief detour, which comes from a place of compassion and is just an expression of our shared humanity. During her lifetime in England [28], she faced ongoing persecution; she lived to see the tragic death of her husband. She watched her exiled sons not only suffer from poverty but also forced to leave France at the request of Cromwell's ambassador. She herself was burdened with financial hardship, and as Voltaire notes, "was driven to the most disastrous situation that any poor lady has ever faced; she had to ask Cromwell for a stipend as Queen Dowager of England, which she rightfully should have been able to demand. However, to ask for it, and worse, to be forced to beg it from a man who had shed her husband's blood on the scaffold, is an anguish so incredibly intensified that few people have endured something so harsh."
After an active service under the marquis of Newcastle, and the King's cause declining beyond hope of recovery, Shirley came again to London, and in order to support himself and family, returned his former occupation of teaching a school, in White Fryars, in which he was pretty successful, and, as Wood says, 'educated many ingenious youths, who, afterwards in various faculties, became eminent.' After the Restoration, some of the plays our author had written in his leisure moments, were represented with success, but there is no account whether that giddy Monarch ever rewarded him for his loyalty, and indeed it is more probable he did not, as he pursued the duke of Lauderdale's maxim too closely, of making friends of his enemies, and suffering his friends to shift for themselves, which infamous maxim drew down dishonour on the administration and government of Charles II. Wood further remarks, that Shirley much assisted his patron, the duke of Newcastle, in the composition of his plays, which the duke afterwards published, and was a drudge to John Ogilby in his translation of Homer's Iliad [29] and Odysseys, by writing annotations on them. At length, after Mr. Shirley had lived to the age of 72, in various conditions, having been much agitated in the world, he, with his second wife, was driven by the dismal conflagration that happened in London, Anno 1666, from his habitation in Fleet-street, to another in St. Giles's in the Fields. Where, being overcome with miseries occasioned by the fire, and bending beneath the weight of years, they both died in one day, and their bodies were buried in one grave, in the churchyard of St. Giles's, on October 29, 1666.
After serving under the Marquis of Newcastle, and with the King's cause showing no signs of recovery, Shirley returned to London. To support himself and his family, he resumed his previous work as a schoolteacher in White Fryars, where he was fairly successful. As Wood notes, he 'educated many clever young people, who later became prominent in various fields.' After the Restoration, some of the plays he wrote in his spare time were performed successfully, but there’s no record of whether the capricious Monarch ever rewarded him for his loyalty. In fact, it’s more likely that he didn’t, as he followed the Duke of Lauderdale's dubious principle of befriending his enemies while leaving his friends to fend for themselves—an infamous approach that brought dishonor to the administration and rule of Charles II. Wood also mentions that Shirley greatly assisted his patron, the Duke of Newcastle, in writing his plays, which the Duke later published. He also worked diligently for John Ogilby on his translations of Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, providing annotations for them. Eventually, after living to the age of 72 and experiencing many ups and downs, Shirley and his second wife were forced to leave their home in Fleet Street due to the tragic fire that swept through London in 1666. They moved to another place in St. Giles's in the Fields. Sadly, overwhelmed by the hardships caused by the fire and burdened by their years, they both passed away on the same day, and their bodies were buried in a single grave in the churchyard of St. Giles's on October 29, 1666.
The works of this author
This author's works
- Changes, or Love in a Maze, a Comedy, acted at a private house in Salisbury Court, 1632.
- Contention for Honour and Riches, a Masque, 1633.
- Honoria and Mammon, a Comedy; this Play is grounded on the abovementioned Masque.
- The Witty Fair One, a Comedy, acted in Drury Lane, 1633.
- The Traitor, a Tragedy, acted by her Majesty's servants, 1635. This Play was originally written by Mr. Rivers, a jesuit, but altered by Shirley.
- The Young Admiral, a Tragi-Comedy, acted at a private house in Drury Lane, 1637.
- The Example, a Tragi-Comedy, acted in Drury Lane by her Majesty's Servants, 1637.
- Hyde Park, a Comedy, acted in Drury Lane, 1637.
- The Gamester, a Comedy, acted in Drury Lane, 1637; the plot is taken from Queen Margate's Novels, and the Unlucky Citizen.
- The Royal Master, a Tragi-Comedy, acted at the Theatre in Dublin, 1638.
- [30] The Duke's Mistress, a Tragi-Comedy, acted by her Majesty's servants, 1638.
- The Lady of Pleasure, a Comedy, acted at a private house in Drury Lane, 1638.
- The Maid's Revenge, a Tragedy, acted at a private house in Drury Lane, with applause, 1639.
- Chabot, Admiral of France, a Tragedy, acted in Drury Lane, 1639; Mr. Chapman joined in this play; the story may be found in the histories of the reign of Francis I.
- The Ball, a Comedy, acted in Drury Lane, 1639; Mr. Chapman likewise assisted in this Comedy.
- Arcadia, a Dramatic Pastoral, performed at the Phænix in Drury Lane by the Queen's servants, 1649.
- St. Patrick for Ireland, an Historical Play, 1640; for the plot see Bedes's Life of St. Patrick, &c.
- The Humorous Courtier, a Comedy, presented at a private house in Drury Lane, 1640.
- Love's Cruelty, a Tragedy, acted by the Queen's servants, 1640.
- The Triumph of Beauty, a Masque, 1646; part of this piece seems to be taken from Shakespear's Midsummer's Night's Dream, and Lucian's Dialogues.
- The Sisters, a Comedy, acted at a private house in Black Fryars, 1652.
- The Brothers, a Comedy, 1652.
- The Doubtful Heir, a Tragi-Comedy, acted at Black Fryars, 1652.
- The Court Secret, a Tragi-Comedy, acted at a private house in Black Fryars, 1653, dedicated to the Earl of Strafford; this play was printed before it was acted.
- The Impostor, a Tragi-Comedy, acted at a private house in Black Fryars, 1653.
- [31] The Politician, a Tragedy, acted in Salisbury Court, 1655; part of the plot is taken from the Countess of Montgomery's Urania.
- The Grateful Servant, a Tragi-Comedy, acted at a private house in Drury Lane, 1655.
- The Gentleman of Venice, a Tragi-Comedy, acted at a private house in Salisbury Court. Plot taken from Gayron's Notes on Don Quixote.
- The Contention of Ajax and Ulysses for Achilles's Armour, a Masque, 1658. It is taken from Ovid's Metamorphosis, b. xiii.
- Cupid and Death, a Masque, 1658.
- Love Tricks, or the School of Compliments, a Comedy, acted by the Duke of York's servants in little Lincoln's-Inn-Fields, 1667.
- The Constant Maid, or Love will find out the Way, a Comedy, acted at the New House called the Nursery, in Hatton Garden, 1667.
- The Opportunity, a Comedy, acted at the private house in Drury Lane by her Majesty's servants; part of this play is taken from Shakespear's Measure for Measure.
- The Wedding, a Comedy, acted at the Phænix in Drury Lane.
- A Bird in a Cage, a Comedy, acted in Drury Lane.
- The Coronation, a Comedy. This play is printed with Beaumont's and Fletcher's.
- The Cardinal, a Tragedy, acted at a private house in Black Fryars.
- The Triumph of Peace, a Masque, presented before the King and Queen at Whitehall, 1633, by the Gentlemen of the Four Inns of Court.
We shall present the reader with a quotation taken from a comedy of his, published in Dodsley's collection of old plays, called A Bird in a Cage, p. 234. Jupiter is introduced thus speaking,
We’ll share a quote from one of his comedies, published in Dodsley’s collection of old plays, called A Bird in a Cage, p. 234. Jupiter is introduced saying,
[32]
Let the music of the spheres,
Captivate their mortal ears;
While Jove descends into this tower,
In a golden streaming shower.
To disguise him from the eye
Of Juno, who is apt to pry
Into my pleasures: I to day
Have bid Ganymede go to play,
And thus stole from Heaven to be
Welcome on earth to Danae.
And see where the princely maid,
On her easy couch is laid,
Fairer than the Queen of Loves,
Drawn about with milky doves.
[32]
Let the music of the spheres,
Captivate their mortal ears;
While Jove descends into this tower,
In a golden streaming shower.
To hide him from the eye
Of Juno, who is quick to spy
On my pleasures: today
I sent Ganymede out to play,
And so he slipped from Heaven to be
Welcomed on earth by Danae.
And look where the noble maid,
On her soft couch is laid,
Fairer than the Queen of Love,
Surrounded by milky doves.
James Howel, Esquire
Was born at Abernant in Carmarthenshire, the place where his father was minister, in the year 1594[1]. Howel himself, in one of his familiar epistles, says, that his ascendant was that hot constellation of Cancer about the middle of the Dog Days. After he was educated in grammar learning in the free school of Hereford, he was sent to Jesus College in the beginning of 1610, took a degree in arts, and then quitted the university. By the help of friends, and a small sum of money his father assisted him with, he travelled for three years into several countries, where he improved himself in the various languages; some years after his return, the reputation of his [33] parts was so great, that he was made choice of to be sent into Spain, to recover of the Spanish monarch a rich English ship, seized by the Viceroy of Sardinia for his master's use, upon some pretence of prohibited goods being found in it.
Was born in Abernant, Carmarthenshire, where his father was a minister, in 1594. Howel himself mentions in one of his letters that he was born under the hot constellation of Cancer during the peak of the Dog Days. After receiving a grammar education at the free school in Hereford, he was sent to Jesus College at the beginning of 1610, earned a degree in arts, and then left the university. With the help of friends and a small amount of money from his father, he traveled for three years across various countries, where he improved his skills in several languages. A few years after he returned, his reputation was so impressive that he was chosen to go to Spain to recover a valuable English ship that the Viceroy of Sardinia had seized for the Spanish monarch, claiming it had prohibited goods.
During his absence, he was elected Fellow of Jesus College, 1623, and upon his return, was patronized by Emanuel, lord Scroop, Lord President of the North, and by him was made his secretary[2]. As he resided in York, he was, by the Mayor and Aldermen of Richmond, chose a Burgess for their Corporation to sit in that Parliament, that began at Westminster in the year 1627. Four years after, he went secretary to Robert, earl of Leicester, ambassador extraordinary from England to the King of Denmark, before whom he made several Latin speeches, shewing the occasion of their embassy, viz. to condole the death of Sophia, Queen Dowager of Denmark, Grandmother to Charles I. King of England.
During his absence, he was elected a Fellow of Jesus College in 1623, and upon his return, he was supported by Emanuel, Lord Scroop, the Lord President of the North, who appointed him as his secretary. While living in York, he was elected a Burgess for the Corporation of Richmond by the Mayor and Aldermen to sit in the Parliament that began at Westminster in 1627. Four years later, he became the secretary to Robert, Earl of Leicester, who was the extraordinary ambassador from England to the King of Denmark. In that role, he delivered several Latin speeches outlining the purpose of their embassy, which was to express condolences for the death of Sophia, the Queen Dowager of Denmark, who was the grandmother of Charles I, King of England.
Our author enjoyed many beneficial employments, and at length, about the beginning of the civil war, was made one of the clerks of the council, but being extravagant in his temper, all the money he got was not sufficient to preserve him from a Jail. When the King was forced from the Parliament, and the Royal interest declined, Howel was arrested; by order of a certain committee, who owed him no good-will, and carried prisoner to the Fleet; and having now nothing to depend upon but his wits, he was obliged to write and translate books for a livelihood, which brought him in, says Wood, a comfortable subsistance, during his stay there; he is the first person we have met with, in the course of this work, who may be said to have made a trade of authorship, having written no less than 49 books on different subjects.
Our author had many useful jobs, and eventually, around the start of the civil war, he became one of the clerks of the council. However, because of his reckless nature, he couldn't manage to keep out of jail despite any money he made. When the King was pushed out by Parliament and the Royalist cause weakened, Howel was arrested by a committee that didn't like him and was taken to the Fleet prison. Now relying only on his wits, he had to write and translate books to make a living, which, according to Wood, provided him with a decent income while he was there. He is the first person we've encountered in this work who can be considered a professional author, having written 49 books on various topics.
[34] In the time of the rebellion, we find Howel tampering with the prevailing power, and ready to have embraced their measures; for which reason, at the reiteration, he was not continued in his place of clerk to the council, but was only made king's historiographer, being the first in England, says Wood, who bore that title; and having no very beneficial employment, he wrote books to the last.
[34] During the rebellion, Howel was getting involved with those in power and was about to fully support their decisions. Because of this, when he was reviewed again, he was not continued as the council clerk. Instead, he was appointed as the king's historiographer, which, according to Wood, made him the first person in England to hold that title. Since he didn't have a very rewarding job, he continued to write books until the end of his life.
He had a great knowledge in modern histories, especially in those of the countries in which he had travelled, and he seems, by his letters, to have been no contemptible politician: As to his poetry, it is smoother, and more harmonious, than was very common with the bards of his time.
He had extensive knowledge of modern history, especially of the countries he had traveled to, and his letters suggest that he was quite a savvy politician. As for his poetry, it is smoother and more harmonious than what was typical among the poets of his time.
As he introduced the trade of writing for bread, so he also is charged with venal flattery, than which nothing can be more ignoble and base. To praise a blockhead's wit because he is great, is too frequently practised by authors, and deservedly draws down contempt upon them. He who is favoured and patronized by a great man, at the expence of his integrity and honour, has paid a dear price for the purchase, a miserable exchange, patronage for virtue, dependance for freedom.
As he started writing for a living, he’s also accused of being a sellout, which is the most disgraceful and low thing. It's all too common for writers to praise a fool's intelligence just because he’s powerful, and it rightfully earns them scorn. Someone who is supported and favored by a powerful person, at the cost of their integrity and honor, has made a terrible trade: trading virtue for support, and independence for dependence.
Our author died the beginning of November, 1666, and was buried on the North side of the Temple church.
Our author died at the beginning of November, 1666, and was buried on the north side of the Temple Church.
We shall not trouble the reader with an enumeration of all the translations and prose works of this author; the occasion of his being introduced here, is, his having written
We won't bother the reader with a list of all the translations and prose works by this author; the reason he's being mentioned here is that he wrote
Nuptials of Peleus and Thetis, consisting of a Masque and a Comedy, for the Great Royal Ball, acted in Paris six times by the King in person, the Duke of Anjou, the Duke of York, with other Noblemen; also by the Princess Royal, Henrietta [35] Maria, Princess of Conti, &c. printed in 4to. 1654, and addressed to the Marchioness of Dorchester. Besides this piece, his Dodona's Grove, or Vocal Forest, is in the highest reputation.
Nuptials of Peleus and Thetis, which include a Masque and a Comedy, for the Great Royal Ball, performed in Paris six times by the King himself, the Duke of Anjou, the Duke of York, along with other Noblemen; also by the Princess Royal, Henrietta Maria, Princess of Conti, etc., printed in 4to. 1654, and addressed to the Marchioness of Dorchester. In addition to this work, his Dodona's Grove, or Vocal Forest, is highly regarded.
His entertaining letters, many of whom were written to the greatest personages in England, and some in particular to Ben Johnson, were first published in four volumes; but in 1737, the tenth edition of them was published in one volume, which is also now become scarce. They are interspersed with occasional verses; from one of these little pieces we shall select the following specimen of this author's poetical talent.
His entertaining letters, many of which were written to the most notable figures in England, especially Ben Jonson, were first published in four volumes; however, in 1737, the tenth edition was released in a single volume, which has also become rare. They include some occasional verses; from one of these pieces, we will select the following example of this author's poetic talent.
On the Author's Valentine, Mrs. Metcalf.
Could I charm the queen of love,
To lend a quill of her white dove;
Or one of Cupid's pointed wings
Dipt in the fair Caftalian Springs;
Then would I write the all divine
Perfections of my Valentine.
Could I win over the queen of love,
To borrow a pen from her white dove;
Or one of Cupid's pointed wings
Dipped in the lovely Caftalian springs;
Then I would write the totally divine
Perfections of my Valentine.
As 'mongst, all flow'rs the Rose excells,
As Amber 'mongst the fragrant'st smells,
As 'mongst all minerals the Gold,
As Marble 'mongst the finest mold,
As Diamond 'mongst jewels bright
As Cynthia 'mongst the lesser lights[3]:
So 'mongst the Northern beauties shine,
So far excels my Valentine.
As among all flowers the rose excels,
As amber among the most fragrant smells,
As among all minerals, gold,
As marble among the finest mold,
As diamond among bright jewels,
As Cynthia among the lesser lights[3]:
So among the Northern beauties, they shine,
So far, my Valentine is great.
In Rome and Naples I did view
Faces of celestial hue;
Venetian dames I have seen many,
(I only saw them, truck'd not any)
Of Spanish beauties, Dutch and French,
I have beheld the quintessence[3]:
[36]
Yet saw I none that could out-shine,
Or parallel my Valentine.
In Rome and Naples, I saw
Faces that looked heavenly;
I’ve seen many Venetian ladies,
(I only saw them, didn’t hook up with any)
Of Spanish beauties, Dutch, and French,
I’ve witnessed the very best:
[36]
But I didn’t see anyone who could surpass,
Or compare it to my Valentine.
Th' Italians they are coy and quaint.
But they grosly daub and paint;
The Spanish kind, and apt to please,
But fav'ring of the same disease:
Of Dutch and French some few are comely,
The French are light, the Dutch are homely.
Let Tagus, Po, the Loire and Rhine
Then veil unto my Valentine.
The Italians are shy and charming.
But they put on too much show;
The Spanish are kind and pleasing,
But they have the same flaw:
Some Dutch and French are attractive,
The French are carefree, the Dutch are plain.
Let the Tagus, Po, Loire, and Rhine
Then honor my Valentine.
Footnotes:
Footnotes:
Mr. Richard Fanshaw
Was the youngest, and tenth son of Sir Henry Fanshaw of Ware-park in Hertfordshire; he was born in the year 1607, and was initiated in learning by the famous Thomas Farnaby. He afterwards compleated his studies in the university of Cambridge, and from thence went to travel into foreign countries, by which means he became a very accomplished gentleman. In 1635 he was patronized by King Charles I. on account of his early and promising abilities; he took him into his service, and appointed him resident at the court of Spain[1]. During his embassy there, his chief business was, to demand reparation [37] and punishment of some free-booters, who had taken ships from the English, and to endeavour the restoration of amity, trade and commerce.
He was the youngest and tenth son of Sir Henry Fanshaw from Ware-park in Hertfordshire. He was born in 1607 and began his education with the well-known Thomas Farnaby. He later completed his studies at the University of Cambridge and then traveled abroad, which helped him become a well-rounded gentleman. In 1635, King Charles I took notice of his early talent and brought him into his service, assigning him to the court of Spain[1]. During his time there as an ambassador, his main tasks were to seek reparations and justice against some pirates who had seized English ships, as well as to work towards restoring friendship, trade, and commerce. [37]
When the civil war broke out, he returned to England, having accomplished the purposes of his embassy abroad, and attached himself with the utmost zeal to the Royal Standard; and during those calamitous times was intrusted with many important matters of state.
When the civil war started, he came back to England after completing his diplomatic mission abroad and devoted himself wholeheartedly to the Royal Standard; during those troubled times, he was entrusted with many important state matters.
In 1644, attending the court at Oxford, the degree of Doctor of Civil Laws was conferred upon him[2], and the reputation of his parts every day increasing, he was thought a proper person to be secretary to Charles, Prince of Wales, whom he attended into the Western parts of England, and from thence into the Isles of Scilly and Jersey.
In 1644, while at the court in Oxford, he was awarded the degree of Doctor of Civil Laws[2]. As his reputation grew day by day, he was considered a suitable candidate to be the secretary to Charles, Prince of Wales. He accompanied the prince to the western regions of England and then to the Isles of Scilly and Jersey.
In 1648 he was appointed treasurer of the navy, under the command of Prince Rupert, in which office he continued till the year 1650, when he was created a baronet by King Charles II. and sent envoy extraordinary to the court of Spain. Being recalled thence into Scotland, where the King then was, he served there in quality of secretary of state, to the satisfaction of all parties, notwithstanding he refused to take the covenant engagements, which Charles II. forced by the importunity of the Presbyterians, entered into, with a resolution to break them. In 1651 he was made prisoner at the battle of Worcester and committed to close custody in London, where he continued, 'till his confinement introduced a very dangerous sickness; he then had liberty granted him, upon giving bail, to go for the recovery of his health, into any place he should chuse, provided he stirred not five miles from thence, without leave from the Parliament.
In 1648, he was appointed treasurer of the navy under Prince Rupert, a position he held until 1650, when King Charles II created him a baronet and sent him as an extraordinary envoy to the court of Spain. After being recalled to Scotland, where the King was at the time, he served as secretary of state, pleasing everyone involved, even though he refused to take the covenant commitments that Charles II, pressured by the Presbyterians, agreed to with the intention of breaking them later. In 1651, he was captured at the battle of Worcester and placed in tight custody in London, where he remained until a serious illness forced a change in his situation; he was then granted the freedom to recover his health in any place of his choice, as long as he didn't go more than five miles from London without permission from Parliament.
In February, 1659, he repaired to the King at [38] Breda, who knighted him the April following. Upon his Majesty's reiteration, it was expected, from his great services, and the regard the King had for him, that he would have been made secretary of state, but at that period there were so many people's merits to repay, and so great a clamour for preferment, that Sir Richard was disappointed, but had the place of master of requests conferred on him, a station, in those times, of considerable profit and dignity.
In February 1659, he went to see the King at [38] Breda, who knighted him the following April. Given his significant contributions and the King’s esteem for him, it was expected that he would be appointed secretary of state. However, there were so many deserving individuals at that time and a strong demand for positions that Sir Richard was disappointed. Instead, he was granted the role of master of requests, a position that was quite profitable and prestigious in those days.
On account of his being a good Latin scholar, he was also made a secretary for that tongue[3]. In 1661, being one of the burgesses for the university of Cambridge, he was sworn a privy counsellor for Ireland, and having by his residence in foreign parts, qualified himself for public employment, he was sent envoy extraordinary to Portugal, with a dormant commission to the ambassador, which he was to make use of as occasion should require. Shortly after, he was appointed ambassador to that court, where he negotiated the marriage between his master King Charles II. and the Infanta Donna Catharina, daughter to King John VI. and towards the end of the same year he returned to England. We are assured by Wood, that in the year 1662, he was sent again ambassador to that court, and when he had finished his commission, to the mutual satisfaction of Charles II. and Alphonso King of Portugal, being recalled in 1663, he was sworn one of his Majesty's Privy Council. In the beginning of the year 1644 he was sent ambassador to Philip IV. King of Spain, and arrived February 29 at Cadiz, where he met with a very extraordinary and unexpected salutation, and was received with some circumstances of particular esteem. It appears from one of Sir Richard's letters, that this distinguishing respect was paid him, not only on his own, but on his [39] master's account; and in another of his letters he discovers the secret why the Spaniard yielded him, contrary to his imperious proud nature, so much honour, and that is, that he expected Tangier and Jamaica to be restored to him by England, which occasioned his arrival to be so impatiently longed for, and magnificently celebrated. During his residence at this court King Philip died, September 17, 1665, leaving his son Charles an infant, and his dominions under the regency of his queen, Mary Anne, daughter of the emperor Ferdinand III. Sir Richard taking the advantage of his minority, put the finishing hand to a peace with Spain, which was sufficiently tired and weakened with a 25 years war, for the recovery of Portugal, which had been dismembered from the Spanish crown in 1640; the treaty of peace was signed at Madrid December 6, 1665. About the 14th of January following, his excellency took a journey into Portugal, where he staid till towards the end of March; the design of his journey certainly was to effect an accommodation between that crown and Spain, which however was not produced till 1667, by the interposition of his Britannic Majesty. Our author having finished his commission was preparing for his return to England, when June 4, 1666, he was seized at Madrid with a violent fever, which put an end to his valuable life, the 16th of the same month, the very day he intended to set out for England: his body being embalmed, it was conveyed by his lady, and all his children, then living, by land to Calais, and so to London, whence being carried to All Saints church in Hertford, it was deposited in the vault of his father-in-law, Sir John Harrison. The Author of the Short Account of his Life, prefixed to his letters, says, 'that he was remarkable for his meekness, sincerity, humanity and piety, and also was an able statesman and a great [40] scholar, being in particular a compleat master of several modern languages, especially the Spanish, which he spoke and wrote with as much advantage, as if he had been a native.' By his lady, eldest daughter of Sir John Harrison, he had six sons, and eight daughters, whereof only one son and four daughters survived him.
Because he was a skilled Latin scholar, he was also appointed as a secretary for that language[3]. In 1661, as one of the representatives for the University of Cambridge, he was sworn in as a privy counsellor for Ireland. Having qualified himself for public service through his time abroad, he was sent as an extraordinary envoy to Portugal, with a dormant commission for the ambassador, which he would use as needed. Shortly after, he was appointed ambassador to that court, where he helped negotiate the marriage between his king, Charles II, and Infanta Donna Catharina, the daughter of King John VI. By the end of the same year, he returned to England. Wood assures us that in 1662, he was sent again as ambassador to that court, and after successfully completing his mission to the satisfaction of both Charles II and King Alphonso of Portugal, he was recalled in 1663 and sworn in as a member of the Privy Council. At the beginning of 1644, he was sent as ambassador to Philip IV, King of Spain, arriving in Cadiz on February 29, where he received an extraordinary and unexpected welcome, with notable gestures of esteem. One of Sir Richard's letters reveals that this special respect was shown not just for him but also for his king. In another letter, he reveals the reason behind the honor he received from the Spaniards, which is that they expected England to return Tangier and Jamaica to them, making his arrival highly anticipated and magnificently celebrated. During his time at court, King Philip died on September 17, 1665, leaving his son Charles as an infant, while his territories were under the regency of his queen, Mary Anne, daughter of Emperor Ferdinand III. Taking advantage of the king's minority, Sir Richard finalized a peace with Spain, which was worn out from a 25-year war aimed at recovering Portugal, dismembered from the Spanish crown in 1640. The peace treaty was signed in Madrid on December 6, 1665. Around January 14, he journeyed to Portugal, where he stayed until late March; his journey aimed to negotiate an agreement between that crown and Spain, which, however, was not achieved until 1667 with the intervention of the British king. After completing his mission, Sir Richard was preparing to return to England when, on June 4, 1666, he fell seriously ill with a fever in Madrid, leading to his death on June 16, the very day he planned to leave for England. His body was embalmed and transported by his wife and all their living children by land to Calais and then to London, where it was taken to All Saints Church in Hertford and placed in the family vault of his father-in-law, Sir John Harrison. The author of the Short Account of his Life included with his letters states that he was known for his meekness, sincerity, humanity, and piety, as well as being a capable statesman and a great scholar, particularly excelling in several modern languages, especially Spanish, which he spoke and wrote as if he were a native. With his wife, the eldest daughter of Sir John Harrison, he had six sons and eight daughters, of whom only one son and four daughters survived him.
The following is an account of his works,
The following is a summary of his works,
- An English Translation in Rhyme, of the celebrated Italian Pastoral, called Il Pastor Fido, or the Faithful Shepherd, written originally by Battista Guarini, printed in London, 1644 in 4to. and 1664 8vo.
- A Translation from English into Latin Verse, of the Faithful Shepherders, a Pastoral, written originally by John Fletcher, Gent. London, 1658.
- In the octavo edition of the Faithful Shepherd, Anno 1664, are inserted the following Poems of our author, viz. 1st, An Ode upon the Occasion of his Majesty's Proclamation, 1630, commanding the Gentry to reside upon their Estates in the Country. 2d, A Summary Discourse of the Civil Wars of Rome, extracted from the best Latin Writers in Prose and Verse. 3d, An English Translation of the Fourth Book of Virgil's Æneid on the Loves of Dido and Æneas. 4th, Two Odes out of Horace, relating to the Civil Wars of Rome, against covetous, rich Men.
- He translated out of Portuguese into English, The Lusiad, or Portugal's Historical Poem, written originally by Luis de Camoens, London, 1655, &c. folio.
After his decease, namely, in 1671, were published these two posthumous pieces of his in 4to, Querer per solo Querer, To Love only for Love's sake, a Dramatic Romance, represented before the King and Queen of Spain, and Fiestas de Aranjuez, [41] Festivals at Aranjuez: both written originally in Spanish, by Antonio de Mendoza, upon occasion of celebrating the Birth-day of King Philip IV. in 1623, at Aranjuez; they were translated by our author in 1654, during his confinement at Taukerley-park in Yorkshire, which uneasy situation induced him to write the following stanzas on this work, which are here inserted, as a specimen of his versification.
After his death, specifically in 1671, these two posthumous works were published in quarto: *Querer per solo Querer* (To Love Only for Love's Sake), a dramatic romance performed before the King and Queen of Spain, and *Fiestas de Aranjuez*, Festivals at Aranjuez. Both were originally written in Spanish by Antonio de Mendoza to celebrate the birthday of King Philip IV in 1623 at Aranjuez. They were translated by our author in 1654 during his confinement at Taukerley Park in Yorkshire. This challenging situation inspired him to write the following stanzas on this work, which are included here as an example of his versification.
Time was, when I, a pilgrim of the seas,
When I 'midst noise of camps, and courts disease,
Purloin'd some hours to charm rude cares with verse,
Which flame of faithful shepherd did rehearse.
Time was, when I, a traveler of the seas,
When I found moments amid the noise of camps and courts,
Stole some hours to soothe rough worries with poetry,
Which the passion of a devoted shepherd expressed.
But now restrain'd from sea, from camp, from court,
And by a tempest blown into a port;
I raise my thoughts to muse on higher things,
And eccho arms, and loves of Queens and Kings.
But now kept away from the sea, from the camp, from the court,
And blown into a port by a storm;
I lift my thoughts to reflect on greater things,
And resonate with arms and the romances of Queens and Kings.
Which Queens (despising crowns and Hymen's band)
Would neither men obey, nor men command:
Great pleasure from rough seas to see the shore
Or from firm land to hear the billows roar.
Which queens (looking down on crowns and marriage)
Would not obey men, nor give them orders:
They take great pleasure from seeing the shore after rough seas
Or from hearing the waves roar from solid ground.
We are told that he composed several other things remaining still in manuscript, which he had not leisure to compleat; even some of the printed pieces have not all the finishing so ingenious an author could have bestowed upon them; for as the writer of his Life observes, 'being, for his loyalty and zeal to his Majesty's service, tossed from place to place, and from country to country, during the unsettled times of our anarchy, some of his [42] Manuscripts falling into unskilful hands, were printed and published without his knowledge, and before he could give them the last finishing strokes.' But that was not the case with his Translation of the Pastor Fido, which was published by himself, and applauded by some of the best judges, particularly Sir John Denham, who after censuring servile translators, thus goes on,
We’re told that he wrote several other works that are still in manuscript form, which he didn’t have time to complete. Even some of the published pieces lack the finishing touches that such a talented author could have provided. As the writer of his Life points out, "since he was loyal and dedicated to his Majesty's service, he was moved from place to place and country to country during the chaotic times of our anarchy. Some of his manuscripts fell into unskilled hands and were printed and published without his knowledge, before he could add his final touches." However, that wasn’t the case with his Translation of Pastor Fido, which he published himself and received praise from some of the best critics, particularly Sir John Denham, who, after criticizing unoriginal translators, continues,
A new and nobler way thou dost pursue
To make translations and translators too.
They but preserve the ashes, these the flame,
True to his sense, but truer to his fame.
A new and better way you are pursuing
To create translations and translators, too.
They just keep the ashes; these keep the flame,
Faithful to his meaning, but even more to his fame.
Footnotes:
References:
Abraham Cowley
Was the son of a Grocer, and born in London, in Fleet-street, near the end of Chancery Lane, in the year 1618. His mother, by the interest of her friends, procured him to be admitted a King's scholar in Westminster school[1]; his early inclination to poetry was occasioned by reading accidentally Spencer's Fairy Queen, which, as he himself gives an account, 'used to lye in his mother's parlour, he knew not by what accident, for she read no books but those of devotion; the knights, giants, and monsters filled his imagination; he read the whole over before he was 12 years old, and was made a poet, as immediately as a child is made an eunuch.'
He was the son of a grocer and was born in London, on Fleet Street, near the end of Chancery Lane, in 1618. His mother, with the help of her friends, got him admitted as a King's scholar at Westminster School[1]; his early interest in poetry was sparked by accidentally reading Spenser's Fairy Queen, which, as he himself recounts, 'used to lie in his mother's parlor, he knew not how, since she only read books of devotion; the knights, giants, and monsters filled his imagination; he read the whole thing before he turned 12, and he became a poet as quickly as a child becomes a eunuch.'
In the 16th year of his age, being still at Westminster school, he published a collection of poems, [43] under the title of Poetical Blossoms, in which there are many things that bespeak a ripened genius, and a wit, rather manly than puerile. Mr. Cowley himself has given us a specimen in the latter end of an ode written when he was but 13 years of age. 'The beginning of it, says he, is boyish, but of this part which I here set down, if a very little were corrected, I should not be much ashamed of it.' It is indeed so much superior to what might be expected from one of his years, that we shall satisfy the reader's curiosity by inserting it here.
At the age of 16, while still attending Westminster School, he published a collection of poems, [43] under the title Poetical Blossoms, which showcases a mature talent and a wit that's more manly than childish. Mr. Cowley himself provided an example at the end of an ode he wrote when he was just 13. He noted, "The beginning of it is boyish, but for this part I’m including here, if just a little were corrected, I wouldn’t be too ashamed of it." It is indeed far better than what one would expect from someone his age, so we’ll satisfy the reader's curiosity by including it here.
IX.
This only grant me, that my means may lye,
Too low for envy, for contempt too high:
Some honour I would have;
Not from great deeds, but good alone,
The unknown are better than ill known,
Rumour can ope the grave:
Acquaintance I would have, but when 't depends
Not on the number, but the choice of friends.
This only allows me, that my resources may be,
Too low for envy, and too high for contempt:
I want some respect;
Not from great deeds, but from good alone,
The unknown are better than being poorly known,
Rumor can awaken the dead:
I would like to have acquaintances, but it depends
Not on the number, but on the choice of friends.
X.
Books should, not business, entertain the light
And sleep, as undisturbed as death, the night:
My house a cottage, more
Than palace, and should fitting be
For all my use, no luxury:
My garden painted o'er
With nature's hand, not art, and pleasures yield,
Horace might envy in his Sabine Field.
Books should entertain, not business, in the light
And let sleep be as undisturbed as death at night:
My house is a cottage, more
Than a palace, and it should be
Suitable for all my needs, no luxury:
My garden adorned by
Nature's hand, not art, and offering pleasures,
That Horace would envy in his Sabine Field.
XI.
Thus would I double my life's fading space,
For he that runs it well, twice runs his race;
And in this true delight,
[44]
These unbought sports, that happy state,
I could not fear; nor wish my fate;
But boldly say, each night,
To-morrow let my sun his beams display,
Or in clouds hide them: I have lived to-day.
Thus would I extend the fading time of my life,
For someone who runs it well, runs their race twice;
And in this genuine joy,
[44]
These free pleasures, that joyful state,
I could not fear; nor wish my fate;
But confidently say, every night,
Tomorrow let my sun shine bright,
Or hide behind clouds: I have lived today.
It is remarkable of Mr. Cowley, as he himself tells us, that he had this defect in his memory, that his teachers could never bring him to retain the ordinary rules of grammar, the want of which, however, he abundantly supplied by an intimate acquaintance with the books themselves, from whence those rules had been drawn. In 1636 he was removed to Trinity College in Cambridge, being elected a scholar of that house[2]. His exercises of all kinds were highly applauded, with this peculiar praise, that they were fit, not only for the obscurity of an academical life, but to have made their appearance on the true theatre of the world; and there he laid the designs, and formed the plans of most of the masculine, and excellent attempts he afterwards happily finished. In 1638 he published his Love's Riddle, written at the time of his being a scholar in Westminster school, and dedicated by a copy of verses to Sir Kenelm Digby. He also wrote a Latin Comedy entitled Naufragium Joculare, or the Merry Shipwreck. The first occasion of his entering into business, was, an elegy he wrote on the death of Mr. William Harvey, which introduced him to the acquaintance of Mr. John Harvey, the brother of his deceased friend, from whom he received many offices of kindness through the whole course of his life[3]. In 1643, being then master of arts, he was, among many others, ejected his college, and the university; whereupon, retiring to Oxford, he settled [45] in St. John's College, and that same year, under the name of a scholar of Oxford, published a satire entitled the Puritan and the Papist. His zeal in the Royal cause, engaged him in the service of the King, and he was present in many of his Majesty's journies and expeditions; by this means he gained an acquaintance and familiarity with the personages of the court and of the gown, and particularly had the entire friendship of my lord Falkland, one of the principal secretaries of state.
It’s remarkable what Mr. Cowley shares about himself: he had a flaw in his memory that made it impossible for his teachers to get him to remember basic grammar rules. However, he made up for this deficiency by being well-versed in the books from which those rules were derived. In 1636, he was moved to Trinity College in Cambridge, where he was elected as a scholar. His work in various forms received high praise, being noted as suitable not just for the insularity of academic life but also worthy of the true stage of the world. There, he developed the ideas and plans for many of the significant and successful projects he completed later on. In 1638, he published Love's Riddle, which he wrote while he was a scholar at Westminster School, dedicating it to Sir Kenelm Digby with a copy of verses. He also wrote a Latin comedy titled Naufragium Joculare, or the Merry Shipwreck. His first venture into the professional world was an elegy he penned for the death of Mr. William Harvey, which introduced him to Mr. John Harvey, his late friend’s brother, who offered him many acts of kindness throughout his life. In 1643, by then a master of arts, he was among those expelled from his college and the university. Subsequently, he withdrew to Oxford, settling in St. John's College. That same year, representing himself as a scholar from Oxford, he published a satire called the Puritan and the Papist. His passion for the Royal cause led him to serve the King, and he participated in many of His Majesty’s journeys and campaigns. Through this, he became familiar with court figures and academics, particularly forming a close friendship with Lord Falkland, one of the principal secretaries of state.
During the heat of the civil war, he was settled in the family of the earl of St. Alban's, and accompanied the Queen Mother, when she was obliged to retire into France. He was absent from his native country, says Wood, about ten years, during which time, he laboured in the affairs of the Royal Family, and bore part of the distresses inflicted upon the illustrious Exiles: for this purpose he took several dangerous journies into Jersey, Scotland, Flanders, Holland, and elsewhere, and was the principal instrument in maintaining a correspondence between the King and his Royal Consort, whose letters he cyphered and decyphered with his own hand.
During the civil war, he lived with the family of the Earl of St. Alban's and went with the Queen Mother when she had to flee to France. He was away from his home country for about ten years, according to Wood, during which time he worked on behalf of the Royal Family and shared in the struggles faced by the famous exiles. To do this, he made several risky journeys to Jersey, Scotland, Flanders, Holland, and other places, and he played a key role in keeping communication going between the King and his Royal Consort, deciphering and encoding her letters by hand.
His poem called the Mistress was published at London 1647, of which he himself says, "That it was composed when he was very young. Poets (says he) are scarce thought free men of their company, without paying some duties and obliging themselves to be true to love. Sooner or later they must all pass through that trial, like some Mahometan monks, who are bound by their order once at least in their life, to make a pilgrimage to Mecca. But we must not always make a judgment of their manners from their writings of this kind, as the Romanists uncharitably do of Beza for a few lascivious [46] sonnets composed by him in his youth. It is not in this sense that poetry is said to be a kind of painting: It is not the picture of the poet, but of things, and persons imagined by him. He may be in his practice and disposition a philosopher, and yet sometimes speak with the softness of an amorous Sappho. I would not be misunderstood, as if I affected so much gravity as to be ashamed to be thought really in love. On the contrary, I cannot have a good opinion of any man who is not at least capable of being so."
His poem titled the Mistress was published in London in 1647, and he himself said, "It was written when I was very young. Poets (he says) are rarely seen as free individuals in their social circles without fulfilling certain obligations and committing themselves to be true to love. Eventually, they all have to face that challenge, like some Muslim monks who are required by their order to make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their lives. However, we shouldn't judge their character solely based on these types of writings, as the Roman Catholics unfairly do with Beza for a few immoral sonnets he wrote in his youth. Poetry is not meant to be a self-portrait of the poet but rather a representation of the things and people he imagines. He might be a philosopher in his behavior and attitude, yet sometimes express himself with the tenderness of a lovesick Sappho. I don’t want to be misunderstood as someone who thinks being serious means I should be embarrassed to be genuinely in love. On the contrary, I have a low opinion of any man who cannot at least be capable of love."
What opinion Dr. Sprat had of Mr. Cowley's Mistress, appears by the following passage extracted from his Life of Cowley. "If there needed any excuse to be made that his love-verses took up so great a share in his works, it may be alledged that they were composed when he was very young; but it is a vain thing to make any kind of apology for that sort of writing. If devout or virtuous men will superciliously forbid the minds of the young to adorn those subjects about which they are most conversant, they would put them out of all capacity of performing graver matters, when they come to them: for the exercise of all men's wit must be always proper for their age, and never too much above it, and by practice and use in lighter arguments, they grow up at last to excell in the most weighty. I am not therefore ashamed to commend Mr. Cowley's Mistress. I only except one or two expressions, which I wish I could have prevailed with those that had the right of the other edition to have left out; but of all the rest, I dare boldly pronounce, that never yet was written so much on a subject so delicate, that can less offend the severest rules of morality. The whole passion of love is intimately described by all its [47] mighty train of hopes, joys and disquiets. Besides this amorous tenderness, I know not how in every copy there is something of more useful knowledge gracefully insinuated; and every where there is something feigned to inform the minds of wise men, as well as to move the hearts of young men or women."
What Dr. Sprat thought of Mr. Cowley's Mistress is clear from the following excerpt from his Life of Cowley: "If an excuse was needed for the significant presence of his love poems in his works, it could be argued that they were written when he was very young; however, it's pointless to apologize for that kind of writing. If devout or virtuous individuals arrogantly prevent young minds from exploring the subjects they are most familiar with, they would hinder them from handling more serious matters later on. The creativity of everyone needs to align with their age and should not be too advanced for them. Through practice with lighter topics, they eventually become skilled in more significant ones. Therefore, I am not embarrassed to praise Mr. Cowley's Mistress. I only wish a couple of expressions were omitted, and I had hoped those who controlled the other edition would have removed them. Still, I can confidently say that nothing has been written on such a delicate topic that is less likely to offend strict moral standards. The entire emotion of love is deeply portrayed with all its powerful mix of hopes, joys, and anxieties. Along with this romantic tenderness, I notice that each version also gracefully includes something of more practical knowledge, and everywhere there is something crafted to enlighten the minds of wise people as well as to touch the hearts of young men or women."
Our author's comedy, named the Guardian, he afterwards altered, and published under the title of the Cutter of Coleman-Street. Langbaine says, notwithstanding Mr. Cowley's modest opinion of this play, it was acted not only at Cambridge, but several times afterwards privately, during the prohibition of the stage, and after the King's return publickly at Dublin; and always with applause. It was this probably that put the author upon revising it; after which he permitted it to appear publickly on the stage under a new title, at his royal highness the Duke of York's theatre. It met with opposition at first from some who envied the author's unshaken loyalty; but afterwards it was acted with general applause, and was esteemed by the critics an excellent comedy.
Our author's comedy, called the Guardian, was later changed and published under the title The Cutter of Coleman Street. Langbaine mentions that, despite Mr. Cowley's humble opinion of this play, it was performed not only at Cambridge but also several times in private during the theater ban and, after the King's return, publicly in Dublin; and it was always well-received. This likely motivated the author to revise it; he then allowed it to be staged publicly under a new title at the Duke of York's theater. It initially faced opposition from some who resented the author's steadfast loyalty, but it eventually was performed to great acclaim and was praised by critics as an excellent comedy.
In the year 1656 it was judged proper by those on whom Mr. Cowley depended, that he should come over into England, and under pretence of privacy and retirement, give notice of the situation of affairs in this nation. Upon his return he published a new edition of all his poems, consisting of four parts, viz.
In 1656, the people Mr. Cowley relied on thought it best for him to come to England and, under the guise of privacy and seclusion, inform others about the state of affairs in the country. After returning, he released a new edition of all his poems, which consisted of four parts, namely:
- Miscellanies.
- The Mistress; or several copies of love-verses.
- Pindarique Odes, written in imitation of the stile and manner of Pindar.
- Davedeis, a sacred poem of the troubles of David in four books.
[48] "Which, says Dr. Sprat, was written in so young an age, that if we shall reflect on the vastness of the argument, and his manner of handling it, he may seem like one of the miracles that he there adorns; like a boy attempting Goliah. This perhaps, may be the reason, that in some places, there may be more youthfulness and redundance of fancy, than his riper judgement would have allowed. But for the main of it I will affirm, that it is a better instance and beginning of a divine poem, than ever I yet saw in any language. The contrivance is perfectly ancient, which is certainly the true form of an heroic poem, and such as was never yet done by any new devices of modern wits. The subject was truly divine, even according to God's own heart. The matters of his invention, all the treasures of knowledge and histories of the bible. The model of it comprehended all the learning of the East. The characters lofty and various; the numbers firm and powerful; the digressions beautiful and proportionable. The design, to submit mortal wit to heavenly truths. In all, there is an admirable mixture of human virtues and passions with religious raptures. The truth is, continues Dr. Sprat, methinks in other matters his wit exceeded all other men's, but in his moral and divine works it out-did itself; and no doubt it proceeded from this cause, that in the lighter kinds of poetry he chiefly represented the humours and affections of others; but in these he sat to himself, and drew the figure of his own mind. We have the first book of the Davideis translated out of English into very elegant Latin by Mr. Cowley himself." Dr. Sprat says of his Latin poetry, "that he has expressed to admiration all the numbers of verse and figures of poetry, [49] that are scattered up and down amongst the ancients; and that there is hardly to be found in them any good fashion of speech, or colour of measure; but he has comprehended it, and given instances of it, according as his several arguments required either a majestic spirit, or passionate, or pleasant. This he observes, is the more extraordinary, in that it was never yet performed by any single poet of the ancient Romans themselves."
[48] "Which, according to Dr. Sprat, was written at such a young age that if we reflect on the vastness of the topic and how he handled it, he might seem like one of the miracles he describes; like a boy taking on Goliath. This might explain why in some parts, there’s more youthful exuberance and excess of imagination than his more mature judgment would have allowed. But overall, I will assert that it is a better example and starting point of a divine poem than I have ever seen in any language. The approach is truly classic, which is undoubtedly the true form of an epic poem, and something that hasn't yet been achieved by modern minds through new methods. The subject is genuinely divine, even according to God's own heart. The matters of his creation draw from all the treasures of knowledge and the stories of the Bible. The structure includes all the learning of the East. The characters are both lofty and varied; the rhythms are strong and impactful; the digressions are beautiful and well-balanced. The goal is to submit human wit to divine truths. Overall, there’s an admirable blend of human virtues and emotions with religious inspiration. The truth is, Dr. Sprat continues, I think in other matters his wit surpassed that of all other men, but in his moral and divine works, it exceeded even his own standards; and undoubtedly this was because in lighter poetry, he mainly depicted the moods and feelings of others, but in these works, he focused on himself and portrayed the essence of his own mind. We have the first book of the Davideis translated from English into very elegant Latin by Mr. Cowley himself." Dr. Sprat remarks about his Latin poetry, "that he has admirably captured all the styles of verse and poetic figures that are scattered among the ancients; and that you can hardly find any good way of speaking or meter among them; but he has encompassed it and provided examples based on the needs of his various arguments, whether they required a majestic tone, passionate emotion, or playfulness. This is particularly impressive because it has never been done by any single poet of the ancient Romans themselves." [49]
The same author has told us, that the occasion of Mr. Cowley's falling on the pindarique way of writing, was his accidentally meeting with Pindar's works in a place where he had no other books to direct him. Having thus considered at leisure the heighth of his invention, and the majesty of his stile, he tried immediately to imitate it in English, and he performed it, says the Dr. without the danger that Horace presaged to the man that should attempt it. Two of our greatest poets, after allowing Mr. Cowley to have been a successful imitator of Pindar, yet find fault with his numbers. Mr. Dryden having told us, that our author brought Pindaric verse as near perfection as possible in so short a time, adds, "But if I may be allowed to speak my mind modestly, and without injury to his sacred ashes, somewhat of the purity of English, somewhat of more sweetness in the numbers, in a word, somewhat of a finer turn and more lyrical verse is yet wanting;" and Mr. Congreve having excepted against the irregularity of the measure of the English Pindaric odes, yet observes, "that the beauty of Mr. Cowley's verses are an attonement for the irregularity of his stanzas; and tho' he did nor imitate Pindar in the strictness of his numbers, he has very often happily copied him in the force of his figures, and sublimity of his stile and sentiments."
The same author has mentioned that Mr. Cowley started writing in the Pindaric style after he stumbled upon Pindar's works in a place where he had no other books to guide him. After reflecting on the greatness of Pindar's creativity and the majesty of his style, Cowley immediately tried to imitate it in English, and he succeeded, according to the Doctor, without the risks that Horace warned would come to anyone attempting it. Two of our greatest poets, while acknowledging that Cowley was a successful imitator of Pindar, still criticize his rhythms. Mr. Dryden pointed out that Cowley brought Pindaric verse as close to perfection as possible in such a short time but added, "If I may express my opinion humbly and without disrespect to his revered memory, there is still a need for a bit more purity of English, a bit more sweetness in the rhythms, and, in short, a bit more finesse and lyrical quality." Mr. Congreve, while pointing out the irregularity of the meter in the English Pindaric odes, also noted, "the beauty of Mr. Cowley's verses compensates for the irregularity of his stanzas; and although he did not imitate Pindar in the strictness of his metrics, he often successfully mirrored him in the strength of his imagery and the grandeur of his style and ideas."
[50] Soon after his return to England, he was seized upon thro' mistake; the search being intended after another gentleman of considerable note in the King's party. The Republicans, who were sensible how much they needed the assistance and coalition of good men, endeavoured sometimes by promises, and sometimes by threatning, to bring our author over to their interest; but all their attempts proving fruitless, he was committed to a severe confinement, and with some difficulty at last obtained his liberty, after giving a thousand pounds bail, which Dr. Scarborough in a friendly manner took upon himself. Under these bonds he continued till Cromwell's death, when he ventured back into France, and there remained, as Dr. Sprat says, in the same situation as before, till near the time of the King's return. This account is a sufficient vindication of Mr. Cowley's unshaken loyalty, which some called in question; and as this is a material circumstance in the life of Cowley, we shall give an account of it in the words of the elegant writer of his life just now mentioned, as it is impossible to set it in a fairer, or more striking light than is already done by that excellent prelate. "The cause of his loyalty being called in question, he tells us, was a few lines in a preface to one of his books; the objection, says he, I must not pass in silence, because it was the only part of his life that was liable to misinterpretation, even by the confession of those that envied his fame.
[50] Shortly after returning to England, he was mistakenly arrested; the search was actually meant for another prominent member of the King's party. The Republicans, aware of how much they needed the support and alliance of good people, tried at times with promises and at other times with threats to sway our author to their side; but all their efforts were in vain. He was placed in harsh confinement and eventually secured his release with some difficulty, after posting a thousand pounds in bail, which Dr. Scarborough graciously took on himself. He remained under these conditions until Cromwell's death, at which point he dared to return to France, where he stayed, as Dr. Sprat notes, in the same situation as before, until just before the King's return. This account clearly defends Mr. Cowley’s steadfast loyalty, which some questioned; and since this is an important part of Cowley's life, we will recount it in the words of the elegant biographer just mentioned, as it's nearly impossible to present it in a clearer or more striking way than that esteemed bishop has already done. "The reason for questioning his loyalty, he tells us, was a few lines in the preface of one of his books; the objection, he says, I cannot ignore, because it was the only aspect of his life that could be misinterpreted, even by those who envied his reputation."
"In this case it were enough to alledge for him to men of moderate minds, that what he there said was published before a book of poetry; and so ought rather to be esteemed as a problem of his fancy and invention, than as a real image of his judgement; but his defence in this matter may be laid on a surer [51] foundation. This is the true reason to be given of his delivering that opinion: Upon his coming over he found the state of the royal party very desperate. He perceived the strength of their enemies so united, that till it should begin to break within itself, all endeavours against it were like to prove unsuccessful. On the other side he beheld their zeal for his Majesty's cause to be still so active, that often hurried them into inevitable ruin. He saw this with much grief; and tho' he approved their constancy as much as any man living, yet he found their unreasonable shewing it, did only disable themselves, and give their adversaries great advantages of riches and strength by their defeats. He therefore believed it would be a meritorious service to the King, if any man who was known to have followed his interest, could insinuate into the Usurper's minds, that men of his principles, were now willing to be quiet, and could persuade the poor oppressed Royalists to conceal their affections for better occasions. And as for his own particular, he was a close prisoner when he writ that against which the exception is made; so that he saw it was impossible for him to pursue the ends for which he came hither, if he did not make some kind of declaration of his peaceable intentions. This was then his opinon; and the success of the thing seems to prove that it was not ill-grounded. For certainly it was one of the greatest helps to the King's affairs about the latter end of that tyranny, that many of his best friends dissembled their counsels, and acted the same designs under the disguises and names of other parties. The prelate concludes this account with observing, that, that life must needs be very [52] unblameable, which had been tried in business of the highest consequence, and practised in the hazardous secrets of courts and cabinets, and yet there can nothing disgraceful be produced against it, but only the error of one paragraph, and single metaphor."
"In this situation, it would be enough to tell reasonable people that what he said was published before a book of poetry; therefore, it should be seen more as a product of his imagination and creativity rather than a true reflection of his judgment. However, his defense in this matter can rest on a more solid foundation. The real reason he expressed that opinion is that upon his arrival, he discovered the royal party's situation was quite desperate. He saw that their enemies were so united in strength that, until they started to fragment internally, any efforts against them were likely to fail. On the flip side, he noticed their enthusiasm for the King's cause was still so strong that it often led them to inevitable ruin. He observed this with great sorrow; and even though he admired their loyalty as much as anyone, he recognized that their unreasonable display of it only weakened them and gave their opponents significant advantages in wealth and strength through their defeats. He believed it would be a worthy service to the King if someone known to support him could convince the usurper's mind that people with his views were now willing to stay quiet and could persuade the oppressed royalists to hide their feelings for better times. As for himself, he was a close prisoner when he wrote the piece in question, which is why he realized that it was impossible for him to achieve the goals for which he came here unless he made some sort of declaration of his peaceful intentions. This was his opinion at the time, and the outcome seems to suggest that it was not unfounded. For surely, one of the greatest aids to the King's matters towards the end of that tyranny was that many of his closest friends concealed their plans and pursued the same objectives under the guise and names of different parties. The prelate concludes this account by noting that a life must be very unblemished if it has been tested in matters of the highest importance and practiced in the risky secrets of courts and cabinets, and yet nothing disgraceful can be brought against it, except for the mistake of one paragraph and a single metaphor."
About the year 1662, his two Books of Plants were published, to which he added afterwards four more, and all these together, with his Latin poems, were printed in London, 1678; his Books on Plants was written during his residence in England, in the time of the usurpation, the better to distinguish his real intention, by the study of physic, to which he applied.
Around 1662, his two Books of Plants were published, and later he added four more. All of these, along with his Latin poems, were printed in London in 1678. His Books on Plants were written while he lived in England during the time of the usurpation, to better clarify his true intention to focus on the study of medicine, which he dedicated himself to.
It appears by Wood's Fasti Oxon. that our poet was created Dr. of Physic at Oxford, December 2, 1657, by virtue of a mandamus from the then government. After the King's restoration, Mr. Cowley, being then past the 4Oth year of his age, the greatest part of which had been spent in a various and tempestuous condition, resolved to pass the remainder of his life in a studious retirement: In a letter to one of his friends, he talks of making a voyage to America, not from a view of accumulating wealth, but there to chuse a habitation, and shut himself up from the busy world for ever. This scheme was wildly romantic, and discovered some degree of vanity, in the author; for Mr. Cowley needed but retire a few miles out of town, and cease from appearing abroad, and he might have been sufficiently secured against the intrusion of company, nor was he of so much consequence as to be forced from his retirement; but this visionary scheme could not be carried into execution, by means of Mr. Cowley's want of money, for he had never been much on the road of gain. Upon the settlement of the peace of the nation, he obtained a competent estate, by the favour of his principal patrons, the duke of Buckingham, and the earl of St. Albans. Thus furnished [53] for a retreat, he spent the last seven or eight years of his life in his beloved obscurity, and possessed (says Sprat) that solitude, which from his very childhood he so passionately desired. This great poet, and worthy man, died at a house called the Porch-house, towards the West end of the town of Chertsey in Surry, July 28, 1667, in the 49th year of his age. His solitude, from the very beginning, had never agreed so well with the constitution of his body, as his mind: out of haste, to abandon the tumult of the city, he had not prepared a healthful situation in the country, as he might have done, had he been more deliberate in his choice; of this, he soon began to find the inconvenience at Barn-elms, where he was afflicted with a dangerous and lingring fever. Shortly after his removal to Chertsey, he fell into another consuming disease: having languished under this for some months, he seemed to be pretty well cured of its ill symptoms, but in the heat of the summer, by staying too long amongst his labourers in the meadows, he was taken with a violent defluxion, and stoppage in his breast and throat; this he neglected, as an ordinary cold, and refused to send for his usual physicians, 'till it was past all remedy, and so in the end, after a fortnight's sickness, it proved mortal to him.
It seems from Wood's *Fasti Oxon* that our poet was awarded an honorary Doctor of Physic degree at Oxford on December 2, 1657, through a mandate from the government at that time. After the King's restoration, Mr. Cowley, who was then over 40 years old and had spent most of his life in various turbulent situations, decided to spend the rest of his life in quiet study. In a letter to a friend, he mentioned considering a trip to America, not to seek wealth but to find a place to live and isolate himself from the busy world forever. This idea was quite romantic and showed a touch of arrogance on the author's part; Mr. Cowley only needed to move a few miles away from the city and stop appearing in public to secure his peace, as he wasn’t significant enough to be forced out of his solitude. However, this dreamy plan couldn't be realized due to Mr. Cowley's lack of money, as he had never been very successful financially. Once the nation's peace was established, he received a decent estate thanks to the favor of his main supporters, the Duke of Buckingham and the Earl of St. Albans. With this support, he spent the last seven or eight years of his life in his cherished obscurity and enjoyed (as Sprat noted) the solitude he had long desired since childhood. This great poet and noble man passed away at a place called the Porch-house, near the western end of Chertsey in Surrey, on July 28, 1667, at the age of 49. His solitude had never agreed as well with his physical health as it did with his mind: in his haste to escape the city's chaos, he didn't carefully choose a healthy location in the countryside, which he could have done if he had taken more time. He soon began to feel the effects of this at Barn-elms, where he suffered from a dangerous and lingering fever. Shortly after moving to Chertsey, he fell ill again with another debilitating disease. After struggling with this for several months, he seemed to recover from its severe symptoms but, during the summer heat, after spending too much time with his laborers in the fields, he developed a severe cold and congestion in his chest and throat. He dismissed it as just an ordinary cold and delayed calling his regular doctors until it was beyond help, ultimately leading to his death after two weeks of illness.
He was buried in Westminster Abbey, the 3d of August following, near the ashes of Chaucer and Spenser. King Charles II. was pleased to bestow upon him the best character, when, upon the news of his death, his Majesty declared, that Mr. Cowley had not left a better man behind him in England. A monument was erected to his memory in May 1675, by George, duke of Buckingham, with a Latin inscription, written by Dr. Sprat, afterwards lord bishop of Rochester.
He was buried in Westminster Abbey on August 3rd, close to the ashes of Chaucer and Spenser. King Charles II was generous with his praise when he heard about his death, stating that Mr. Cowley had not left behind a better man in England. A monument was put up in his honor in May 1675 by George, Duke of Buckingham, featuring a Latin inscription written by Dr. Sprat, who later became the Lord Bishop of Rochester.
Besides Mr. Cowley's works already mentioned, we have, by the fame hand, A Proposition for the advancement [54] of Experimental Philosophy. A Discourse, by way of Vision, concerning the Government of Oliver Cromwel, and several Discourses, by way of Essays, in Prose and Verse. Mr. Cowley had designed a Discourse on Stile, and a Review of the Principles of the Primitive Christian Church, but was prevented by death. In Mr. Dryden's Miscellany Poems, we find a poem on the Civil War, said to be written by our author, but not extant in any edition of his works: Dr. Sprat mentions, as very excellent in their kind, Mr. Cowley's Letters to his private friends, none of which were published. As a poet, Mr. Cowley has had tribute paid him from the greatest names in all knowledge, Dryden, Addison, Sir John Denham, and Pope. He is blamed for a redundance of wit, and roughness of verification, but is allowed to have possessed a fine understanding, great reading, and a variety of genius. Let us see how Mr. Addison characterizes him in his Account of the great English Poets.
Besides Mr. Cowley's works already mentioned, we have, by the same author, A Proposition for the Advancement [54] of Experimental Philosophy. A Discourse, in the form of a Vision, about the Government of Oliver Cromwell, and several Discourses, presented as Essays, in Prose and Verse. Mr. Cowley had planned a Discourse on Style, and a Review of the Principles of the Primitive Christian Church, but was prevented by death. In Mr. Dryden's Miscellany Poems, there’s a poem about the Civil War, attributed to our author, but it’s not found in any edition of his works: Dr. Sprat mentions, as very excellent in their kind, Mr. Cowley's Letters to his private friends, none of which were published. As a poet, Mr. Cowley has been honored by the greatest names in all knowledge, including Dryden, Addison, Sir John Denham, and Pope. He is critiqued for an excess of wit and roughness of verse but is recognized for having a fine understanding, extensive reading, and a diverse talent. Let's see how Mr. Addison describes him in his Account of the Great English Poets.
Great Cowley then (a mighty genius) wrote,
O'errun with wit, and lavish of his thought;
His turns too closely on the readers press,
He more had pleased us, had he pleased us less:
One glittering thought no sooner strikes our eyes,
With silent wonder, but new wonders rise.
As in the milky way, a shining white
O'erflows the heavens with one continued light;
That not a single star can shew his rays,
Whilst jointly all promote the common blaze.
Pardon, great poet, that I dare to name,
Th' uncumber'd beauties of thy verse with blame;
Thy fault is only wit in its' excess,
But wit like thine, in any shape will please.
Great Cowley then (a brilliant talent) wrote,
Overflowing with humor and generous with his ideas;
His twists hit the reader too hard,
He would have pleased us more if he had pleased us less:
One sparkling thought hits our eyes,
With silent awe, but new wonders spring up.
As in the Milky Way, a shining white
Fills the sky with a constant light;
That not a single star can show its rays,
While together they all enhance the common glow.
Forgive me, great poet, for I dare to mention,
The unburdened beauties of your verse with criticism;
Your flaw is simply wit in excess,
But wit like yours, in any form will please.
In his public capacity, he preserved an inviolable honour and loyalty, and exerted great activity, [55] with discernment: in private life, he was easy of access, gentle, polite, and modest; none but his intimate friends ever discovered, by his discourse, that he was a great poet; he was generous in his disposition, temperate in his life, devout and pious in his religion, a warm friend, and a social companion. Such is the character of the great Mr. Cowley, who deserves the highest gratitude from posterity, as well for his public as private conduct. He never prostituted his muse to the purposes of lewdness and folly, and it is with pleasure we can except him from the general, and too just, charge brought against the poets, That they have abilities to do the greatest service, and by misdirecting them, too frequently fawn the harlot face of loose indulgence, and by dressing up pleasure in an elegant attire, procure votaries to her altar, who pay too dear for gazing at the shewy phantom by loss of their virtue. It is no compliment to the taste of the present age, that the works of Mr. Cowley are falling into disesteem; they certainly contain more wit, and good sense, than the works of many other poets, whom it is now fashionable to read; that kind of poetry, which is known by the name of Light, he succeeds beyond any of his cotemporaries, or successors; no love verses, in our language, have so much true wit, and expressive tenderness, as Cowley's Mistress, which is indeed perfect in its kind. What Mr. Addison observes, is certainly true, 'He more had pleased us, had he pleased us less.' He had a soul too full, an imagination too fertile to be restrained, and because he has more wit than any other poet, an ordinary reader is somehow disposed to think he had less. In the particular of wit, none but Shakespear ever exceeded Cowley, and he was certainly as cultivated a scholar, as a great natural genius. In that kind of poetry which is grave, and demands extensive thinking, no poet has a right to be compared [56] with Cowley: Pope and Dryden, who are as remarkable for a force of thinking, as elegance of poetry, are yet inferior to him; there are more ideas in one of Cowley's pindaric odes, than in any piece of equal length by those two great genius's (St. Cæcilia's ode excepted) and his pindaric odes being now neglected, can proceed from no other cause, than that they demand too much attention for a common reader, and contain sentiments so sublimely noble, as not to be comprehended by a vulgar mind; but to those who think, and are accustomed to contemplation, they appear great and ravishing. In order to illustrate this, we shall quote specimens in both kinds of poetry; the first taken from his Mistress called Beauty, the other is a Hymn to Light, both of which, are so excellent in their kind, that whoever reads them without rapture, may be well assured, that he has no poetry in his soul, and is insensible to the flow of numbers, and the charms of sense.
In his public role, he maintained an unwavering sense of honor and loyalty, and was very active, [55] with sharp insight. In his private life, he was approachable, kind, polite, and humble; only his close friends ever realized, through his conversations, that he was a great poet. He was generous by nature, moderate in his lifestyle, devout in his faith, a loyal friend, and a great companion. This is the character of the great Mr. Cowley, who truly deserves the highest appreciation from future generations, for both his public and private actions. He never compromised his poetic talent for crude or foolish purposes, and it’s gratifying that we can exclude him from the common but fair criticism of poets who have the potential for greatness yet often diminish their talents by indulging in hedonism, dressing up pleasure in fancy words, and leading people to her false allure, causing them to lose their virtue. It is not a compliment to the tastes of today that Mr. Cowley’s works are becoming less appreciated; they definitely possess more wit and sensibility than many other poets currently in vogue. In the style of poetry known as Light, he outshines all his contemporaries and successors; no love poems in our language contain as much genuine wit and heartfelt tenderness as Cowley’s Mistress, which is truly exemplary in its genre. What Mr. Addison notes is indeed accurate, “He would have pleased us more if he had pleased us less.” He had a heart full of ideas and an imagination too rich to be confined, and because he possesses more wit than any other poet, it often leads the average reader to perceive he has less. In terms of wit, only Shakespeare has surpassed Cowley, and he was undoubtedly as refined a scholar as he was a natural talent. In the realm of serious poetry that requires deep thought, no poet can be rightly compared [56] to Cowley; Pope and Dryden, known for both their intellectual depth and poetic elegance, still fall short of him. There are more ideas in a single one of Cowley’s pindaric odes than in any equally lengthy piece by those two (excluding St. Cecilia's ode), and the neglect of his pindaric odes must stem from the idea that they require too much attention from the average reader and contain sentiments so profoundly noble that they cannot be fully grasped by a common mind. However, to those who reflect and are used to deep contemplation, they appear magnificent and captivating. To illustrate this, we will quote examples from both types of poetry; the first taken from his Mistress called Beauty, and the other is a Hymn to Light, both of which are so outstanding in their forms that anyone reading them without exhilaration can be sure they have no poetry in their soul and are unresponsive to the rhythm and beauty of words.
BEAUTY.
I.
Beauty, thou wild fantastic ape,
Who dost in ev'ry country change thy shape!
Here black, there brown, here tawny, and there white;
Thou flatt'rer which compli'st with every sight!
Thou Babel which confound'st the eye
With unintelligible variety!
Who hast no certain what nor where,
But vary'st still, and dost thy self declare
Inconstant, as thy she-professors are.
Beauty, you wild, unpredictable thing,
Changing your form in every country!
Here black, there brown, here tan, and there white;
You flatterer that adapts to every view!
Your confusion is breathtaking.
With incomprehensible variety!
You don’t have a fixed identity or location,
But keep changing and declare yourself
Unsteady, just like your female admirers.
II.
Beauty, love's scene and masquerade,
So gay by well-plac'd lights, and distance made;
[57]
False coin, and which th' impostor cheats us still;
The stamp and colour good, but metal ill!
Which light, or base, we find when we
Weigh by enjoyment and examine thee!
For though thy being be but show,
'Tis chiefly night which men to thee allow:
And chuse t'enjoy thee, when thou least art thou.
Beauty, love's act and mask,
So lively with well-placed lights and created distance;
[57]
Fake treasure, and which the fraudster still tricks us with;
The appearance and color look nice, but the substance is bad!
We find out how bright or worthless something is when we
Measure by enjoyment and scrutinize you!
Even if your existence is just an illusion,
It’s mainly the night that people attribute to you:
And choose to enjoy you when you are at your least real.
III.
Beauty, thou active, passive ill!
Which dy'st thy self as fast as thou dost kill!
Thou Tulip, who thy stock in paint dost waste,
Neither for physic good, nor smell, nor taste.
Beauty, whose flames but meteors are,
Short-liv'd and low, though thou would'st seem a star,
Who dar'st not thine own home descry,
Pretending to dwell richly in the eye,
When thou, alas, dost in the fancy lye.
Beauty, you active yet passive curse!
You destroy yourself just as quickly as you take life!
You Tulip, wasting your essence on makeup,
Good for nothing—neither medicine, scent, nor taste.
Beauty, whose flames are simply meteors,
Short-lived and low, even though you want to seem like a star,
You who are afraid to look at your own home,
Pretending to exist beautifully in the eye,
When you, unfortunately, only exist in imagination.
IV.
Beauty, whose conquests still are made
O'er hearts by cowards kept, or else betray'd;
Weak victor! who thy self destroy'd must be
When sickness, storms, or time besieges thee!
Thou unwholesome thaw to frozen age!
Thou strong wine, which youths fever dost enrage,
Thou tyrant which leav'st no man free!
Thou subtle thief, from whom nought safe can be!
Thou murth'rer which hast kill'd, and devil which would damn me.
Beauty, whose victories are still being achieved
Over hearts held by cowards or betrayed;
Weak winner! who must destroy yourself
When sickness, storms, or time surround you!
You unhealthy warmth to a frozen age!
You strong wine, which drives youth to fever,
You oppressor who doesn't allow anyone to be free!
You clever thief, from whom nothing is safe!
You murderer who has killed, and devil who would damn me.
HYMN to LIGHT.
I.
First born of Chaos, who so far didst come,
From the old negro's darksome womb!
Which when it saw the lovely child,
The melancholly mass put on kind looks and smiled.
Firstborn of Chaos, who has now arrived,
From the dark womb of the old woman!
When it saw the beautiful child,
The gloomy mass took on kind expressions and smiled.
II.
Thou tide of glory, which no rest dost know,
But ever ebb, and ever flow!
Thou golden shower of a true Jove!
Who does in thee descend, and Heaven to earth make love!
You tide of glory, which knows no rest,
But it always comes and goes!
You magnificent shower of a true god!
Who descends in you, and brings Heaven to earth in love!
III.
Hail active nature's watchful life, and health!
Her joy, her ornament and wealth!
Hail to thy husband heat, and thee!
Thou the world's beauteous bride, the lusty bridegroom he!
Hail to the vibrant energy of life and health!
Her joy, her beauty, and her treasure!
Cheers to your partner, warmth, and to you!
You are the stunning bride of the world, and he is the lively groom!
IV.
Say from what golden quivers of the sky,
Do all thy winged arrows fly?
Swiftness and power by birth are thine,
From thy great fire they came, thy fire the word divine.
Say from what brilliant quivers of the sky,
Do all your arrows with wings fly?
Speed and strength come naturally to you,
From your great fire they came, your fire the divine word.
V.
'Tis I believe this archery to shew
That so much cost in colours thou,
And skill in painting dost bestow,
Upon thy ancient arms, the gaudy heav'nly bow.
It's I believe this archery to show
That you spend so much on colors, you,
And you give the skill of painting,
Upon your ancient arms, the flashy heavenly bow.
VI.
Swift as light, thoughts their empty career run,
Thy race is finish'd, when begun;
Let a Post-Angel start with thee,
And thou the goal of earth shall reach as soon as he.
Quick as lightning, thoughts race through their empty course,
Your journey ends before it even begins;
Let a Post-Angel fly with you,
And you'll reach the earthly destination just as fast as he will.
VII.
Thou in the moon's bright chariot proud and gay,
Dost thy bright wood of stars survey;
And all the year doth with thee bring
O thousand flowry lights, thine own nocturnal spring.
You in the moon's shining chariot, proud and joyful,
Gaze at your shining forest of stars;
And throughout the entire year, you bring
A thousand flower-like lights, your own nighttime spring.
VIII.
Thou Scythian-like dost round thy lands above
The sun's gilt tent for ever move,
And still as thou in pomp dost go,
The shining pageants of the world attend thy show.
You, like a Scythian, roam your lands above
The sun's golden canopy is always shifting,
And as you continue to excel,
The dazzling spectacles of the world follow your performance.
IX.
Nor amidst all these triumphs dost thou scorn
The humble Glow-Worms to adorn,
And with those living spangles gild,
(O greatness without pride!) the blushes of the Field.
Nor in the midst of all these victories do you disdain
To decorate the humble Glow-Worms,
And use those living sparkles to decorate,
(O greatness without arrogance!) the blushes of the Field.
X.
Night, and her ugly subjects thou dost fright,
And sleep, the lazy Owl of night;
Asham'd and fearful to appear,
They skreen their horrid shapes, with the black hemisphere.
Night, and her frightening subjects you scare,
And sleep, the lazy owl of the night;
Embarrassed and afraid to appear,
They hide their terrifying forms beneath the dark sky.
XI.
With 'em there hastes, and wildly takes th' alarm,
Of painted dreams, a busy swarm,
At the first opening of thine eye,
The various clusters break, the antick atoms fly.
With them there rushes, and wildly takes the alarm,
In a flurry of colorful dreams, a busy swarm,
As soon as you open your eyes,
The different clusters break, the playful atoms fly.
XII.
The guilty serpents, and obscener beasts,
Creep conscious to their secret rests:
Nature to thee doth reverence pay,
Ill omens, and ill sights removes out of thy way.
The guilty snakes and filthy animals,
Sneak away, conscious of their embarrassment:
Nature shows you respect,
Bad signs and terrible sights are kept away from you.
XIII.
At thy appearance, grief itself is said,
To shake his wings, and rouze his head;
And cloudy care has often took
A gentle beamy smile, reflected from thy look.
At your appearance, grief is said,
To flap its wings and lift its head;
And cloudy worry has often taken
A gentle, bright smile, reflected from your look.
XIV.
At thy appearance, fear itself grows bold;
Thy sun-shine melts away his cold:
Encourag'd at the sight of thee,
To the cheek colour comes, and firmness to the knee.
At your appearance, fear itself becomes brave;
Your warmth melts away his coldness:
Inspired by seeing you,
Color returns to the cheek, and strength to the knee.
XV.
Even lust, the master of a harden'd face,
Blushes if thou be'st in the place,
To darkness' curtains he retires,
In sympathizing nights he rolls his smoaky fires.
Even lust, the master of a hardened face,
Blush if you're in the right spot,
To the curtains of darkness he retreats,
In sympathetic nights he rolls his smoky fires.
XVI.
When, goddess, thou lift'st up thy waken'd head,
Out of the morning's purple bed,
Thy choir of birds about thee play,
And all the joyful world salutes the rising day.
When, goddess, you lift your awake head,
Out of the morning's purple bed,
Your choir of birds sings around you,
And all the joyful world greets the rising day.
XVII.
The ghosts, and monster spirits, that did presume
A body's priv'lege to assume,
Vanish again invisibly,
And bodies gain again their visibility.
The ghosts and monster spirits that dared
To assume someone's identity,
Vanish again unnoticed,
And bodies regain their visibility.
XVIII.
All the world's bravery that delights our eyes,
Is but thy sev'ral liveries,
Thou the rich dye on them bestow'st,
Thy nimble pencil paints this landskip as thou go'st.
All the bravery in the world that captivates us,
It's just your different outfits,
You give them the vibrant color,
Your quick brush paints this landscape as you move.
XIX.
A crimson garment in the rose thou wear'st;
A crown of studded gold thou bear'st,
The virgin lillies in their white,
Are clad but with the lawn of almost naked light.
A red garment in the rose you wear;
You wear a crown of gold with studs,
The pure white lilies,
Are dressed only with the fabric of nearly naked light.
XX.
The Violet, spring's little infant, stands,
Girt in thy purple swadling-bands:
On the fair Tulip thou dost dote;
Thou cloath'st it in a gay and party-colour'd coat.
The Violet, spring's tiny baby, stands,
Wrapped in your purple blankets:
You adore the beautiful Tulip;
You dress it in a bright and colorful coat.
XXI.
With flame condens'd thou dost the jewels fix,
And solid colours in it mix:
Flora herself, envies to see
Flowers fairer than her own, and durable as she.
With flames contained, you set the jewels,
And mix solid colors into it:
Even Flora herself envies seeing
Flowers more beautiful than her own, and as lasting as she.
XXII.
Ah, goddess! would thou could'st thy hand with-hold,
And be less liberal to gold;
[62]
Didst thou less value to it give,
Of how much care (alas) might'st thou poor man relieve!
Ah, goddess! If only you could hold back your hand,
And be less generous with gold;
[62]
If you valued it less,
How much care (oh dear) you could ease for the poor!
XXIII.
To me the sun is more delightful far,
And all fair days much fairer are;
But few, ah wondrous few there be,
Who do not Gold prefer, O goddess, ev'n to thee.
To me, the sun is much more enjoyable,
And all the nice days are so much better;
But there are very few, oh so few,
Who don't choose gold, oh goddess, even over you.
XXIV.
Thro' the soft ways of Heav'n, and air, and sea,
Which open all their pores to thee,
Like a clear river thou dost glide,
And with thy living stream through the close channels slide.
Through the gentle paths of Heaven, air, and sea,
Which open all their pores to you,
Like a clear river, you move smoothly,
And with your flowing stream move through the tight channels.
XXV.
But where firm bodies thy free course oppose,
Gently thy source the land overflows;
Takes there possession, and does make,
Of colours mingled light, a thick and standing lake.
But where solid bodies block your flow,
Gently, your source flows across the land;
It takes control there and creates,
A thick, still lake of blended colors and light.
XXVI.
But the vast ocean of unbounded day
In th'Empyræan heav'n does stay;
Thy rivers, lakes, and springs below,
From thence took first their rise, thither at last must flow.
But the endless ocean of bright day
In the heavenly sky, there remains;
Your rivers, lakes, and springs down below,
Started from there and must eventually flow back.
Footnotes:
Footnotes:
Sir William Davenant.
Few poets have been subjected to more various turns of fortune, than the gentleman whose memoirs we are now about to relate. He was amongst the first who refined our poetry, and did more for the interest of the drama, than any who ever wrote for the stage. He lived in times of general confusion, and was no unactive member of the state, when its necessities demanded his assistance; and when, with the restoration, politeness and genius began to revive, he applied himself to the promotion of these rational pleasures, which are fit to entertain a cultivated people. This great man was son of one Mr. John Davenant, a citizen of Oxford, and was born in the month of February, 1605; all the biographers of our poet have observed, that his father was a man of a grave disposition, and a gloomy turn of mind, which his son did not inherit from him, for he was as remarkably volatile, as his father was saturnine. The same biographers have celebrated our author's mother as very handsome, whose charms had the power of attracting the admiration of Shakespear, the highest compliment which ever was paid to beauty. As Mr. Davenant, our poet's father, kept a tavern, Shakespear, in his journies to Warwickshire, spent some time there, influenced, as many believe, by the engaging qualities of the handsome landlady. This circumstance has given rise to a conjecture, that Davenant was really the son of Shakespear, as well naturally as poetically, by an [64] unlawful intrigue, between his mother and that great man; that this allegation is founded upon probability, no reader can believe, for we have such accounts of the amiable temper, and moral qualities of Shakespear, that we cannot suppose him to have been guilty of such an act of treachery, as violating the marriage honours; and however he might have been delighted with the conversation, or charmed with the person of Mrs. Davenant, yet as adultery was not then the fashionable vice, it would be injurious to his memory, so much as to suppose him guilty.
Few poets have faced as many ups and downs as the gentleman whose memoirs we are about to share. He was one of the first to elevate our poetry and contributed more to the theater than anyone else who ever wrote for the stage. He lived through chaotic times and played an active role in the state when it needed his support. With the restoration came a revival of politeness and creativity, and he dedicated himself to encouraging these intellectual pleasures that are suitable for an educated society. This great man was the son of Mr. John Davenant, a citizen of Oxford, and he was born in February 1605. All the biographers of our poet have noted that his father had a serious and moody disposition, which his son did not inherit, as he was just as lively as his father was somber. These same biographers have praised our author’s mother for her beauty, which could attract the admiration of Shakespeare, the highest compliment ever given to beauty. Mr. Davenant, our poet's father, ran a tavern, and Shakespeare spent some time there during his travels to Warwickshire, influenced, as many believe, by the charming qualities of the attractive landlady. This has led to speculation that Davenant was actually Shakespeare's son, both biologically and poetically, due to an illicit affair between his mother and that great man. However, no reader can truly believe this claim is rooted in reality, as we have ample accounts of Shakespeare's amiable character and moral integrity, making it hard to conceive of him committing such an act of betrayal as dishonoring a marriage. While he may have enjoyed Mrs. Davenant's company or been captivated by her, it would be unfair to his legacy to even suggest he was guilty of infidelity, especially considering that adultery was not then a popular vice.
Our author received the first rudiments of polite learning from Mr. Edward Sylvester, who kept a grammar school in the parish of All Saints in Oxford. In the year 1624, the same in which his father was Mayor of the city, he was entered a member of the university of Oxford, in Lincoln's-Inn College, under the tuition of Mr. Daniel Hough, but the Oxford antiquary is of opinion, he did not long remain there, as his mind was too much addicted to gaiety, to bear the austerities of an academical life, and being encouraged by some gentlemen, who admired the vivacity of his genius, he repaired to court, in hopes of making his fortune in that pleasing, but dangerous element. He became first page to Frances, duchess of Richmond, a lady much celebrated in those days, as well for her beauty, as the influence she had at court, and her extraordinary taste for grandeur, which excited her to keep a kind of private court of her own, which, in our more fashionable æra, is known by the name of Drums, Routs, and Hurricanes. Sir William afterwards removed into the family of Sir Fulk Greville, lord Brooke, who being himself a man of taste and erudition, gave the most encouraging marks of esteem to our rising bard. This worthy nobleman being brought to an immature fate, by the cruel hands of an assassin, 1628, Davenant was [65] left without a patron, though not in very indigent circumstances, his reputation having increased, during the time he was in his lordship's service: the year ensuing the death of his patron, he produced his first play to the world, called Albovino, King of the Lombards, which met with a very general, and warm reception, and to which some very honourable recommendations were prefixed, when it was printed, in several copies of verses, by men of eminence, amongst whom, were, Sir Henry Blount, Edward Hyde, afterwards earl of Clarendon, and the honourable Henry Howard. Our author spent the next eight years of his life in a constant attendance upon court, where he was highly caressed by the most shining characters of the times, particularly by the earl of Dorset, Edward Hyde, and Lord Treasurer Weston: during these gay moments, spent in the court amusements, an unlucky accident happened to our author, which not a little deformed his face, which, from nature, was very handsome. Wood has affirmed, that this accident arose from libidinous dalliance with a handsome black girl in Axe-yard, Westminster. The plain fact is this, Davenant was of an amorous complexion, and was so unlucky as to carry the marks of his regular gallantries in the depression of his nose; this exposed him to the pleasant raillery of cotemporary wits, which very little affected him, and to shew that he was undisturbed by their merriment, he wrote a burlesque copy of verses upon himself. This accident happened pretty early in his life, since it gave occasion to the following stanzas in Sir John Suckling's Sessions of the Poets, which we have transcribed from a correct copy of Suckling's works.
Our author got his first lessons in polite learning from Mr. Edward Sylvester, who ran a grammar school in the parish of All Saints in Oxford. In 1624, the same year his father was the Mayor of the city, he became a member of the University of Oxford at Lincoln's Inn College, under the guidance of Mr. Daniel Hough. However, the Oxford historian believes he didn't stay there long because he was too attracted to a carefree lifestyle to endure the strictness of academic life. Encouraged by some gentlemen who admired his lively spirit, he went to court, hoping to make a fortune in that appealing but risky environment. He became a page to Frances, the Duchess of Richmond, a woman well-known at the time for her beauty, influence at court, and her exceptional taste for grandeur, which led her to maintain a sort of private court of her own, now referred to as the Drums, Routs, and Hurricanes of our more fashionable era. Sir William later joined the household of Sir Fulk Greville, Lord Brooke, who, being a man of taste and knowledge, showed considerable admiration for our rising poet. Tragically, this nobleman met an early demise at the hands of an assassin in 1628, leaving Davenant without a patron, though not in dire straits, as his reputation had grown while he served his lordship. The year after his patron's death, he presented his first play to the world, titled Albovino, King of the Lombards, which received a warm and widespread reception, along with some honorable recommendations in verse from prominent individuals, including Sir Henry Blount, Edward Hyde (later the Earl of Clarendon), and the honorable Henry Howard. Our author then spent the next eight years at court, where he was well-regarded by some of the most notable figures of the time, particularly the Earl of Dorset, Edward Hyde, and Lord Treasurer Weston. During this lively time spent in court entertainment, an unfortunate accident occurred that left his otherwise handsome face marked. Wood claims this incident stemmed from a flirtation with a beautiful black girl in Axe-yard, Westminster. The truth is that Davenant had an amorous disposition, and he unfortunately bore the marks of his many romantic encounters on his nose, which made him a target for the playful teasing of contemporary wits. This hardly bothered him, and to prove he was unfazed by their jests, he wrote a humorous poem about himself. This incident happened relatively early in his life, as it inspired the following stanzas in Sir John Suckling's Sessions of the Poets, which we have quoted from a reliable copy of Suckling's works.
Will Davenant ashamed of a foolish mischance,
That he had got lately travelling in France,
[66]
Modestly hop'd the handsomness of his muse,
Might any deformity about him excuse.
Will Davenant, embarrassed by a silly accident,
That he had recently while traveling in France,
[66]
Humbly hoped that the beauty of his muse,
Might cover up any flaws in him.
Surely the company had been content,
If they cou'd have found any precedent,
But in all their records in verse, or prose,
There was none of a laureat, who wanted a nose.
Surely the company would have been satisfied,
If they could have found any example,
But in all their records, whether in verse or prose,
There was none of a laureate who lacked a nose.
Suckling here differs from the Oxford historian, in saying that Sir William's disorder was contracted in France, but as Wood is the highest authority, it is more reasonable to embrace his observation, and probably, Suckling only mentioned France, in order that it might rhime with mischance.
Suckling here differs from the Oxford historian by claiming that Sir William's illness was contracted in France. However, since Wood is the highest authority, it's more sensible to accept his statement, and likely, Suckling only mentioned France so it would rhyme with mischance.
Some time after this, Davenant was rallied by another hand, on account of this accident, as if it had been a jest that could never die; but what is more extraordinary, is, that Sir William himself could not forget the authoress of this misfortune, but has introduced her in his Gondibert, and, in the opinion of some critics, very improperly. He brings two friends, Ulfinore the elder, and Goltho the younger, on a journey to the court of Gondibert, but in this passage to shew, as he would insinuate the extream frailty of youth, they were arrested by a very unexpected accident, notwithstanding the wife councils, which Ulfinore had just received from his father[1]. The lines which have an immediate reference to this fair enchantress, are too curious to be here omitted.
Some time later, Davenant was teased by someone else about this incident as if it were a joke that would never get old. Even more surprising is that Sir William himself couldn’t forget the woman behind this mishap and included her in his Gondibert, which some critics believe was quite inappropriate. He features two friends, Ulfinore the elder and Goltho the younger, on their way to Gondibert's court. In this section, he seems to suggest the extreme weakness of youth, as they were caught off guard by a very unexpected occurrence, despite the advice Ulfinore had just received from his father[1]. The lines directly referring to this beautiful enchantress are too fascinating to leave out.
I.
The black-ey'd beauty did her pride display,
Thro' a large window, and in jewels shone,
As if to please the world, weeping for day,
Night had put all her starry jewels on.
The dark-eyed beauty showed off her pride,
Through a large window, dazzling in jewels,
As if to impress the world, longing for daylight,
Night had put all her starry jewels on.
II.
This, beauty gaz'd on both, and Ulfinore
Hung down his head, but yet did lift his eyes
As if he fain would see a little more,
For much, tho' bashful, he did beauty prize.
This, beauty watched both, and Ulfinore
Looked down, but still lifted his eyes
As if he really wanted to see a little more,
For even though he was shy, he valued beauty greatly.
III.
Goltho did like a blushless statue stare,
Boldly her practis'd boldness did outlook;
And even for fear she would mistrust her snare,
Was ready to cry out, that he was took.
Goltho stared like a statue without a blush,
Confidently displaying her practiced boldness;
And even though she feared she would be caught in her trap,
She was ready to shout that he was captured.
IV.
She, with a wicked woman's prosp'rous art,
A seeming modesty, the window clos'd;
Wisely delay'd his eyes, since of his heart
She thought she had sufficiently dispos'd.
She, with a cunning woman's successful skill,
A fake modesty, shut the window tight;
Smartly kept his eyes away, since she thought
She had already won his heart over.
V.
Nicely as bridegroom's was her chamber drest,
Her bed as brides, and richer than a throne;
And sweeter seem'd than the Circania's nest.
Though built in Eastern groves of Cinnamon.
Nicely as the groom’s was her room decorated,
Her bed like a bride's, and more luxurious than a throne;
And it seemed sweeter than the Circania’s nest.
Though it was built in Eastern groves of cinnamon.
VI.
The price of princes pleasure, who her love,
(Tho'! but false were) at rates so costly bought,
The wealth of many, but many hourly prove
Spoils to some one, by whom herself is caught.
The cost of a prince's pleasure, who loves her,
(Even if it’s false) is bought at such high prices,
The riches of many, yet many prove daily
To be victims of someone who has captured her.
VII.
She sway'd by sinful beauty's destiny,
Finds her tyrannic power must now expire,
Who meant to kindle Goltho in her eye,
But to her breast has brought the raging fire.
She swayed by the fate of sinful beauty,
Realizes her tyrannical power must come to an end,
Who intended to ignite Goltho in her gaze,
But has instead brought the raging fire to her heart.
VIII.
Yet even in simple love she uses art,
Tho' weepings are from looser eyes, but leaks;
Yet eldest lovers scarce would doubt her heart,
So well she weeps, as she to Goltho speaks.
Yet even in simple love she uses art,
Though tears fall from softer eyes, but leak;
Yet even the oldest lovers would hardly doubt her heart,
So well she weeps, as she speaks to Goltho.
During our author's attendance at court, he wrote several plays, and employed his time in framing masques, which were acted by the principal nobility of both sexes; the Queen herself condescended to take a share in one of them, which gave very great offence to the scrupulous moralists, which sprung up in those days; the particular account of this dramatic piece we shall give in the conclusion of his life, and now proceed in enumerating the incidents of it.
During our author's time at court, he wrote several plays and spent his time creating masques that were performed by the leading nobles of both genders. The Queen even participated in one of them, which greatly offended the strict moralists who emerged during that period. We will provide a detailed account of this dramatic piece in the conclusion of his life, and now we will continue to list the events related to it.
Upon the death of Ben Johnson, which happened in the year 1637, our poet succeeded to his laurel, notwithstanding the violent opposition of his competitor Thomas May, who was so extremely affected with his disappointment, though he had been a zealous courtier, yet from resentment to the Queen, by whose interest Davenant was preferred, he commenced an enemy to the King's party, and became both an advocate and historian for the Parliament.
Upon the death of Ben Johnson in 1637, our poet took his place, despite the strong opposition from his rival Thomas May. May was deeply affected by his disappointment; even though he had been a devoted supporter of the court, his resentment towards the Queen—who had backed Davenant—led him to become an enemy of the King's party, turning into both an advocate and historian for the Parliament.
As soon as the civil war broke out, Mr. Davenant had an early share in them and demonstrated his loyalty by speaking and acting for the King. He was accused by the Parliament for being embarked in a design in May 1641, of seducing the army from their adherence to the parliamentary authority, and bringing it again under the subjection of the King, and defence of his person. In this scheme many of Sir William's friends were engaged, viz. Mr. Henry Piercy, afterwards lord Piercy, Mr. Goring, Mr. Jermyn, [69] Mr. Ashburnham, Sir John Suckling, and others: most of these persons, upon their design being discovered, placed their security in flight, and Mr. Davenant amongst the rest; but a proclamation being published for apprehending him, he was stopped at Feversham, sent up to town, and put into the custody of a sergeant at arms[2]. In the month of July following, our author was bailed, and not long after finding it necessary, on account of the violence of the times, to withdraw to France, he had the misfortune to be seized again in Kent by the Mayor of Canterbury; how he escaped the present danger, none of his biographers have related, but it appears that he did not, upon this occasion, suffer long confinement; he at last retired beyond sea, where he continued for some time, but the Queen sending over a considerable quantity of military stores, for the use of the earl of Newcastle's army, Mr. Davenant returned again to England, offered his service to that noble peer, who was his old friend and patron, and by him made lieutenant-general of his ordnance: this promotion gave offence to many, who were his rivals in his lordship's esteem: they remonstrated, that Sir William Davenant, being a poet, was, for that very reason, unqualified for a place of so much trust, and which demanded one of a solid, and less volatile turn of mind, than the sons of Parnassus generally are. In this complaint they paid but an indifferent compliment to the General himself, who was a poet, and had written, and published several plays. That Davenant behaved well in his military capacity is very probable, since, in the month of September, 1643, he received the honour of knighthood from the King, at the siege of Gloucester, an acknowledgment of his bravery, and signal services, which bestowed at a time when [70] a strict scrutiny was made concerning the merit of officers, puts it beyond doubt, that Davenant, in his martial character, was as deserving as in his poetical. During these severe contentions, and notwithstanding his public character, our author's muse sometimes raised her voice, in the composition of several plays, of which we shall give some account when we enumerate his dramatic performances. History is silent as to the means which induced Davenant to quit the Northern army, but as soon as the King's affairs so far declined, as to afford no hopes of a revival, he judged it necessary to retire into France, where he was extremely well received by the Queen, into whose confidence he had the honour to be taken, and was intrusted with the negotiation of matters of the highest importance, in the summer of the year 1646. Before this time Sir William had embraced the popish religion, which circumstance might so far ingratiate him with the queen, as to trust him with the most important concerns. Lord Clarendon, who had a particular esteem for him, has given a full account of this affair, though not much to his advantage, but yet with all the tenderness due to Sir William's good intentions, and of that long and intimate acquaintance that had subsisted between them; which is the more worthy the reader's notice, as it has entirely escaped the observation of all those, who have undertaken to write this gentleman's Memoirs, though the most remarkable passage in his whole life.
As soon as the civil war started, Mr. Davenant got involved early on and showed his loyalty by supporting the King. Parliament accused him of being involved in a plan in May 1641 to sway the army away from supporting parliamentary authority and bringing it back under the King’s control. Many of Sir William's friends were part of this plan, including Mr. Henry Piercy, who later became Lord Piercy, Mr. Goring, Mr. Jermyn, Mr. Ashburnham, Sir John Suckling, and others. When their plan was discovered, most of them chose to flee, and Mr. Davenant was among them. However, after a proclamation was issued to capture him, he was stopped in Feversham, sent to London, and put in the custody of a sergeant at arms. In July, our author was bailed out, and shortly after, feeling the need to escape to France due to the turmoil, he unfortunately got captured again in Kent by the Mayor of Canterbury. None of his biographers say how he avoided the immediate danger, but it seems he did not suffer long imprisonment this time; eventually, he fled abroad. He stayed there for a while, but after the Queen sent a significant amount of military supplies for the Earl of Newcastle's army, Mr. Davenant returned to England, offered his service to his old friend and patron, and was made lieutenant-general of his ordnance. This promotion upset many who were rivals for the Earl's favor. They argued that Sir William Davenant, being a poet, was unfit for such an important, responsible position, which required someone with a more solid and less whimsical nature than poets typically have. This complaint didn’t reflect well on the General himself, who was also a poet and had published several plays. It's likely that Davenant performed well in his military role, as he was knighted by the King during the siege of Gloucester in September 1643, in acknowledgment of his bravery and significant services at a time when there was strict scrutiny of officers’ merits. This shows that Davenant was as deserving in his military role as he was in his poetic one. During these intense battles, despite his public role, our author sometimes found time to write several plays, which we will discuss when we list his dramatic works. History doesn’t explain why Davenant left the Northern army, but once the King's situation looked hopeless, he decided to retreat to France, where he was warmly welcomed by the Queen, who took him into her confidence and tasked him with negotiating very important matters in the summer of 1646. Before this, Sir William had converted to Catholicism, which might have helped gain the Queen's trust with significant issues. Lord Clarendon, who valued him highly, provides a detailed account of this matter, although it may not reflect well on him, yet it acknowledges Sir William's good intentions and the long friendship between them. This account is notable because it has been overlooked by those writing about this gentleman’s life, even though it is one of the most significant moments in his life.
The King, in retiring to the Scots, had followed the advice of the French ambassador, who had promised on their behalf, if not more than he had authority to do, at least, more than they were inclined to perform; to justify, however, his conduct at home, he was inclined to throw the weight, in some measure, upon the King, and with this view, he, by an express, informed cardinal Mazarine, [71] that his Majesty was too reserved in giving the Parliament satisfaction, and therefore desired that some person might be sent over, who had a sufficient degree of credit with the English Monarch, to persuade him to such compliances, as were necessary for his interest. 'The Queen, says the noble historian, who was never advised by those, who either understood, or valued her Husband's interest, consulted those about her, and sent Sir William Davenant, an honest man, and a witty, but in all respects unequal to such a trust, with a letter of credit to the King, who knew the person well enough under another character than was likely to give him much credit upon the argument, with which he was entrusted, although the Queen had likewise otherwise declared her opinion to his Majesty, that he should part with the church for his peace and security.' Sir William had, by the countenance of the French ambassador, easy admission to the King, who heard patiently all he had to say, and answered him in a manner, which demonstrated that he was not pleased with the advice. When he found his Majesty unsatisfied, and not disposed to consent to what was earnestly desired by those by whom he had been sent, who undervalued all those scruples of conscience, with which his Majesty was so strongly possessed, he took upon himself the liberty of offering some reasons to the king, to induce him to yield to what was proposed, and among other things said, it was the opinion and advice of all his friends; his Majesty asked, what friends? to which Davenant replied, lord Jermyn, and lord Colepepper; the King upon this observed, that lord Jermyn did not understand any thing of the church, and that Colepepper was of no religion; but, says his Majesty, what is the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? to which Davenant answered, he did not know, that he was not there, and had [72] deserted the Prince, and thereupon mentioned the Queen's displeasure against the Chancellor; to which the King said, 'The Chancellor was an honest man, and would never desert him nor the Prince, nor the Church; and that he was sorry he was not with his son, but that his wife was mistaken.'
The King, in retreating to the Scots, had followed the advice of the French ambassador, who promised on their behalf, if not more than he had the authority to do, at least more than they were willing to deliver. To justify his actions at home, he was inclined to shift some of the responsibility onto the King. With that in mind, he, through an express, informed Cardinal Mazarine, [71] that His Majesty was too reserved in satisfying Parliament and therefore wanted someone sent over who had enough credibility with the English Monarch to persuade him to make the necessary concessions for his interest. "The Queen," says the noble historian, "who was never advised by those who understood or valued her Husband's interests, consulted those around her and sent Sir William Davenant, an honest and witty man, but in every respect unqualified for such a task, with a letter of credit to the King, who knew him well enough under another title to not put much trust in the discussion he was assigned, although the Queen had also otherwise expressed her opinion to His Majesty that he should relinquish the church for his peace and security." Sir William gained easy access to the King, thanks to the backing of the French ambassador. The King listened patiently to everything he had to say and responded in a way that showed he was not pleased with the advice. When he realized His Majesty was unsatisfied and unwilling to agree to what was fervently requested by those who sent him, who dismissed all the moral reservations that strongly affected His Majesty, he took it upon himself to offer some reasons to persuade the King to accept what was proposed. Among other things, he said it was the opinion and advice of all his friends. The King asked, "Which friends?" to which Davenant replied, "Lord Jermyn and Lord Colepepper." The King noted that Lord Jermyn didn’t understand anything about the church and that Colepepper had no religion. However, His Majesty asked, "What does the Chancellor of the Exchequer think?" To which Davenant answered he didn’t know, as he wasn’t there and had [72] deserted the Prince. He then mentioned the Queen's displeasure with the Chancellor. The King responded, "The Chancellor is an honest man and would never abandon me, the Prince, or the Church; and I regret he is not with my son, but that his wife is mistaken."
Davenant then offering some reasons of his own, in which he treated the church with indignity, his Majesty was so transported with anger, that he gave him a sharper rebuke than he usually gave to any other man, and forbad him again, ever to presume to come into his presence; upon which poor Davenant was deeply affected, and returned into France to give an account of his ill success to those who sent him.
Davenant then shared his own reasons, which he expressed in a disrespectful manner towards the church. The King became so angry that he rebuked him more harshly than he typically did anyone else and forbade him from ever approaching his presence again. Poor Davenant was deeply affected by this and returned to France to report on his unfortunate outcome to those who had sent him.
Upon Davenant's return to Paris, he associated with a set of people, who endeavoured to alleviate the distresses of exile by some kind of amusement. The diversion, which Sir William chose was of the literary sort, and having long indulged an inclination of writing an heroic poem, and having there much leisure, and some encouragement, he was induced to undertake one of a new kind; the two first books of which he finished at the Louvre, where he lived with his old friend Lord Jermyn; and these with a preface, addressed to Mr. Hobbs, his answer, and some commendatory poems, were published in England; of which we shall give some further account in our animadversions upon Gondibert.
Upon Davenant's return to Paris, he hung out with a group of people who tried to ease the struggles of exile through different forms of entertainment. The type of fun Sir William chose was literary, and after having long wanted to write an epic poem, along with having plenty of free time and some encouragement, he decided to work on a new kind of poem. He completed the first two books of it at the Louvre, where he stayed with his old friend Lord Jermyn; these, along with a preface addressed to Mr. Hobbs, his response, and some praising poems, were published in England. We will provide more details about this in our commentary on Gondibert.
While he employed himself in the service of the muses, Henrietta Maria, the queen dowager of England whose particular favourite he was found out business for him of another nature. She had heard that vast improvements might be made in the loyal colony of Virginia, in case proper artificers were sent there; and there being many of these in France who were destitute of [73] employment, she encouraged Sir William to collect these artificers together, who accordingly embarked with his little colony at one of the ports in Normandy; but in this expedition he was likewise unfortunate; for before the vessel was clear of the French coast, she was met by one of the Parliament ships of war, and carried into the Isle of Wight, where our disappointed projector was sent close prisoner to Cowes Castle, and there had leisure enough, and what is more extraordinary, wanted not inclination to resume his heroic poem, and having written about half the third book, in a very gloomy prison, he thought proper to stop short again, finding himself, as he imagined under the very shadow of death. Upon this occasion it is reported of Davenant, that he wrote a letter to Hobbes, in which he gives some account of the progress he made in the third book of Gondibert, and offers some criticisms upon the nature of that kind of poetry; but why, says he, should I trouble you or myself, with these thoughts, when I am pretty certain I shall be hanged next week. This gaiety of temper in Davenant, while he was in the most deplorable circumstances of distress, carries something in it very singular, and perhaps could proceed from no other cause but conscious innocence; for he appears to have been an inoffensive good natured man. He was conveyed from the Isle of Wight to the Tower of London, and for some time his life was in the utmost hazard; nor is it quite certain by what means he was preserved from falling a sacrifice to the prevailing fury. Some conjecture that two aldermen of York, to whom he had been kind when they were prisoners, interposed their influence for him; others more reasonably conjecture that Milton was his friend, and prevented the utmost effects of party rage from descending on the head of this son of the muses. But by whatever means [74] his life was saved, we find him two years after a prisoner of the Tower, where he obtained some indulgence by the favour of the Lord Keeper Whitlocke; upon receiving which he wrote him a letter of thanks, which as it serves to illustrate how easily and politely he wrote in prose, we shall here insert. It is far removed either from meanness or bombast, and has as much elegance in it as any letters in our language.
While he was busy serving the muses, Henrietta Maria, the former queen of England and his particular favorite, found him different work. She learned that significant improvements could be made in the loyal colony of Virginia if skilled workers were sent there. Many of these workers in France were out of a job, so she encouraged Sir William to gather them. He set off with his small group from one of the ports in Normandy; however, his journey was unfortunate. Before the ship could leave the French coast, it was intercepted by a Parliament warship and taken to the Isle of Wight. There, our disappointed planner was imprisoned in Cowes Castle, where he had plenty of time—and rather remarkably, the motivation—to resume his heroic poem. After writing about half of the third book while in a gloomy prison, he decided to stop again, feeling as if he were on the brink of death. It's said that Davenant wrote a letter to Hobbes during this time, detailing his progress on the third book of Gondibert and sharing some thoughts on the nature of that kind of poetry. He mused, why should I bother you or myself with these ideas when I’m pretty sure I’ll be hanged next week? Davenant’s lightheartedness in such dire circumstances is truly unique and likely stemmed from his sense of innocence, as he seemed to be a harmless, good-natured man. He was taken from the Isle of Wight to the Tower of London, where his life was in serious danger for a while; it's unclear how he managed to avoid becoming a victim of the intense fury of the time. Some speculate that two York aldermen, whom he had helped while they were prisoners, used their influence to assist him; others more reasonably believe that Milton, his friend, protected him from the harshest consequences of political rage. Regardless of how his life was spared, two years later, we find him still imprisoned in the Tower, where he received some leniency thanks to Lord Keeper Whitlocke. Afterward, he wrote him a thank-you letter that illustrates how gracefully and effectively he could write in prose, so we will include it here. The letter is free from any meanness or exaggeration, exhibiting as much elegance as any letters in our language.
My Lord,
My Lord,
"I am in suspense whether I should present my thankfulness to your lordship for my liberty of the Tower, because when I consider how much of your time belongs to the public, I conceive that to make a request to you, and to thank you afterwards for the success of it, is to give you no more than a succession of trouble; unless you are resolved to be continually patient, and courteous to afflicted men, and agree in your judgment with the late wise Cardinal, who was wont to say, If he had not spent as much time in civilities, as in business, he had undone his master. But whilst I endeavour to excuse this present thankfulness, I should rather ask your pardon, for going about to make a present to you of myself; for it may argue me to be incorrigible, that, after so many afflictions, I have yet so much ambition, as to desire to be at liberty, that I may have more opportunity to obey your lordship's commands, and shew the world how much I am,
"I’m unsure whether I should thank you for my freedom from the Tower, because when I think about how much of your time is dedicated to the public, it seems like asking for something from you and then thanking you for it just adds to your burdens. Unless you’re committed to being endlessly patient and kind to those in distress, and share the wise perspective of the late Cardinal who used to say that if he hadn’t spent as much time on niceties as on business, he would have failed his master. While I try to excuse my current gratitude, I should actually be asking for your forgiveness for attempting to offer myself to you; it might make me seem unchangeable that, after so many hardships, I still have the ambition to be free so I can better follow your orders and show the world how much I am,"
My Lord,
My Lord,
Your lordship's most
Your honor's most
Obliged, most humble,
Gratefully yours,
And obedient servant,
Your obedient servant,
Wm. Davenant."
Wm. Davenant.
[75] Our author was so far happy as to obtain by this letter the favour of Whitlocke, who was, perhaps, a man of more humanity and gentleness of disposition, than some other of the covenanters. He at last obtained his liberty entirely, and was delivered from every thing but the narrowness of his circumstances, and to redress these, encouraged by the interest of his friends, he likewise made a bold effort. He was conscious that a play-house was entirely inconsistent with the gloominess, and severity of these times; and yet he was certain that there were people of taste enough in town, to fill one, if such a scheme could be managed; which he conducted with great address, and at last brought to bear, as he had the countenance of lord Whitlocke, Sir John Maynard, and other persons of rank, who really were ashamed of the cant and hypocrisy which then prevailed. In consequence of this, our poet opened a kind of theatre at Rutland House, where several pieces were acted, and if they did not gain him reputation, they procured him what is more solid, and what he then more wanted, money. Some of the people in power, it seems, were lovers of music, and tho' they did not care to own it, they were wise enough to know that there was nothing scandalous or immoral in the diversions of the theatre. Sir William therefore, when he applied for a permission called what he intended to represent an opera; but when he brought it on the stage, it appeared quite another thing, which when printed had the following title:
[75] Our author was fortunate enough to gain favor with Whitlocke through this letter, who was likely a more compassionate and gentle person than some of the other covenanters. Eventually, he secured his full freedom and was released from everything except for his challenging circumstances. Encouraged by the support of his friends, he made a bold move to improve his situation. He realized that a theater was completely out of place given the bleakness and severity of the times; however, he was confident there were enough people in town with the taste to support such a venture if he could pull it off. He managed it skillfully and succeeded, as he had the backing of Lord Whitlocke, Sir John Maynard, and other influential figures who were genuinely embarrassed by the hypocrisy and pretense of the era. As a result, our poet opened a sort of theater at Rutland House, where several performances took place. While they might not have brought him fame, they did secure something more essential: money. Some of the people in power were fond of music, and even though they wouldn’t admit it, they were smart enough to recognize that there was nothing scandalous or immoral about the entertainment provided by the theater. Therefore, when Sir William sought permission, he referred to what he intended to present as an opera; but when he actually staged it, it turned out to be quite different, which, when published, had the following title:
First day's entertainment at Rutland House by declamation and music, after the manner of the ancients.
First day's entertainment at Rutland House with speeches and music, in the style of the ancients.
[76] This being an introductory piece, it demanded all the author's wit to make it answer different intentions; for first it was to be so pleasing as to gain applause; and next it was to be be so remote from the very appearance of a play, as not to give any offence to that pretended sanctity that was then in fashion. It began with music, then followed a prologue, in which the author rallies the oddity of his own performance. The curtain being drawn up to the sound of slow and solemn music, there followed a grave declamation by one in a guilded rostrum, who personated Diogenes, and shewed the use and excellency of dramatic entertainments. The second part of the entertainment consisted of two lighter declamations; the first by a citizen of Paris, who wittily rallies the follies of London; the other by a citizen of London, who takes the same liberty with Paris and its inhabitants. To this was tacked a song, and after that came a short epilogue. The music was composed by Dr. Coleman, Capt. Cook, Mr. Henry Laws, and Mr. George Hudson.
[76] This being an introductory piece, it required all the author's cleverness to serve different purposes; first, it had to be so enjoyable that it would earn applause; and next, it needed to be so far from the look of a play that it wouldn't offend the so-called respectability that was popular at the time. It started with music, followed by a prologue in which the author pokes fun at the uniqueness of his own performance. As the curtain rose to the sound of slow and solemn music, a serious speech was delivered by someone on a gilded platform, who played Diogenes and highlighted the value and excellence of dramatic performances. The second part of the entertainment featured two lighter speeches; the first by a citizen of Paris, who humorously teased the quirks of London; the second by a citizen of London, who did the same for Paris and its people. This was accompanied by a song, and afterward, there was a short epilogue. The music was composed by Dr. Coleman, Capt. Cook, Mr. Henry Laws, and Mr. George Hudson.
There were several other pieces which Sir William introduced upon this stage of the same kind, which met with as much success, as could be expected from the nature of the performances themselves, and the temper and disposition of the audience. Being thus introduced, he at last grew a little bolder, and not only ventured to write, but to act several new plays, which were also somewhat in a new taste; that is, they were more regular in their structure, and the language generally speaking, smoother, and more correct than the old tragedies. These improvements were in a great measure owing to Sir William's long residence in France, which gave him an opportunity of reading their best writers, and hearing the sentiments [77] of their ablest critics upon dramatic entertainments, where they were as much admired and encouraged, as at that time despised in England. That these were really improvements, and that the public stood greatly indebted to Sir William Davenant as a poet, and master of a theatre, we can produce no less an authority than that of Dryden, who, beyond any of his predecessors, contemporaries, or those who have succeeded him, understood poetry as an art. In his essay on heroic plays, he thus speaks, "The first light we had of them, on the English theatre (says he) was from Sir William Davenant. It being forbidden him in the religious times to act tragedies or comedies, because they contained some matter of scandal to those good people, who could more easily dispossess their lawful sovereign, than endure a wanton jest, he was forced to turn his thoughts another way, and to introduce the examples of moral virtue written in verse, and performed in recitative music. The original of this music, and of the scenes which adorned his works, he had from the Italian opera's; but he heightened his characters, as I may probably imagine, from the examples of Corneille, and some French poets. In this condition did this part of poetry remain at his Majelty's return, when grown bolder as now owned by public authority, Davenant revived the Siege of Rhodes, and caused it to be acted as a just drama. But as few men have the happiness to begin and finish any new project, so neither did he live to make his design perfect. There wanted the fulness of a plot, and the variety of characters to form it as it ought; and perhaps somewhat might have been added to the beauty of the stile: all which he would have performed with more [78] exactness, had he pleased to have given us another work of the fame nature. For myself and others who came after him, we are bound with all veneration to his memory, to acknowledge what advantage we received from that excellent ground work, which is laid, and since it is an easy thing to add to what is already invented, we ought all of us, without envy to him, or partiality to ourselves, to yield him the precedence in it."
There were several other pieces that Sir William introduced on this stage, similar in nature, which achieved as much success as could be expected given the performances themselves and the mood of the audience. Once established, he grew a little bolder and not only attempted to write but also acted in several new plays, which had a somewhat new style; that is, they were more structured, and the language was generally smoother and more correct than the old tragedies. These improvements were largely due to Sir William's long stay in France, where he had the chance to read the best writers and hear the opinions of their most skilled critics on dramatic performances, which were as much admired and supported there as they were despised in England at that time. That these were indeed improvements, and that the public owes a great debt to Sir William Davenant as a poet and theater master, is supported by no less an authority than Dryden, who, more than any of his predecessors, contemporaries, or successors, understood poetry as an art. In his essay on heroic plays, he stated, "The first light we had of them on the English stage was from Sir William Davenant. During the religious times, it being forbidden for him to perform tragedies or comedies because they contained matters that scandalized good people, who could more easily displace their rightful sovereign than tolerate a cheeky joke, he had to shift his focus and introduce examples of moral virtue written in verse and performed in recitative music. The original music and the scenes that adorned his works were drawn from the Italian operas; but he probably elevated his characters from the examples of Corneille and some French poets. This is how this aspect of poetry remained until the return of his Majesty, when, feeling bolder and now supported by public authority, Davenant revived the Siege of Rhodes and had it performed as a legitimate drama. But since few men have the fortune to start and complete any new project, he didn’t live to perfect his vision. There was a lack of a well-rounded plot and character variety to shape it properly, and perhaps something could have been added to enhance the style: all of which he would have executed with more precision had he chosen to give us another work of the same nature. For myself and others who followed him, we must with great respect honor his memory, acknowledging the significant advantage we gained from that excellent foundation he laid, and since it is easy to add to what has already been invented, we should all, without envy of him or bias toward ourselves, recognize his precedence in this."
Immediately after the restoration there were two companies of players formed, one under the title of the King's Servants, the other, under that of the Duke's Company, both by patents, from the crown; the first granted to Henry Killigrew, Esq; and the latter to Sir William Davenant. The King's company acted first at the Red Bull in the upper end of St. John's Street, and after a year or two removing from place to place, they established themselves in Drury-Lane. It was some time before Sir William Davenant compleated his company, into which he took all who had formerly played under Mr. Rhodes in the Cock-Pit in Drury-Lane, and amongst these the famous Mr. Betterton, who appeared first to advantage under the patronage of Sir William Davenant. He opened the Duke's theatre in Lincoln's-Inn-Fields with his own dramatic performance of the Siege of Rhodes, the house being finely decorated, and the stage supplied with painted scenes, which were by him introduced at least, if not invented, which afforded certainly an additional beauty to the theatre, tho' some have insinuated, that fine scenes proved the ruin of acting; but as we are persuaded it will be an entertaining circumstance to our Readers, to have that matter more fully explained, we shall take this opportunity of doing it.
Immediately after the restoration, two theater companies were formed: one called the King's Servants and the other the Duke's Company, both with licenses from the crown. The first was granted to Henry Killigrew, Esq., and the latter to Sir William Davenant. The King's company initially performed at the Red Bull at the top of St. John's Street, and after moving around for a year or two, they settled in Drury-Lane. It took some time before Sir William Davenant completed his company, which included everyone who had previously acted under Mr. Rhodes at the Cock-Pit in Drury-Lane, including the renowned Mr. Betterton, who first gained recognition under Sir William Davenant's support. He opened the Duke's theatre in Lincoln's-Inn-Fields with his own play, the Siege of Rhodes, showcasing a beautifully decorated venue and a stage equipped with painted backdrops, which he introduced, if not invented. These additions certainly enhanced the theater’s appeal, although some have suggested that elaborate sets led to the decline of acting. We think it would be interesting for our readers to explore this topic further, so we'll take this chance to elaborate on it.
[79] In the reign of Charles I, dramatic entertainments were accompanied with rich scenery, curious machines, and other elegant embellishments, chiefly condufted by the wonderful dexterity of that celebrated English, architect Inigo Jones. But these were employed only in masques at court, and were too expensive for the little theatres in which plays were then acted. In them there was nothing more than a ouftain of very coarse stuff, upon the drawing up of which, the stage appeared either with bare walls on the sides, coarsly matted, or covered with tapestry; so that for the place originally represented, and all the successive changes in which the poets of those times freely indulged themselves, there was nothing to help the spectator's understanding, or to assist the actor's performance, but bare imagination. In Shakespear's time so undecorated were the theatres, that a blanket supplied the place of a curtain; and it was a good observation of the ingenious Mr. Chitty, a gentleman of acknowledged taste in dramatic excellence, that the circumstance of the blanket, suggested to Shakespear that noble image in Macbeth, where the murderer invokes
[79] During Charles I's reign, dramatic performances featured elaborate scenery, intricate devices, and stylish enhancements, largely thanks to the remarkable skill of the famous English architect Inigo Jones. However, these were only used in court masques and were too costly for the small theaters where plays were performed at the time. In those venues, there was nothing more than a curtain made of rough material, and when it was raised, the stage revealed either bare walls on the sides, poorly matted, or draped with tapestry. This lack of visual context and the frequent changes in setting that playwrights enjoyed left audiences to rely solely on their imagination to grasp the story and the actors often had little support for their performances. In Shakespeare's era, theaters were so plain that a blanket served as a curtain; it was cleverly noted by the astute Mr. Chitty, a man well-regarded for his taste in drama, that this very blanket inspired Shakespeare to create that powerful image in Macbeth, where the murderer calls upon
Thick night to veil itself in the dunnest smoke of Hell,
Nor Heaven peep thro' the blanket of the dark
To cry hold, hold.
Thick night wrapped itself in the darkest smoke of Hell,
Nor did Heaven peek through the blanket of darkness
To call out, stop, stop.
It is true, that while things continued in this situation, there were a great many play-houses, sometimes six or seven open at once. Of these some were large, and in part open, where they acted by day light; others smaller, but better fitted up, where they made use of candles. The plainness of the theatre made the prices small, [80] and drew abundance of company; yet upon the whole it is doubtful, whether the spectactors in all these houses were really superior in number, to those who have frequented the theatres in later times. If the spirit and judgment of the actors supplied all deficiencies, and made as some would insinuate, plays more intelligible without scenes, than they afterwards were with them, it must be very astonishing; neither is it difficult to assign another cause, why those who were concerned in play-houses, were angry at the introduction of scenes and decorations, which was, that notwithstanding the advanced prices, their profits from that time were continually sinking; and an author, of high authority in this case, assures us, in an historical account of the stage, that the whole sharers in Mr. Hart's company divided a thousand pounds a year a-piece, before the expensive decorations became fashionable. Sir William Davehant considered things in another light: he was well acquainted with the alterations which the French theatre had received, under the auspice of cardinal Richelieu, who had an excellent taste; and he remembered the noble contrivances of Inigo Jones, which were not at all inferior to the designs of the best French masters. Sir William was likewise sensible that the monarch he served was an excellent judge of every thing of this kind; and these considerations excited in him a passion for the advancement of the theatre, to which the great figure it has since made is chiefly owing. Mr. Dryden has acknowledged his admirable talents in this way, and gratefully remembers the pains taken by our poet, to set a work of his in the fairest light possible, and to which, he ingenuously ascribes the success with which it was received. This is the hislory of the life and progress of scenery on [81] our stage; which, without doubt, gives greater life to the entertainment of a play; but as the best purposes may be prostituted, so there is some reason to believe that the excessive fondness for decorations, which now prevails, has hurt the true dramatic taste. Scenes are to be considered as secondary in a play, the means of setting it off with lustre, and ought to engross but little attention; as it is more important to hear what a character speaks, than to observe the place where he stands; but now the case is altered. The scenes in a Harlequin Sorcerer, and other unmeaning pantomimes, unknown to our more elegant and judging fore-fathers, procure crowded houses, while the noblest strokes of Dryden, the delicate touches of Otway and Rowe, the wild majesty of Shakespear, and the heart-felt language of Lee, pass neglected, when put in competition with those gewgaws of the stage, these feasts of the eye; which as they can communicate no ideas, so they can neither warm nor reform the heart, nor answer one moral purpose in nature.
It's true that while things were happening this way, there were a lot of theaters, sometimes six or seven open at the same time. Some of these were large and partially open, where they performed in daylight; others were smaller but better decorated, where they used candles. The simplicity of the theater kept ticket prices low, [80] and attracted a lot of people; yet overall, it's uncertain whether the audiences in all these places were actually larger than those that attended theaters in later years. If the talent and judgment of the actors filled in all the gaps and made, as some suggest, the plays more understandable without elaborate sets than with them, it would be quite surprising. It's also not hard to understand why those involved in theaters were upset with the introduction of sets and decorations: despite the higher ticket prices, their profits began to drop. An esteemed authority on this topic tells us in a historical account of the stage that every member of Mr. Hart's company used to divide a thousand pounds a year each before the expensive decorations became popular. Sir William Davenant saw things differently: he was well aware of the changes that the French theater underwent under Cardinal Richelieu, who had great taste; and he remembered the impressive designs of Inigo Jones, which were just as good as those of the best French designers. Sir William also recognized that the monarch he served had an excellent eye for such matters, and these thoughts fueled his desire to elevate the theater, which is largely why it has become so prominent. Mr. Dryden has acknowledged his remarkable skills in this area and gratefully recalls the effort our poet put in to present one of his works in the best possible light, which he honestly credits for its success. This is the history of the development of scenery on [81] our stage; which undoubtedly enhances the enjoyment of a play. However, just as the best intentions can be misused, there's reason to believe that the current overemphasis on decorations has harmed the true appreciation of drama. Sets should be regarded as secondary in a play, serving to enhance it without stealing the spotlight; hearing what a character says is more important than noticing where they stand. But now the situation has changed. The scenes in a Harlequin Sorcerer and other pointless pantomimes, unknown to our more refined and discerning ancestors, fill theaters to capacity, while the greatest lines of Dryden, the subtle nuances of Otway and Rowe, the wild grandeur of Shakespeare, and the heartfelt language of Lee go unnoticed when pitted against those visual spectacles, which, as they offer no ideas, can neither warm nor transform the heart, nor fulfill any moral purpose in nature.
We ought not to omit a cirrumstance much in favour of Sir William Davenant, which proves him to have been as good a man as a poet. When at the Restoration, those who had been active in disturbing the late reign, and secluding their sovereign from the throne, became obnoxious to the royal party, Milton was likely to feel the vengeance of the court, Davenant actuated by a noble principle of gratitude, interposed all his influence, and saved the greatest ornament of the world from the stroke of an executioner. Ten years before that, Davenant had been rescued by Milton, and he remembered the favour; an instance, this, that generosity, gratitude, and nobleness of nature is confined to no particular party; but the heart of a good man will still discover itself in acts of munificence and kindness, however [82] mistaken he may be in his opinion, however warm in state factions. The particulars of this extraordinary affair are related in the life of Milton.
We shouldn’t overlook a detail that really speaks to Sir William Davenant’s character, showing that he was as good a person as he was a poet. When the monarchy was restored, those who had played a part in disrupting the previous reign and pushing their king off the throne became targets of the royalists. Milton probably faced the court's wrath, but Davenant, driven by a noble sense of gratitude, used his influence to save one of the greatest figures of the time from execution. Ten years earlier, Milton had rescued Davenant, and he remembered that kindness. This is evidence that generosity, gratitude, and a noble spirit aren’t limited to any one political group; a good person will always show their true character through acts of generosity and kindness, no matter how mistaken their views might be or how passionate their involvement in political disputes. The details of this remarkable incident are documented in Milton’s biography.
Sir William Davenant continued at the head of his company of actors, and at last transferred them to a new and magnificent theatre built in Dorset-Gardens, where some of his old plays were revived with very singular circumstances of royal kindness, and a new one when brought upon the stage met with great applause.
Sir William Davenant remained in charge of his acting company and eventually moved them to a new, stunning theater built in Dorset Gardens, where some of his older plays were brought back with some unique displays of royal favor, and a new play that premiered received a lot of praise.
The last labour of his pen was in altering a play of Shakespear's, called the Tempest, so as to render it agreeable to that age, or rather susceptible of those theatrical improvements he had brought into fashion. The great successor to his laurel, in a preface to this play, in which he was concerned with Davenant, 'says, that he was a man of quick and piercing imagination, and soon found that somewhat might be added to the design of Shakespear, of which neither Fletcher nor Suckling had ever thought; and therefore to put the last hand to it, he designed the counterpart to Shakespear's plot, namely, that of a man who had never seen a woman, that by this means, these two characters of innocence and love might the more illustrate and commend each other. This excellent contrivance he was pleased to communicate to me, and to defire my assistance in it. I confess that from the first moment it so pleased me, that I never wrote any thing with so much delight. I might likewise do him that justice to acknowledge that my writing received daily amendments, and that is the reason why it is not so faulty, as the rest that I have done, without the help or correction of so judicious a friend. The comical parts of the sailors were [83] also of his invention and Writing, as may easily be discovered from the stile.'
The last work he did was to adapt a play by Shakespeare called The Tempest, aiming to make it appealing to his time, or rather open to the theatrical enhancements he had made popular. In the preface to this play, which he worked on with Davenant, the great successor to his legacy remarks that he was a man with a sharp and insightful imagination, and quickly realized that something could be added to Shakespeare's design, something neither Fletcher nor Suckling had ever considered. Therefore, to complete it, he created a counterpart to Shakespeare's plot, featuring a man who had never seen a woman, so that these two characters of innocence and love could better highlight and complement each other. He kindly shared this brilliant idea with me and asked for my help in it. I admit that from the very first moment it excited me so much that I had never written anything with such joy. I should also give him credit for the fact that my writing improved daily, which is why it’s not as flawed as the other works I’ve done without the support or feedback of such a wise friend. The comedic parts for the sailors were also his creation and writing, as can easily be seen from the style.
This great man died at his house in little Lincoln's-Inn-Fields, April 17, 1668, aged 63, and two days afterwards was interred in Westminster-Abbey. On his gravestone is inscribed, in imitation of Ben Johnson's short epitaph,
This great man passed away at his home in small Lincoln's Inn Fields on April 17, 1668, at the age of 63, and two days later was buried in Westminster Abbey. His gravestone bears an inscription inspired by Ben Jonson's brief epitaph,
O Rare Sir William Davenant!
O Rare Sir William Davenant!
It may not be amiss to observe, that his remains rest very near the place out of which those of Mr. Thomas May, who had been formerly his rival for the bays, and the Parliament's historian, were removed, by order of the ministry. As to the family our author left behind him, some account of it will be given in the life of his son Dr. Charles Davenant, who succeeded him as manager of the theatre. Sir William's works entire were published by his widow 1673, and dedicated to James Duke of York.
It might be worth noting that his remains are located quite close to where those of Mr. Thomas May, who had previously been his rival for fame and the Parliament's historian, were moved by order of the government. Regarding the family he left behind, some information will be provided in the life of his son Dr. Charles Davenant, who took over as manager of the theater. Sir William's complete works were published by his widow in 1673 and dedicated to James, Duke of York.
After many storms of adversity, our author spent the evening of his days in ease and serenity. He had the happiness of being loved by people of all denominations, and died lamented by every worthy good man. As a poet, unnumbered evidences may be produced in his favour. Amongst these Mr. Dryden is the foremost, for when his testimony can be given in support of poetical merit, we reckon all other evidence superfluous, and without his, all other evidences deficient. In his words then we shall sum up Davenant's character as a poet, and a man of genius.
After facing many challenges, our author spent his later years in comfort and peace. He was loved by people from all walks of life and was mourned by every good person when he passed away. As a poet, there are countless pieces of evidence supporting his talent. Among these, Mr. Dryden stands out, as we consider his endorsement of poetic excellence sufficient on its own, making all other evidence seem unnecessary, and without his approval, other testimonies fall short. So, we will use his words to sum up Davenant's character as a poet and a man of talent.
'I found him, (says he) in his preface to the Tempest, of so quick a fancy, that nothing was proposed to him on which he could not quickly produce a thought extreamly pleasant and surprizing, and these first thoughts of his, contrary [84] to the old Latin proverb, were not always the least happy, and as his fancy was quick, so likewise were the products of it remote and new. He borrowed not of any other, and his imaginations were such as could not easily enter into any other man. His corrections were sober and judicious, and he corrected his own writings much more severely than those of another man, bestowing twice the labour and pain in polishing which he used in invention.'
'I found him, (he says) in his preface to the Tempest, with such a quick imagination that he could respond to any suggestion with an extremely pleasant and surprising thought. His initial ideas, contrary to the old Latin proverb, were often quite successful, and just as his imagination was swift, so were the results both unique and innovative. He didn't borrow from others, and his creative visions were ones that wouldn't easily occur to anyone else. His revisions were thoughtful and sensible, and he was much harsher in editing his own work than he was with someone else's, putting twice the effort and care into polishing it as he did into creating it.'
Before we enumerate the dramatic works of Sir William Davenant, it will be but justice to his merit, to insert some animadversions on his Gondibert; a poem which has been the subject of controversy almost a hundred years; that is, from its first appearance to the present time. Perhaps the dispute had been long ago decided, if the author's leisure had permitted him to finish it. At present we see it to great disadvantage; and if notwithstanding this it has any beauties, we may fairly conclude it would have come much nearer perfection, if the story, begun with so much spirit, had been brought to an end upon the author's plan.
Before we list the plays by Sir William Davenant, it only makes sense to highlight his achievements by discussing his Gondibert; a poem that's sparked debate for almost a hundred years, from when it first came out to now. The argument might have been resolved long ago if the author had had the time to complete it. Right now, we’re seeing it in an unfavorable light; and if it still has some merits despite this, we can reasonably assume it would have been much closer to perfection if the engaging story had been finished according to the author's vision.
Mr. Hobbes, the famous philosopher of Malmsbury, in a letter printed in his works, affirms, 'that he never yet saw a poem that had so much shape of art, health of morality and vigour, and beauty of expression, as this of our author; and in an epistle to the honourable Edward Howard, author of the British Princes, he thus speaks. My judgment in poetry has been once already censured by very good wits for commending Gondibert; but yet have they not disabled my testimony. For what authority is there in wit? a jester may have it; a man in drink may have it, and be fluent over night, and wise and dry in the morning: What is it? and who can tell whether it be better to have [85] it or no? I will take the liberty to praise what I like as well as they, and reprehend what they like.'—Mr. Rymer in his preface to his translation of Rapin's Reflexions on Aristotle's Treatise of Poetry, observes, that our author's wit is well known, and in the preface to that poem, there appears some strokes of an extraordinary judgment; that he is for unbeaten tracts, and new ways of thinking, but certainly in the untried seas he is no great discoverer. One design of the Epic poets before him was to adorn their own country, there finding their heroes and patterns of virtue, where example, as they thought, would have the greater influence and power over posterity; "but this poet, says Rymer, steers a different course; his heroes are all foreigners; he cultivates a country that is nothing a-kin to him, and Lombardy reaps the honour of all. Other poets chose some action or hero so illustrious, that the name of the poem prepared the reader, and made way for its reception; but in this poem none can divine what great action he intended to celebrate, nor is the reader obliged to know whether the hero be Turk or Christian; nor do the first lines give any light or prospect into the design. Altho' a poet should know all arts and sciences, yet ought he discreetly to manage his knowledge. He must have a judgment to select what is noble and beautiful, and proper for the occasion. He must by a particular chemistry, extract the essence of things; without soiling his wit with dross or trumpery. The sort of verse Davenant makes choice of in his Gondibert might contribute much to the vitiating his stile; for thereby he obliges himself to stretch every period to the end of four lines: Thus the sense is broken perpetually with parentheses, the words jumbled in confusion, [86] and darkness spread over all; but it must be acknowledged, that Davenant had a particular talent for the manners; his thoughts are great, and there appears something roughly noble thro' the whole." This is the substance of Rymer's observations on Gondibert. Rymer was certainly a scholar, and a man of discernment; and tho' in some parts of the criticisms he is undoubtedly right, yet in other parts he is demonstrably wrong. He complains that Davenant has laid the scene of action in Lombardy, which Rymer calls neglecting his own country; but the critic should have considered, that however well it might have pleased the poet's countrymen, yet as an epic poem is supposed to be read in every nation enlightened by science, there can no objections arise from that quarter by any but those who were of the same country with the author. His not making choice of a pompous name, and introducing his poem with an exordium, is rather a beauty than a fault; for by these means he leaves room for surprize, which is the first excellency in any poem, and to strike out beauties where they are not expected, has a happy influence upon the reader. Who would think from Milton's introduction, that so stupendous a work would ensue, and simple dignity is certainly more noble, than all the efforts and colourings which art and labour can bestow.
Mr. Hobbes, the well-known philosopher from Malmsbury, in a letter published in his works, states, 'that he has never seen a poem with as much artistry, moral integrity, energy, and beauty of expression as this one by our author; and in a letter to the honorable Edward Howard, the author of the British Princes, he expresses the following. My taste in poetry has already been criticized by some very sharp minds for praising Gondibert; however, they have not discredited my opinion. What authority does wit have? A joker can have it; a person who’s drunk can be chatty at night and wise and sober in the morning: What is it anyway? Who can say whether it's better to have [85] it or not? I will freely praise what I like just as much as they do, and criticize what they prefer.'—Mr. Rymer in his preface to his translation of Rapin's Reflections on Aristotle's Treatise on Poetry notes that our author's wit is well recognized, and in the preface to that poem, there are signs of exceptional judgment; he is interested in uncharted territories and new ideas, but undeniably, he is no great explorer in these unknown waters. One goal of the Epic poets before him was to glorify their homeland, where they found their heroes and ideals of virtue, believing that such examples would have a greater impact and influence on future generations; "but this poet," Rymer points out, "takes a different path; his heroes are all outsiders; he celebrates a country that is not his own, and Lombardy gets all the credit. Other poets selected actions or heroes so famous that the title of the poem prepared the reader and paved the way for its acceptance; but in this poem, it is unclear what significant action he intended to honor, nor does the reader need to know whether the hero is a Turk or a Christian; the opening lines offer no insight or hints about the theme. Although a poet should be knowledgeable in all arts and sciences, he should handle that knowledge wisely. He must have the judgment to choose what is noble, beautiful, and suitable for the occasion. He must, through a certain alchemy, distill the essence of things without polluting his wit with worthless or trivial matters. The type of verse Davenant uses in Gondibert may greatly spoil his style; by doing so, he binds himself to extend every sentence to four lines: This constantly breaks the sense with parentheses, creating a jumble of words, [86] and casting darkness over everything; however, it must be acknowledged that Davenant has a special talent for manners; his thoughts are grand, and there is something roughly noble throughout." This is the essence of Rymer's comments on Gondibert. Rymer was certainly a scholar and a perceptive person; and although he is undoubtedly correct in some aspects of his critique, in others, he is clearly mistaken. He argues that Davenant neglected his own country by setting the scene in Lombardy; but the critic should have considered that while this might have pleased the poet's compatriots, since an epic poem is meant to be read by all nations enlightened by knowledge, objections from that quarter can only come from those who share the same homeland as the author. His choice not to use a grand title and to introduce his poem without a prologue is more of an asset than a flaw; this approach allows for surprise, which is the first excellence in any poem, and revealing beauties where they are least expected has a positive effect on the reader. Who would expect from Milton's introduction that such a magnificent work would follow, and simple dignity is certainly more admirable than all the methods and embellishments that art and labor can provide.
The ingenious and learned Mr. Blackwall, Professor of Greek in the university of Aberdeen, in his enquiry into the life and writings of Homer, censures the structure of the poem; but, at the same time pays a compliment to the abilities of the author. "It was indeed (says he) a very extraordinary project of our ingenious countryman, to write an epic poem without mixing allegory, or allowing the smallest fiction throughout the composure. It was like lopping off a man's [87] limb, and then putting him upon running races; tho' it must be owned that the performance shews, with what ability he could have acquitted himself, had he been sound and entire."
The clever and knowledgeable Mr. Blackwall, a Greek professor at the University of Aberdeen, in his exploration of Homer’s life and works, critiques the poem's structure but also recognizes the author’s talent. "It was indeed (he says) a remarkable achievement by our clever countryman to write an epic poem without incorporating allegory or including even the smallest fiction throughout the work. It was like cutting off a man's limb and then expecting him to compete in races; though it must be admitted that the performance shows how well he could have done if he had been whole and uninjured."
Such the animadversions which critics of great name have made on Gondibert, and the result is, that if Davenant had not power to begin and consummate an epic poem, yet by what he has done, he has a right to rank in the first class of poets, especially when it is considered that we owe to him the great perfection of the theatre, and putting it upon a level with that of France and Italy; and as the theatrical are the most rational of all amusements, the latest posterity should hold his name in veneration, who did so much for the advancement of innocent pleasures, and blending instruction and gaiety together.
The criticism from well-known reviewers about Gondibert points out that even if Davenant didn't have the ability to start and finish an epic poem, his contributions still earn him a place among the best poets. This is especially true considering that he significantly improved the theater, bringing it up to par with that of France and Italy. Since theater is one of the most sensible forms of entertainment, future generations should deeply respect his name for all he did to promote wholesome enjoyment and combine learning with fun.
The dramatic works of our author are,
The dramatic works of our author are,
- Albovine King of the Lombards, a tragedy. This play is commended by eight copies of verses. The story of it is related at large, in a novel, by Bandello, and is translated by Belleforest[3].
- Cruel Brother, a tragedy.
- Distresses, a tragi-comedy, printed in folio, Lond. 1673.
- First Day's Entertainment at Rutland-House, by declamation and music, after the manner of the ancients. Of this we have already given some account.
- The Fair Favourite, a tragi-comedy, printed in folio, 1673.
- The Just Italian, a tragi-comedy.
- Law against Lovers, a tragi-comedy, made up of two plays by Shakespear, viz. Measure for Measure, and Much Ado about Nothing.
- [88] Love and Honour, a tragi-comedy; which succeeded beyond any other of our author's plays, both on the theatre at Lincoln's-Inn, and Dorset-Garden.
- Man's the Master, a tragi-comedy, acted upon the Duke of York's theatre.
- Platonic Lovers, a tragi-comedy.
- Play House to be Let. It is difficult to say, under what species this play should be placed, as it consists of pieces of different kinds blended together, several of which the author wrote in Oliver's time, that were acted separately by stealth.—The History of Sir Francis Drake, expressed by instrumental and vocal music, and by art of perspective scenes, and the cruelty of the Spaniards in Peru, were first printed in 4to. and make the third and fourth acts of this play. The second act consists of a French farce, translated from Molliere's Ganarelle, ou le Cocu Imaginaire, and purposely by our author put into a sort of jargon, common to Frenchmen newly come over. The fifth act consists of tragedy travestie; or the actions of Cæsar, Anthony and Cleopatra in burlesque verse.
- Siege of Rhodes in two parts. These plays, during the civil war, were acted in Stilo Recitativo, but afterwards enlarged, and acted with applause at the Duke's theatre. Solyman the second took this famous city in the year 1522, which is circumstantially related by Knolles in his History of the Turks, from whence our author took the story.
- Siege, a tragi-comedy.
- News from Plymouth, a comedy.
- Temple of Love, presented by Queen Henrietta, wife to King Charles I and her ladies at Whitehall, viz. The Marchioness of Hamilton; Lady Mary Herbert; Countess of Oxford; Berkshire; [89] Carnarvon: The noble Persian Youths were represented by the Duke of Lenox, and the Earls of Newport and Desmond.
- Triumphs of the Prince d'Amour, presented by his Highness the Prince Elector, brother-in-law to Charles I. at his palace in the Middle Temple. This masque, at the request of this honourable society, was devised and written by the author in three days, and was presented by the members thereof as an entertainment to his Highness. A list of the Masquers names, as they were ranked according to their antiquity, is subjoined to the Masque.
- Wits, a comedy; first acted at Black-Fryars, and afterwards at the Duke of York's theatre. This piece appeared on the stage with remarkable applause.
These pieces have in general been received with applause on the stage, and have been read with pleasure by people of the best taste: The greatest part of them were published in the author's life-time in 4to. and all since his death, collected into one volume with his other works, printed in folio, Lond. 1673; and dedicated by his widow to the late King James, as has been before observed.
These works have generally been well-received on stage and enjoyed by people with great taste. Most of them were published during the author's lifetime in quarto format, and all have since been compiled into one volume along with his other works, printed in folio in London, 1673; this collection was dedicated by his widow to the late King James, as previously mentioned.
Footnotes:
Footnotes:
Henry King, Bishop of Chichester
The eldest son of Dr. John King lord bishop of London, whom Winstanley calls a person well fraught with episcopal qualities, was born at Wornal in Bucks, in the month of January 1591. He was educated partly in grammar learning in the free school at Thame in Oxfordshire, and partly in the College school at Westminster, from which last he was elected a student in Christ Church 1608[1], being then under the tuition of a noted tutor. Afterwards he took the degrees in arts, and entered into holy orders, and soon became a florid preacher, and successively chaplain to King James I. archdeacon of Colchester, residentiary of St. Paul's cathedral, canon and dean of Rochester, in which dignity he was installed the 6th of February 1638. In 1641, says Mr. Wood, he was made bishop of Chichester, being one of those persons of unblemished reputation, that his Majesty, tho' late, promoted to that honourable office; which he possessed without any removal, save that by the members of the Long Parliament, to the time of his death.
The eldest son of Dr. John King, the Lord Bishop of London, whom Winstanley describes as someone rich in episcopal qualities, was born in Wornal, Buckinghamshire, in January 1591. He received part of his education in grammar at the free school in Thame, Oxfordshire, and partly at the College school in Westminster, from which he was elected a student at Christ Church in 1608[1], while being taught by a well-known tutor. Later, he earned degrees in the arts and entered the clergy, quickly becoming a vibrant preacher. He held various positions, including chaplain to King James I, archdeacon of Colchester, residentiary of St. Paul's Cathedral, canon, and dean of Rochester, where he was installed on February 6, 1638. In 1641, according to Mr. Wood, he was appointed bishop of Chichester, being one of those individuals with an unblemished reputation that the king, though late in doing so, elevated to that distinguished office, which he held without interruption, except for removal by the members of the Long Parliament, until his death.
When he was young he delighted much in the study of music and poetry, which with his wit and fancy made his conversation very agreeable, and when he was more advanced in years he applied himself to oratory, philosophy, and divinity, in which he became eminent.
When he was young, he really enjoyed studying music and poetry, which, along with his wit and imagination, made his conversations very enjoyable. As he got older, he focused on public speaking, philosophy, and theology, in which he became quite accomplished.
[91] It happened that this bishop attending divine service in a church at Langley in Bucks, and hearing there a psalm sung, whose wretched expression, far from conveying the meaning of the Royal Psalmist, not only marred devotion, but turned what was excellent in the original into downright burlesque; he tried that evening if he could not easily, and with plainness suitable to the lowest understanding, deliver it from that garb which rendered it ridiculous. He finished one psalm, and then another, and found the work so agreeable and pleasing, that all the psalms were in a short time compleated; and having shewn the version to some friends of whose judgment he had a high opinion, he could not resist their importunity (says Wood) of putting it to the press, or rather he was glad their sollicitations coincided with his desire to be thought a poet.
[91] It so happened that this bishop was attending a church service in Langley, Bucks, and while listening to a psalm that was being sung, he found the poor wording did not reflect the intent of the Royal Psalmist. Instead of enhancing the worship, it turned what was originally beautiful into something laughable. That evening, he decided to see if he could rewrite it in a way that was straightforward enough for anyone to understand, stripping away the ridiculous phrasing. He finished one psalm, and then another, and found the task so enjoyable that he quickly completed all the psalms. After showing his version to some friends whose opinions he valued, he couldn't resist their urging (as Wood notes) to publish it; in fact, he was happy that their requests aligned with his desire to be recognized as a poet.
He was the more discouraged, says the antiquary, as Mr. George Sandys's version and another by a reformer had failed in two different extremes; the first too elegant for the vulgar use, changing both metre and tunes, wherewith they had been long acquainted; the other as flat and poor, and as lamely executed as the old one. He therefore ventured in a middle way, as he himself in one of his letters expresses it, without affectation of words, and endeavouring to leave them not disfigured in the sense. This version soon after was published with this title;
He felt even more discouraged, says the historian, because Mr. George Sandys's version and another one by a reformer had both missed the mark in totally different ways. The first was too polished for everyday use, changing both the rhythm and melodies that people had known for a long time. The other was just as dull and poorly done as the original. So, he decided to take a middle ground, as he mentioned in one of his letters, aiming for simplicity without distorting the meaning. This version was soon published with the title;
The Psalms of David from the New Translation of the Bible, turned into Metre, to be sung after the old tunes used in churches, Lond. 1651, in 12mo.
The Psalms of David from the New Translation of the Bible, adapted into verse to be sung to the old tunes used in churches, London, 1651, in 12mo.
There is nothing more ridiculous than this notion of the vulgar of not parting with their [92] old versions of the psalms, as if there were a merit in singing hymns of nonsense. Tate and Brady's version is by far the most elegant, and best calculated to inspire devotion, because the language and poetry are sometimes elevated and sublime; and yet for one church which uses this version, twenty are content with that of Sternhold and Hopkins, the language and poetry of which, as Pope says of Ogilvy's Virgil, are beneath criticism.—
There’s nothing more absurd than the idea that the common folks refuse to let go of their [92] old versions of the psalms, as if there’s some virtue in singing meaningless hymns. Tate and Brady's version is by far the most refined and best at fostering devotion because its language and poetry are occasionally elevated and sublime. Yet for every church that uses this version, there are twenty satisfied with Sternhold and Hopkins’s, whose language and poetry, as Pope remarked about Ogilvy’s Virgil, are beyond criticism.
After episcopacy was silenced by the Long Parliament, he resided in the house of Sir Richard Hobbart (who had married his sister) at Langley in Bucks. He was reinstated in his See by King Charles II. and was much esteemed by the virtuous part of his neighbours, and had the blessings of the poor and distressed, a character which reflects the highest honour upon him.
After the Long Parliament put an end to episcopacy, he lived in the house of Sir Richard Hobbart (who had married his sister) in Langley, Bucks. He was reinstated in his position by King Charles II and was highly regarded by the good people in the community. He had the support of the poor and distressed, which reflects great honor on him.
Whether from a desire of extending his beneficence, or instigated by the restless ambition peculiar to the priesthood, he sollicited, but in vain, a higher preferment, and suffered his resentment to betray him into measures not consistent with his episcopal character. He died on the first day of October 1669[2], and was buried on the south side of the choir, near the communion table, belonging to the cathedral church in Chichester. Soon after there was a monument put over his grave, with an inscription, in which it is said he was,
Whether out of a desire to extend his kindness, or driven by the restless ambition that often comes with being part of the clergy, he sought, but unsuccessfully, a higher position and allowed his frustration to lead him into actions that were not fitting for someone of his episcopal standing. He died on October 1, 1669[2], and was buried on the south side of the choir, near the communion table, in the cathedral church in Chichester. Soon after, a monument was placed over his grave, with an inscription stating that he was,
Antiquâ, eáque regia Saxonium apud Danmonios in agro Devoniensi, prosapia oriundus,
Antiqua, and that royal Saxon lineage among the Danmonii in the Devon area, descended from...
That he was,
He was.
Natalium Splendore illustris, pietate, Doctrina, et virtutibus illustrior, &c.
Natalium Splendore illustris, pietate, Doctrina, et virtutibus illustrior, &c.
[93] This monument was erected at the charge of his widow, Anne daughter of Sir William Russel of Strensham in Worcestershire, knight and baronet.
[93] This monument was built at the expense of his widow, Anne, daughter of Sir William Russel of Strensham in Worcestershire, knight and baronet.
Our author's works, besides the version of the Psalms already mentioned, are as follows;
Our author's works, in addition to the previously mentioned version of the Psalms, are as follows;
A Deep Groan fetched at the Funeral of the incomparable and glorious Monarch King Charles I. printed 1649.
A Deep Groan at the Funeral of the unmatched and glorious Monarch King Charles I, printed 1649.
Poems, Elegies, Paradoxes, Sonnets, &c. Lond. 1657.
Poems, Elegies, Paradoxes, Sonnets, etc. London, 1657.
Several Letters, among which are extant, one or more to the famous archbishop Usher, Primate of Ireland, and another to Isaac Walton, concerning the three imperfect books of Richard Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, dated the 13th of November 1664, printed at London 1665.
Several letters still exist, including one or more to the renowned Archbishop Usher, Primate of Ireland, and another to Isaac Walton. These letters discuss the three incomplete books of Richard Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, dated November 13, 1664, printed in London in 1665.
He has composed several Anthems, one of which is for the time of Lent. Several Latin and Greek Poems, scattered in several Books.
He has written several anthems, one of which is for Lent. There are also several Latin and Greek poems found in various books.
He has likewise published several Sermons,
He has also published several sermons,
- Sermon preached at Paul's Cross 25th of November 1621, upon occasion of a report, touching the supposed apostasy of Dr. John King—late bishop of London, on John xv. 20, Lond. 1621; to which is also added the examination of Thomas Preston, taken before the Archbishop of Canterbury at Lambeth 20th of December 1621, concerning his being the author of the said Report.
- David's Enlargement, Morning Sermon on Psalm xxxii. 5. Oxon. 1625. 4to.
- [94] Sermon of Deliverance, at the Spittal on Easter Monday, Psalm xc. 3. printed 1626, 4to.
- Two Sermons at Whitehall on Lent, Eccles. xii. 1, and Psalm lv. 6. printed 1627, in 4to.
- Sermon at St. Paul's on his Majesty's Inauguration and Birth, on Ezekiel xxi. 27. Lond. 1661. 4to.
- Sermon on the Funeral of Bryan Bishop of Winchester, at the Abbey Church of Westminster, April 24, 1662, on Psalm cxvi. 15. Lond. 1662. 4to.
- Visitation Sermon at Lewis, October 1662. on Titus ii. 1. Lond. 1663. 4to.
- Sermon preached the 30th of January, 1664, at Whitehall, being the Day of the late King's Martyrdom, on 2. Chron. xxxv. 24, 25. Lond. 1665, 4to.
To these Sermons he has added an Exposition of the Lord's Prayer, delivered in certain Sermons, on Matth. vi. 9. &c. Lond. 1628. 4to.
To these sermons, he has added an explanation of the Lord's Prayer, given in certain sermons on Matthew 6:9, etc. London, 1628. 4to.
We shall take a quotation from his version of the 104th psalm.
We will take a quote from his version of the 104th psalm.
My soul the Lord for ever bless:
O God! thy greatness all confess;
Whom majesty and honour vest,
In robes of light eternal drest.
My soul, bless the Lord forever:
O God! We all recognize your greatness;
You are clothed in majesty and honor,
Clothed in everlasting robes of light.
He heaven made his canopy;
His chambers in the waters lye:
His chariot is the cloudy storm,
And on the wings of wind is born.
Heaven created his canopy;
His rooms are in the waters:
His chariot is the stormy clouds,
And he soars on the wings of the wind.
He spirits makes his angels quire,
His ministers a flaming fire.
He so did earth's foundations cast,
It might remain for ever fast:
He makes his angels sing,
His servants a raging fire.
He laid the foundations of the earth,
So it could last forever:
[95]
Then cloath'd it with the spacious deep,
Whose wave out-swells the mountains steep.
At thy rebuke the waters fled,
And hid their thunder-frighted head.
[95]
Then wrapped it in the vast ocean,
Whose waves are taller than steep mountains.
At your command, the waters retreated,
And concealed their terrifying, booming heads.
They from the mountains streaming flow,
And down into the vallies go:
Then to their liquid center hast,
Where their collected floods are cast.
They flow down from the mountains,
And into the valleys they move:
Then to their liquid center they rush,
Where their collected waters are pooled.
These in the ocean met, and joyn'd,
Thou hast within a bank confin'd:
Not suff'ring them to pass their bound,
Lest earth by their excess be drown'd.
These met in the ocean and joined,
You have kept them in a bank:
Not allowing them to exceed their limit,
So that the earth isn't flooded by their overflow.
He from the hills his chrystal springs
Down running to the vallies brings:
Which drink supply, and coolness yield,
To thirsting beasts throughout the field.
He brings down from the hills his crystal springs
Flowing into the valleys:
These provide water and refreshment,
For thirsty animals everywhere in the fields.
By them the fowls of heaven rest,
And singing in their branches nest.
He waters from his clouds the hills;
The teeming earth with plenty fills.
By them the birds of the sky rest,
And sing as they settle in the branches.
He waters the hills from his clouds;
The rich soil is full of plenty.
He grass for cattle doth produce,
And every herb for human use:
That so he may his creatures feed,
And from the earth supply their need.
He grows grass for cattle,
And every herb for people:
So he can feed his creatures,
And meet their needs with what the earth provides.
He makes the clusters of the vine,
To glad the sons of men with wine.
He oil to clear the face imparts,
And bread, the strength'ner of their hearts.
He produces the grape clusters,
To please people with wine.
He gives oil to brighten the face,
And bread, their source of strength.
[96]
The trees, which God for fruit decreed,
Nor sap, nor moistning virtue need.
The lofty cedars by his hand
In Lebanon implanted stand.
[96]
The trees, which God intended for fruit,
No need for sap or moisture to flourish.
The tall cedars made by His hand
Stand firm in Lebanon.
Unto the birds these shelter yield,
And storks upon the fir-trees build:
Wild goats the hills defend, and feed,
And in the rocks the conies breed.
The birds find shelter here,
And storks build their nests in the fir trees:
Wild goats roam the hills and graze,
The rabbits make their homes in the rocks.
He makes the changing moon appear,
To note the seasons of the year:
The sun from him his strength doth get,
And knows the measure of his set.
He makes the moon change its appearance,
To signify the seasons of the year:
The sun gets its strength from him,
And knows how long it needs to shine.
Thou mak'st the darkness of the night,
When beasts creep forth that shun the light,
Young lions, roaring after prey,
From God their hunger must allay.
You create the darkness of the night,
When creatures emerge that shy away from the light,
Young lions, roaring for their hunt,
Their hunger must be satisfied by God.
When the bright sun casts forth his ray,
Down in their dens themselves they lay.
Man's labour, with the morn begun,
Continues till the day be done.
When the bright sun shines down,
They remain concealed in their dens.
People start their work with the morning light,
Keep going until the day is over.
O Lord! what wonders hast thou made,
In providence and wisdom laid!
The earth is with thy riches crown'd,
And seas, where creatures most abound.
O Lord! What wonders have you made,
In wisdom and guidance found!
The earth is crowned with your riches,
And the oceans, where creatures are plentiful.
There go the ships which swiftly fly;
There great Leviathan doth lye,
Who takes his pastime in the flood:
All these do wait on thee for food.
There go the ships that sail so fast;
There the great Leviathan rests,
Who enjoys himself in the water:
They all rely on you for food.
[97]
Thy bounty is on them distill'd,
Who are by thee with goodness fill'd.
But when thou hid'st thy face, they die,
And to their dust returned lie.
[97]
Your generosity is poured out on them,
Who are filled with your kindness.
But when you hide your face, they perish,
And go back to the dust where they rest.
Thy spirit all with life endues,
The springing face of earth renews,
God's glory ever shall endure,
Pleas'd in his works, from change secure.
Your spirit fills everything with life,
Renewing the earth's vibrant look,
God's glory will always last,
Content with His creations, secure from change.
Upon the earth he looketh down,
Which shrinks and trembles at his frown:
His lightnings touch, or thunders stroak,
Will make the proudest mountains smoak.
He looks down upon the earth,
Which shrinks and trembles at his frown:
His lightning strikes or thunderclaps,
Will make the tallest mountains smoke.
To him my ditties, whilst I live,
Or being have, shall praises give:
My meditations will be sweet,
When fixt on him my comforts meet.
To him my songs, while I live,
Or exist, will sing his praises:
My thoughts will be sweet,
When I focus on him, I find my comfort.
Upon the earth let sinners rot,
In place, and memory forgot.
But thou, my soul, thy maker bless:
Let all the world his praise express;
Upon the earth, let sinners decay,
In the moment, and memories fade away.
But you, my soul, bless your creator:
Let everyone in the world shout his praises even louder;
Philip Massinger,
A poet of no small eminence, was son of Mr. Philip Massinger, a gentleman belonging to the earl of Montgomery, in whose service he lived[1].
A poet of considerable significance, was the son of Mr. Philip Massinger, a gentleman in the service of the earl of Montgomery, where he worked[1].
He was born at Salisbury, about the year 1585, and was entered a commoner in St. Alban's Hall in Oxford, 1601, where, though he was encouraged in his studies (says Mr. Wood) by the earl of Pembroke, yet he applied his mind more to poetry and romances, than to logic and philosophy. He afterwards quitted the university without a degree, and being impatient to move in a public sphere, he came to London, in order to improve his poetic fancy, and polite studies by conversation, and reading the world. He soon applied himself to the stage, and wrote several tragedies and comedies with applause, which were admired for the purity of their stile, and the oeconomy of their plots: he was held in the highest esteem by the poets of that age, and there were few who did not reckon it an honour to write in conjunction with him, as Fletcher, Middleton, Rowley, Field and Decker did[2]. He is said to have been a man of great modesty. He died suddenly at his house on the bank side in Southwark, near to the then playhouse, for he went to bed well, and was dead before morning. His body was interred in St. Saviour's [99] church-yard, and was attended to the grave by all the comedians then in town, on the 18th of March, 1669. Sir Aston Cokaine has an epitaph on Mr. John Fletcher, and Mr. Philip Massinger, who, as he says, both lie buried in one grave. He prepared several works for the public, and wrote a little book against Scaliger, which many have ascribed to Scioppius, the supposed author of which Scaliger, uses with great contempt. Our author has published 14 plays of his own writing, besides those in which he joined with other poets, of which the following is the list,
He was born in Salisbury around 1585 and became a commoner at St. Alban's Hall in Oxford in 1601. Although he received support for his studies (according to Mr. Wood) from the Earl of Pembroke, he focused more on poetry and romances than on logic and philosophy. He later left the university without a degree, eager to engage in public life. He moved to London to enhance his poetic skills and refine his studies through conversation and observing the world. He quickly turned to the stage, writing several well-received tragedies and comedies that were praised for their refined style and plot structure. He was highly respected by the poets of his time, with many considering it an honor to collaborate with him, including Fletcher, Middleton, Rowley, Field, and Decker[2]. He was known for his great humility. He died suddenly at his home on the bankside in Southwark, near the playhouse, having gone to bed well and passing away before morning. He was buried in St. Saviour's churchyard, with all the comedians in town attending his funeral on March 18, 1669. Sir Aston Cokaine wrote an epitaph for Mr. John Fletcher and Mr. Philip Massinger, who, as he states, are both buried in the same grave. He prepared several works for publication and wrote a small book against Scaliger, which many attribute to Scioppius, the supposed author that Scaliger holds in great contempt. Our author published 14 plays of his own, in addition to those he co-wrote with other poets, of which the following is the list,
- The Bashful Lover, a Tragi-Comedy, often acted at a private house in Black Fryars, by his Majesty's Servants, with success, printed in 8vo. 1655.
- The Bondman, an ancient Story, often acted at the Cockpit in Drury Lane, by the Lady Elizabeth's servants, printed in 4to. London, 1638, and dedicated to Philip, Earl of Montgomery.
- The City Madam, a Comedy, acted at a private house in Black-fryars, with applause, 4to. 1659, for Andrew Pennywick one of the actors, and dedicated by him to Anne, Countess of Oxford.
- The Duke of Milan, a Tragedy printed in 4to. but Mr. Langbaine has not been able to find out when it was acted.
- The Emperor of the East, a Tragi-Comedy, acted at the Black Fryars, and Globe Playhouse, by his Majesty's Servants, printed in 4to. London, 1632, and dedicated to John, Lord Mohune, Baron of Okehampton; this play is founded on the History of Theodosius the younger; see Socrates, lib. vii.
- The Fatal Dowry, a Tragedy, often acted at private house in Black Fryars, by his Majesty's servants, printed in 4to. London, 1632; this play [100] was written by our author, in conjunction with Nathaniel Field. The behaviour of Charlois in voluntarily chusing imprisonment to ransom his father's corpse, that it might receive the funeral rites, is copied from the Athenian Cymon, so much celebrated by Valerius Maximus, lib. v. c. 4. ex. 9. Plutarch and Cornelius Nepos, notwithstanding, make it a forced action, and not voluntary.
- The Guardian, a comical History, often acted at a private house in Black Fryars, by the King's Servants, 1665. Severino's cutting off Calipso's nose in the dark, taking her for his wife Jolantre, is borrowed from the Cimerian Matron, a Romance, 8vo. the like story is related in Boccace. Day 8. Novel 7.
- The Great Duke of Florence, a comical History, often presented with success, at the Phænix in Drury Lane, 1636; this play is taken from our English Chronicles, that have been written in the reign of Edgar.
- The Maid of Honour, a Tragi-Comedy, often acted at the Phænix in Drury Lane, 1632.
- A New Way to pay Old Debts, a Comedy, acted 1633; this play met with great success on its first representation, and has been revived by Mr. Garrick, and acted on the Theatre-Royal in Drury Lane, 1750.
- Old Law, a New Way to please You, an excellent Comedy, acted before the King and Queen in Salisbury-house, printed in 4to. London, 1656. In this play our author was assisted by Mr. Middleton, and Mr. Rowley.
- The Picture, a Tragi-Comedy, often presented at the Globe and Black Fryars Playhouse, by the King's servants, printed in London, 1636, and dedicated to his selected friends, the noble Society of the Inner-Temple; this play was performed by the most celebrated actors of that age, Lowin, Taylor, Benfield.
- [101] The Renegado, a Tragi-Comedy, often acted by the Queen's Servants, at the private Playhouse in Drury Lane, printed in 4to. London, 1630.
- The Roman Actor, performed several times with success, at a private house in the Black-Fryars, by the King's Servants; for the plot read Suetonius in the Life of Domitian, Aurelius Victor, Eutropius, lib. vii. Tacitus, lib. xiii.
- Very Woman, or the Prince of Tarent, a Tragi-Comedy, often acted at a private house in Black Fryars, printed 1655.
- The Virgin Martyr, a Tragedy, acted by his Majesty's Servants, with great applause, London, printed in 4to. 1661. In this play our author took in Mr. Thomas Decker for a partner; the story may be met with in the Martyrologies, which have treated of the tenth persecution in the time of Dioclesian, and Maximian.
- The Unnatural Combat, a Tragedy, presented by the King's Servants at the Globe, printed at London 1639. This old Tragedy, as the author tells his patron, has neither Prologue nor Epilogue, "it being composed at a time, when such by-ornaments were not advanced above the fabric of the whole work."
Mr. Robert Stapleton.
This gentleman was the third son of Richard Stapleton, esq; of Carleton, in Mereland in Yorkshire, and was educated a Roman Catholic, in the college of the English Benedictines, at Doway in Flanders, but being born with a poetical turn, and consequently too volatile to be confined within the walls of a cloister, he threw off the restraint of his education, quitted a recluse life, came over to England, and commenced Protestant[1]. Sir Robert having good interest, found the change of religion prepared the way to preferment; he was made gentleman usher of the privy chamber to King Charles II. then Prince of Wales; we find him afterwards adhering to the interest of his Royal Master, for when his Majesty was driven out of London, by the threatnings and tumults of the discontented rabble, he followed him, and on the 13th of September, 1642, he received the honour of knighthood. After the battle of Edgehill, when his Majesty was obliged to retire to Oxford, our author then attended him, and was created Dr. of the civil laws. When the Royal cause declined, Stapleton thought proper to addict himself to study, and to live quietly under a government, no effort of his could overturn, and as he was not amongst the most conspicuous of the Royalists, he was suffered to enjoy his [103] solitude unmolested. At the restoration he was again promoted in the service of King Charles II. and held a place in that monarch's esteem 'till his death. Langbaine, speaking of this gentleman, gives him a very great character; his writings, says he, have made him not only known, but admired throughout all England, and while Musæus and Juvenal are in esteem with the learned, Sir Robert's fame will still survive, the translation of these two authors having placed his name in the temple of Immortality. As to Musæus, he had so great a value for him, that after he had translated him, he reduced the story into a dramatic poem, called Hero and Leander, a Tragedy, printed in 4to. 1669, and addressed to the Duchess of Monmouth. Whether this play was ever acted is uncertain, though the Prologue and Epilogue seem to imply that it appeared on the stage.
This man was the third son of Richard Stapleton, Esq., from Carleton in Mereland, Yorkshire. He was educated as a Roman Catholic at the college of the English Benedictines in Douai, Flanders. However, being naturally poetic and too restless to remain within the confines of a cloister, he rejected the limitations of his upbringing, left his reclusive life, came to England, and became a Protestant. Sir Robert had good connections, and his change of religion paved the way for career advancement; he became the gentleman usher of the privy chamber to King Charles II, who was then Prince of Wales. He later remained loyal to his royal master; when the King was driven out of London by the threats and riots of the dissatisfied crowd, he followed him. On September 13, 1642, he was honored with a knighthood. After the Battle of Edgehill, when the King had to retreat to Oxford, our author attended to him and was awarded a doctorate in civil law. As the Royal cause weakened, Stapleton decided to devote himself to study and live quietly under a government he could not change. Since he was not one of the most prominent Royalists, he was allowed to enjoy his solitude without disturbance. At the Restoration, he was promoted again in the service of King Charles II and held a respected position until his death. Langbaine, discussing this gentleman, gives him a great reputation; he states that his writings have made him not only known but admired throughout England. As long as Musaeus and Juvenal are appreciated by scholars, Sir Robert's reputation will endure, thanks to his translations of these two authors, which have solidified his place in the annals of history. Regarding Musaeus, he valued him so highly that after translating him, he adapted the story into a dramatic poem titled "Hero and Leander, a Tragedy," published in 1669 and addressed to the Duchess of Monmouth. It's unclear whether this play was ever performed, though the Prologue and Epilogue suggest that it may have taken to the stage.
Besides these translations and this tragedy, our author has written
Besides these translations and this tragedy, our author has written
The slighted Maid, a Comedy, acted at the Theatre in Little Lincoln's-Inn-Fields, by the Duke of York's Servants, printed in London 1663, and dedicated to the Duke of Monmouth.
The slighted Maid, a Comedy, performed at the Theatre in Little Lincoln's Inn Fields, by the Duke of York's Servants, printed in London 1663, and dedicated to the Duke of Monmouth.
Pliny's Panegyric, a Speech in the Senate, wherein public Thanks are presented to the Emperor Trajan, by C. Plenius Cæcilius Secundus, Consul of Rome, Oxon, 1644.
Pliny's Panegyric, a speech in the Senate, where public thanks are given to Emperor Trajan by C. Plinius Caecilius Secundus, Consul of Rome, Oxon, 1644.
Leander's Letter to Hero, and her Answer, printed with the Loves; 'tis taken from Ovid, and has Annotations written upon it by Sir Robert.
Leander's Letter to Hero, and her Reply, printed with the Loves; it's taken from Ovid, and has notes written on it by Sir Robert.
A Survey of the Manners and Actions of Mankind, with Arguments, Marginal Notes, and Annotations, clearing the obscure Places, out of the History of the Laws and Ceremonies of the Romans, London, 1647, 8vo. with the author's preface [104] before it. It is dedicated to Henry, Marquis of Dorchester, his patron.
A Survey of the Manners and Actions of Mankind, with Arguments, Marginal Notes, and Annotations, clarifying the unclear sections from the History of the Laws and Ceremonies of the Romans, London, 1647, 8vo. with the author's preface [104] before it. It is dedicated to Henry, Marquis of Dorchester, his patron.
The History of the Low-Country War, or de bello Gallico, &c. 1650, folio, written in Latin by Famianus Strada. Our author paid the last debt to nature on the eleventh day of July, 1669, and was buried in the Abbey of St. Peter at Westminster. He was uncle to Dr. Miles Stapleton of Yorkshire, younger brother to Dr. Stapleton, a Benedictine Monk, who was president of the English Benedictines at Delaware in Lorraine, where he died, 1680.
The History of the Low-Country War, or de bello Gallico, etc. 1650, folio, written in Latin by Famianus Strada. Our author passed away on July 11, 1669, and was laid to rest in the Abbey of St. Peter at Westminster. He was the uncle of Dr. Miles Stapleton from Yorkshire, the younger brother of Dr. Stapleton, a Benedictine monk who served as the president of the English Benedictines in Delaware, Lorraine, where he died in 1680.
Doctor Jasper Main.
This poet was born at Hatherleigh, in the Reign of King James I. He was a man of reputation, as well for his natural parts, as his acquired accomplishments. He received his education at Westminster school, where he continued 'till he was removed to Christ Church, Oxon, and in the year 1624 admitted student. He made some figure at the university, in the study of arts and sciences, and was sollicited by men of eminence, who esteemed him for his abilities, to enter into holy orders; this he was not long in complying with, and was preferred to two livings, both in the gift of the College, one of which was happily situated near Oxford.
This poet was born in Hatherleigh during the reign of King James I. He was well-regarded for both his natural talent and his learned skills. He was educated at Westminster School, where he stayed until he transferred to Christ Church, Oxford, and was admitted as a student in 1624. He made a name for himself at the university in the study of arts and sciences and was encouraged by prominent figures, who valued his abilities, to become ordained. He quickly complied and was appointed to two benefices, both granted by the College, one of which was nicely located near Oxford.
Much about this time King Charles I. was obliged to keep his court at Oxford, to avoid being exposed to the resentment of the populace in London, where tumults then prevailed, and Mr. Main was made choice of, amongst others, to preach before [105] his Majesty. Soon after he was created doctor of divinity, and resided at Oxford, till the time of the mock visitation, sent to the university, when, amongst a great many others, equally distinguished for their loyalty and zeal for that unfortunate Monarch, he was ejected from the college, and stript of both his livings. During the rage of the civil war, he was patronized by the earl of Devonshire, at whose house he resided till the restoration of Charles II. when he was not only put in possession of his former places, but made canon of Christ's Church, and arch-deacon of Chichester, which preferments he enjoyed till his death. He was an orthodox preacher, a man of severe virtue, a ready and facetious wit. In his younger years he addicted himself to poetry, and produced two plays, which were held in some esteem in his own time; but as they have never been revived, nor taken notice of by any of our critics, in all probability they are but second rate performances.
During this time, King Charles I was forced to hold his court in Oxford to avoid the anger of the people in London, where there were riots happening. Mr. Main was chosen, among others, to preach before [105] his Majesty. Not long after, he became a doctor of divinity and lived in Oxford until the mock visitation sent to the university, when he was ousted from the college along with many others who were equally loyal to that unfortunate monarch, losing both his positions. During the chaos of the civil war, he was supported by the Earl of Devonshire, at whose house he stayed until Charles II was restored to the throne. At that point, he not only regained his previous positions but was also made a canon of Christ's Church and archdeacon of Chichester, which roles he held until his death. He was an orthodox preacher, a man of strong moral character, and had a quick and witty sense of humor. In his younger years, he focused on poetry and wrote two plays that were respected in his time; however, since they have never been revived or noted by any of our critics, they are likely not considered high quality today.
The Amorous War. a Tragedy, printed in 4to. Oxon. 1658.
The Amorous War: A Tragedy, printed in 4to. Oxon, 1658.
The City Match, a Comedy, acted before the King and Queen in Whitehall, and afterwards on the stage in Black Fryars, with great applause, and printed in 4to. Oxon. 1658. These two plays have been printed in folio, 4to, and 8vo. and are bound together.
The City Match, a comedy, was performed for the King and Queen in Whitehall and later on stage in Black Fryars, receiving great applause, and published in 4to. Oxon. 1658. These two plays have been printed in folio, 4to, and 8vo, and are bound together.
Besides these dramatic pieces, our author wrote a Poem upon the Naval Victory over the Dutch by the Duke of York, a subject which Dryden has likewise celebrated in his Annus Mirabilis. He published a translation of part of Lucian, said to be done by Mr. Francis Hicks, to which he added some dialogues of his own, though Winstanley is of opinion, that the whole translation is also his. [106] In the year 1646, —47, —52, —62, he published several sermons, and entered into a controversy with the famous Presbyterian leader, Mr. Francis Cheynel, and his Sermon against False Prophets was particularly levelled at him. Cheynel's Life is written by a gentleman of great eminence in literature, and published in some of the latter numbers of of the Student, in which the character of that celebrated teacher is fully displayed. Dr. Main likewise published in the year 1647 a book called The People's War examined according to the Principles of Scripture and Reason, which he wrote at the desire of a person of quality. He also translated Dr. Donne's Latin Epigrams into English, and published them under the title of, A Sheaf of Epigrams.
Besides these dramatic works, our author wrote a poem about the naval victory over the Dutch by the Duke of York, a topic that Dryden also celebrated in his "Annus Mirabilis." He published a translation of part of Lucian, credited to Mr. Francis Hicks, to which he added some of his own dialogues, although Winstanley believes that the entire translation is also his. [106] In the years 1646, —47, —52, —62, he published several sermons and engaged in a debate with the well-known Presbyterian leader, Mr. Francis Cheynel, whose sermon against false prophets was particularly aimed at him. Cheynel's life is documented by a distinguished gentleman in the field of literature and appears in some of the later editions of "The Student," where the character of that renowned teacher is fully presented. Dr. Main also published in 1647 a book titled "The People's War Examined According to the Principles of Scripture and Reason," which he wrote at the request of a person of high status. He also translated Dr. Donne's Latin epigrams into English and published them under the title "A Sheaf of Epigrams."
On the 6th of December, 1642, he died, and his remains were deposited on the North side of the choir in Christ's Church. In his will he left several legacies for pious uses: fifty pounds for the rebuilding of St. Paul's; a hundred pounds to be distributed by the two vicars of Cassington and Burton, for the use of the poor in those parishes, with many other legacies.
On December 6, 1642, he passed away, and his body was laid to rest on the north side of the choir in Christ's Church. In his will, he left several donations for charitable purposes: fifty pounds for the reconstruction of St. Paul's; a hundred pounds to be shared by the two vicars of Cassington and Burton for the benefit of the poor in those parishes, along with many other gifts.
He was a man of a very singular turn of humour, and though, without the abilities, bore some resemblance to the famous dean of St. Patrick's, and perhaps was not so subject to those capricious whims which produced so much uneasiness to all who attended upon dean Swift. It is said of Dr. Main, that his propension to innocent raillery was so great, that it kept him company even after death. Among other legacies, he bequeathed to an old servant an old trunk, and somewhat in it, as he said, that would make him drink: no sooner did the Dr. expire, than the servant, full of expectation, visited the trunk, in hopes of finding some money, or other treasure left him by his [107] master, and to his great disappointment, the legacy, with which he had filled his imagination, proved no other than a Red Herring.
He was a man with a very unique sense of humor, and while he didn't have the same talents, he resembled the famous dean of St. Patrick's. Perhaps he wasn't as prone to the unpredictable quirks that caused so much distress to everyone who associated with Dean Swift. It’s said about Dr. Main that his tendency for lighthearted teasing was so strong that it followed him even after his death. Among other belongings, he left an old trunk to a longtime servant, claiming there was something in it that would make him drink. As soon as the doctor passed away, the servant, filled with anticipation, checked the trunk, hoping to find some money or other treasures left by his master. To his great disappointment, the legacy that fueled his imagination turned out to be nothing more than a red herring.
The ecclesiastical works of our author are as follow,
The church-related works of our author are as follows,
- A Sermon concerning Unity and Agreement, preached at Carfax Church in Oxford, August 9, 1646. 1 Cor. i. 10.
- A Sermon against False Prophets, preached in St. Mary's Church in Oxford, shortly after the surrender of that garrison, printed in 1697. Ezek. xxii. 28. He afterwards published a Vindication of this Sermon from the aspersions of Mr. Cheynel.
- A Sermon preached at the Consecration of the Right Reverend Father in God, Herbert, Lord Bishop of Hereford, 1662. 1 Tim. iv. 14.
- Concio ad Academiam Oxoniensem, pro more habita inchoante Jermino, Maii 27, 1662.
As a specimen of his poetry, we present a copy of verses addressed to Ben Johnson.
As an example of his poetry, we present a copy of the verses directed to Ben Johnson.
Scorn then, their censures, who gave't out, thy wit
As long upon a comedy did fit,
As elephants bring forth: and thy blots
And mendings took more time, than fortune plots;
That such thy draught was, and so great thy thirst,
That all thy plays were drawn at Mermaid[1] first:
That the King's yearly butt wrote, and his wine
Hath more right than those to thy Cataline.
Let such men keep a diet, let their wit,
Be rack'd and while they write, suffer a fit:
[108]
When th' have felt tortures, which outpain the gout;
Such as with less the state draws treason out;
Sick of their verse, and of their poem die,
Twou'd not be thy wont scene—
Scorn their judgments, who say your wit
Was as long as an elephant's birth,
And that fixing your mistakes
Took longer than chance creates schemes;
That your drafts were like that, and your thirst was so great,
That all your plays were first drafted at the Mermaid.
That the King's yearly allowance and his wine
Deserved more attention than those about your Cataline.
Let such people stick to a strict diet, let their wit,
Be tortured, and while they write, suffer through it:
[108]
When they have felt pains that hurt more than gout;
Pains that with less can lead to betrayal;
Sick of their verses, and die from their poems,
It wouldn’t be your usual scene—
John Milton.
The British nation, which has produced the greatest men in every profession, before the appearance of Milton could not enter into any competition with antiquity, with regard to the sublime excellencies of poetry. Greece could boast an Euripides, Eschylus, Sophocles and Sappho; England was proud of her Shakespear, Spenser, Johnson and Fletcher; but then the ancients had still a poet in reserve superior to the rest, who stood unrivalled by all succeeding times, and in epic poetry, which is justly esteemed the highest effort of genius, Homer had no rival. When Milton appeared, the pride of Greece was humbled, the competition became more equal, and since Paradise Lost is ours; it would, perhaps, be an injury to our national fame to yield the palm to any state, whether ancient or modern.
The British nation, known for producing the greatest talents in every field, couldn't compete with the ancient world in terms of the sublime qualities of poetry before Milton arrived. Greece could proudly claim Euripides, Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Sappho; England had her Shakespeare, Spenser, Jonson, and Fletcher; but the ancients still kept a poet in reserve who surpassed them all, and in epic poetry, which is rightly considered the pinnacle of genius, Homer had no equal. When Milton came onto the scene, Greece's pride was diminished, the competition became more balanced, and since Paradise Lost is ours, it would likely harm our national reputation to concede superiority to any nation, whether ancient or modern.
The author of this astonishing work had something very singular in his life, as if he had been marked out by Heaven to be the wonder of every age, in all points of view in which he can be considered. He lived in the times of general confusion; he was engaged in the factions of state, and the cause he thought proper to espouse, he maintained [109] with unshaken firmness; he struggled to the last for what he was persuaded were the rights of humanity; he had a passion for civil liberty, and he embarked in the support of it, heedless of every consideration of danger; he exposed his fortune to the vicissitudes of party contention, and he exerted his genius in writing for the cause he favoured.
The author of this remarkable work had something truly unique in his life, as if he had been chosen by fate to be the marvel of every generation, in every way he can be viewed. He lived during a time of widespread turmoil; he was involved in political factions, and the cause he believed in, he defended [109] with unwavering determination; he fought until the end for what he believed were the rights of humanity; he had a deep passion for civil liberty and committed himself to its support, disregarding any concerns for his safety; he risked his fortune in the unpredictable world of political conflict and used his talent to write in favor of the cause he supported.
There is no life, to which it is more difficult to do justice, and at the same time avoid giving offence, than Milton's, there are some who have considered him as a regicide, others have extolled him as a patriot, and a friend to mankind: Party-rage seldom knows any bounds, and differing factions have praised or blamed him, according to their principles of religion, and political opinions.
There is no life that is harder to appraise fairly without causing offense than Milton's. Some have seen him as a regicide, while others have praised him as a patriot and a benefactor to humanity. The intensity of party loyalty often knows no limits, and opposing groups have either celebrated or condemned him based on their religious beliefs and political views.
In the course of this life, a dispassionate regard to truth, and an inviolable candour shall be observed. Milton was not without a share of those failings which are inseparable from human nature; those errors sometimes exposed him to censure, and they ought not to pass unnoticed; on the other hand, the apparent sincerity of his intentions, and the amazing force of his genius, naturally produce an extream tenderness for the faults with which his life is chequered: and as in any man's conduct fewer errors are seldom found, so no man's parts ever gave him a greater right to indulgence.
Throughout this life, a calm focus on truth and unwavering honesty shall be maintained. Milton wasn't free from the flaws that come with being human; these mistakes sometimes brought him criticism, and they shouldn't be overlooked. On the flip side, the clear sincerity of his intentions and the incredible strength of his talent naturally inspire a deep compassion for the faults scattered throughout his life. Just as any person’s behavior has fewer mistakes, no one’s abilities ever warranted more understanding.
The author of Paradise Lost was descended of an ancient family of that name at Milton, near Abingdon in Oxfordshire. He was the son of John Milton a money-scrivener, and born the 9th of December, 1608. The family from which he descended had been long seated there, as appears by the monuments still to be seen in the church of Milton, 'till one of them, having taken the unfortunate side in the contests between the houses of York and Lancaster, was deprived of all his estate, except [110] what he held by his wife[1]. Our author's grandfather, whose name was John Milton, was under-ranger, or reaper of the forest of Shotover, near Halton in Oxfordshire: but a man of Milton's genius needs not have the circumstance of birth called in to render him illustrious; he reflects the highest honour upon his family, which receives from him more glory, than the longest descent of years can give. Milton was both educated under a domestic tutor, and likewise at St. Paul's school under Mr. Alexander Gill, where he made, by his indefatigable application, an extraordinary progress in learning. From his 12th year he generally sat up all night at his studies, which, accompanied with frequent head-aches, proved very prejudicial to his eyes. In the year 1625 he was entered into Christ's College in Cambridge, under the tuition of Mr. William Chappel, afterwards bishop of Ross in Ireland, and even before that time, had distinguished himself by several Latin and English poems[2]. After he had taken the degree of master of arts, in 1632 he left the university, and for the space of five years lived with his parents at their house at Horton, near Colebrook in Buckinghamshire, where his father having acquired a competent fortune, thought proper to retire, and spend the remainder of his days. In the year 1634 he wrote his Masque of Comus, performed at Ludlow Castle, before John, earl of Bridgwater, then president of Wales: It appears from the edition of this Masque, published by Mr. Henry Lawes, that the principal performers were, the Lord Barclay, Mr. Thomas Egerton, the Lady Alice Egerton, and Mr. Lawes himself, who represented an attendant spirit.
The author of Paradise Lost came from an ancient family with that name in Milton, near Abingdon in Oxfordshire. He was the son of John Milton, a money-scrivener, and was born on December 9, 1608. His family had been established there for a long time, as shown by the monuments that can still be seen in Milton’s church, until one of them took the unfortunate side in the conflicts between the houses of York and Lancaster and lost all his property, except what he had through his wife. Our author's grandfather, also named John Milton, was the under-ranger or reaper of the Shotover forest near Halton in Oxfordshire. However, a man of Milton's talent doesn't need a noteworthy birth to be recognized; he brings more honor to his family than a long lineage ever could. Milton was educated by a private tutor as well as at St. Paul's school under Mr. Alexander Gill, where he made remarkable progress in his studies through tireless effort. From the age of 12, he often stayed up all night studying, which, along with frequent headaches, was very harmful to his eyes. In 1625, he enrolled at Christ's College in Cambridge, under the guidance of Mr. William Chappel, who later became bishop of Ross in Ireland. Even before that, he had already distinguished himself with several Latin and English poems. After earning his master's degree in 1632, he left the university and spent five years living with his parents at their home in Horton, near Colebrook in Buckinghamshire, where his father had acquired a comfortable fortune and decided to retire to spend the rest of his days. In 1634, he wrote his Masque of Comus, which was performed at Ludlow Castle before John, Earl of Bridgwater, who was the president of Wales at the time. From the edition of this Masque published by Mr. Henry Lawes, it is noted that the main performers included Lord Barclay, Mr. Thomas Egerton, Lady Alice Egerton, and Mr. Lawes himself, who played an attendant spirit.
The Prologue, which we found in the General Dictionary, begins with the following lines.
The Prologue, which we found in the General Dictionary, starts with these lines.
[111]
Our stedfast bard, to his own genius true,
Still bad his muse fit audience find, tho' few;
Scorning the judgment of a trifling age,
To choicer spirits he bequeath'd his page.
He too was scorned, and to Britannia's shame,
She scarce for half an age knew Milton's name;
But now his fame by every trumpet blown,
We on his deathless trophies raise our own.
Nor art, nor nature, could his genius bound:
Heaven, hell, earth, chaos, he survey'd around.
All things his eye, thro' wit's bright empire thrown,
Beheld, and made what it beheld his own.
[111]
Our steadfast poet, true to his own talent,
Still managed to find an audience for his muse, even if it was small;
Disregarding the opinions of a shallow time,
He left his writings to those with better taste.
He was also disregarded, and to Britain’s shame,
For nearly half a century, she barely recognized Milton’s name;
But now his fame is proclaimed by every horn,
We build our own legacy on his enduring achievements.
Neither art nor nature could limit his genius:
He surveyed heaven, hell, earth, and chaos all around.
Everything his eye, through the bright realm of wit, spied,
He observed and made whatever he saw his own.
In 1637 Our author published his Lycidas; in this poem he laments the death of his friend Mr. Edward King, who was drowned in his passage from Chester on the Irish seas in 1637; it was printed the year following at Cambridge in 4to. in a collection of Latin and English poems upon Mr. King's death, with whom he had contracted the strongest friendship. The Latin epitaph informs us, that Mr. King was son of Sir John King, secretary for Ireland to Queen Elizabeth, James I. and Charles I. and that he was fellow in Christ's-College Cambridge, and was drowned in the twenty-fifth year of his age. But this poem of Lycidas does not altogether consist in elegiac strains of tenderness; there is in it a mixture of satire and severe indignation; for in part of it he takes occasion to rally the corruptions of the established clergy, of whom he was no favourer; and first discovers his acrimony against archbishop Laud; he threatens him with the loss of his head, a fate which he afterwards met, thro' the fury of his enemies; at least, says Dr. Newton, I can think of no sense so proper to be given to the following verses in Lycidas;
In 1637, our author published his "Lycidas." In this poem, he mourns the death of his friend Mr. Edward King, who drowned while traveling from Chester across the Irish Sea that same year. It was printed the following year at Cambridge in quarto, as part of a collection of Latin and English poems about Mr. King's passing, with whom he had formed a deep friendship. The Latin epitaph tells us that Mr. King was the son of Sir John King, who served as secretary for Ireland under Queen Elizabeth, James I, and Charles I, and that he was a fellow at Christ's College, Cambridge, drowning at the age of twenty-five. However, "Lycidas" is not solely filled with tender elegies; it also contains elements of satire and intense anger. In part of the poem, he takes the opportunity to criticize the corruptions of the established clergy, whom he did not support. He expresses his disdain for Archbishop Laud, threatening him with the loss of his head, a fate that ultimately came to pass due to the wrath of his enemies. At least, as Dr. Newton notes, this is the most fitting interpretation of the following lines in "Lycidas."
[112]
Besides what the grim wolf, with privy paw,
Daily devours apace, and nothing said;
But that two-handed engine at the door,
Stands ready to smite once, and smite no more.
[112]
Besides what the grim wolf, with secret paw,
Daily devours quickly, and nothing is said;
But that two-handed weapon at the door,
Stands ready to strike once, and strike no more.
Upon the death of his mother, Milton obtained leave of his father to travel, and having waited upon Sir Henry Wotton, formerly ambassador at Venice, and then provost of Eaton College, to whom he communicated his design, that gentleman wrote a letter to him, dated from the College, April 18, 1638, and printed among the Reliquiæ Wottonianæ, and in Dr. Newton's life of Milton. Immediately after the receipt of this letter our author set out for France, accompanied only with one man, who attended him thro' all his travels. At Paris Milton was introduced to the famous Hugo Grotius, and thence went to Florence, Siena, Rome, and Naples, in all which places he was entertained with the utmost civility by persons of the first distinction.
Upon the death of his mother, Milton got permission from his father to travel. After meeting with Sir Henry Wotton, who had been an ambassador in Venice and was then the provost of Eton College, Milton shared his plans. Wotton wrote him a letter from the College dated April 18, 1638, which was later published in the Reliquiæ Wottonianæ and in Dr. Newton's biography of Milton. Right after receiving this letter, Milton set off for France, accompanied by just one man who traveled with him throughout his journey. In Paris, Milton met the famous Hugo Grotius, and from there he continued on to Florence, Siena, Rome, and Naples, where he was warmly welcomed by prominent individuals in each city.
When our author was at Naples he was introduced to the acquaintance of Giovanni Baptista Manso, Marquis of Villa, a Neapolitan nobleman, celebrated for his taste in the liberal arts, to whom Tasso addresses his dialogue on friendship, and whom he likewise mentions in his Gierusalemme liberata, with great honour. This nobleman shewed extraordinary civilities to Milton, frequently visited him at his lodgings, and accompanied him when he went to see the several curiosities of the city. He was not content with giving our author these exterior marks of respect only, but he honoured him by a Latin distich in his praise, which is printed before Milton's Latin poems. Milton no doubt was highly pleased with such extreme condescension and esteem from a person of the Marquis of [113] Villa's quality; and as an evidence of his gratitude, he presented the Marquis at his departure from Naples, his eclogue, entitled Mansus; which, says Dr. Newton, is well worth reading among his Latin poems; so that it may be reckoned a peculiar felicity in the Marquis of Villa's life to have been celebrated both by Tasso and Milton, the greatest poets of their nation. Having seen the finest parts of Italy, and conversed with men of the first distinction, he was preparing to pass over into Sicily and Greece, when the news from England, that a civil war was like to lay his country in blood, diverted his purpose; for as by his education and principles he was attached to the parliamentary interest, he thought it a mark of abject cowardice, for a lover of his country to take his pleasure abroad, while the friends of liberty were contending at home for the rights of human nature. He resolved therefore to return by way of Rome, tho' he was dissuaded from pursuing that resolution by the merchants, who were informed by their correspondents, that the English jesuits there were forming plots against his life, in case he should return thither, on account of the great freedom with which he had treated their religion, and the boldness he discovered in demonstrating the absurdity of the Popish tenets; for he by no means observed the rule recommended to him by Sir Henry Wotton, of keeping his thoughts close, and his countenance open. Milton was removed above dissimulation, he hated whatever had the appearance of disguise, and being naturally a man of undaunted courage, he was never afraid to assert his opinions, nor to vindicate truth tho' violated by the suffrage of the majority.
When our author was in Naples, he met Giovanni Baptista Manso, the Marquis of Villa, a Neapolitan nobleman known for his appreciation of the liberal arts. Tasso dedicated his dialogue on friendship to him and mentions him with great respect in his "Gierusalemme liberata." This nobleman showed exceptional kindness to Milton, often visiting him at his lodgings and joining him to see the city's various attractions. He didn’t just show respect in a superficial way; he honored Milton with a Latin couplet praising him, which is printed before Milton's Latin poems. Milton was surely thrilled by such impressive kindness and admiration from someone of the Marquis's status. As a token of his gratitude, he presented the Marquis with his eclogue titled "Mansus" when he was leaving Naples. Dr. Newton notes that this work is definitely worth a read among Milton's Latin poems, making it a special highlight in the Marquis of Villa's life to have been celebrated by both Tasso and Milton, the greatest poets of their country. After seeing the best parts of Italy and engaging with prominent individuals, he was preparing to head to Sicily and Greece when news from England reached him about an impending civil war that threatened to spill blood in his homeland, which changed his plans. Since he was educated and inclined towards the parliamentary side, he felt it was cowardly for a patriot to enjoy life abroad while those fighting for liberty were struggling at home for human rights. He decided to return through Rome, despite being warned by merchants that English Jesuits there were plotting against him due to his outspoken views on their religion and his boldness in exposing the absurdity of Catholic beliefs. He did not follow the advice given by Sir Henry Wotton to keep his thoughts private and his demeanor open. Milton was above pretense; he despised anything that looked like deceit and, being naturally courageous, he was never afraid to voice his opinions or defend the truth, even when it was challenged by the majority.
Stedfast in his resolutions, he went to Rome a second time, and stayed there two months more, neither concealing his name, nor declining any [114] disputations to which his antagonists in religious opinions invited him; he escaped the secret machinations of the jesuits, and came safe to Florence, where he was received by his friends with as much tenderness as if he had returned to his own country. Here he remained two months, as he had done in his former visit, excepting only an excursion of a few days to Lucca, and then crossing the Appenine, and passing thro' Bologna, and Ferrara, he arrived at Venice, in which city he spent a month; and having shipped off the books he had collected in his travels, he took his course thro' Verona, Milan, and along the Lake Leman to Geneva. In this city he continued some time, meeting there with people of his own principles, and contracted an intimate friendship with Giovanni Deodati, the most learned professor of Divinity, whose annotations on the bible are published in English; and from thence returning to France the same way that he had gone before, he arrived safe in England after an absence of fifteen months, in which Milton had seen much of the world, read the characters of famous men, examined the policy of different countries, and made more extensive improvements than travellers of an inferior genius, and less penetration, can be supposed to do in double the time. Soon after his return he took a handsome house in Aldersgate-street, and undertook the education of his sister's two sons, upon a plan of his own. In this kind of scholastic solitude he continued some time, but he was not so much immersed in academical studies, as to stand an indifferent spectator of what was acted upon the public theatre of his country. The nation was in great ferment in 1641, and the clamour against episcopacy running very high, Milton who discovered how much inferior in eloquence and learning the puritan teachers were to the bishops, [115] engaged warmly with the former in support of the common cause, and exercised all the power of which he was capable, in endeavouring to overthrow the prelatical establishment, and accordingly published five tracts relating to church government; they were all printed at London in 4to. The first was intitled, Reformation touching Church Discipline in England, and the Causes that have hitherto hindered it: two books written to a friend. The second was of Prelatical Episcopacy, and whether it may be deducted from Apostolical Times, by virtue of those Testimonies which are alledged to that purpose in some late treatises; one whereof goes under the name of James Usher archbishop of Armagh. The third was the Reason of Church Government urged against the Prelacy, by Mr. John Milton, in two books. The fourth was Animadversions upon the Remonstrants Defence against Smectymnuus; and the fifth an Apology for a Pamphlet called, a Modest Confutation of the Animadversions upon the Remonstrants against Smectymnuus; or as the title page is in some copies, an Apology for Smectymnuus, with the Reason of Church Government, by John Milton.
Steadfast in his decisions, he went to Rome a second time and stayed there for two more months, not hiding his name or avoiding any debates that his opponents in religious matters invited him to; he managed to escape the secret plots of the Jesuits and safely arrived in Florence, where his friends welcomed him with as much affection as if he had returned to his home country. He remained there for two months, just like on his previous visit, except for a short trip to Lucca. After that, crossing the Apennines and passing through Bologna and Ferrara, he got to Venice, where he spent a month. Having shipped the books he collected during his travels, he traveled through Verona, Milan, and along Lake Geneva to Geneva. In that city, he spent some time meeting others who shared his beliefs and formed a close friendship with Giovanni Deodati, the most knowledgeable professor of Divinity, whose annotations on the Bible have been published in English. From there, he returned to France the same way he came and safely arrived in England after being away for fifteen months, during which Milton had seen much of the world, understood the characters of famous individuals, examined the politics of different countries, and made greater progress than lesser travelers could achieve in double the time. Soon after returning, he rented a nice house on Aldersgate Street and took on the education of his sister's two sons based on his own plan. He lived in this kind of academic solitude for a while, but he wasn't so wrapped up in his studies that he could ignore what was happening on the public stage of his country. The nation was in a state of great unrest in 1641, and the outcry against episcopacy was very strong. Milton, who realized how much less eloquent and learned the Puritan teachers were compared to the bishops, passionately engaged with the former in support of the common cause, using all the influence he could muster to attempt to dismantle the prelatical establishment. He published five tracts related to church governance; all of them were printed in London in quarto. The first was titled, Reformation touching Church Discipline in England, and the Causes that have hitherto hindered it: two books written to a friend. The second was on Prelatical Episcopacy and whether it can be traced back to Apostolic Times based on the testimonies presented in some recent writings, one of which is attributed to James Usher, Archbishop of Armagh. The third was The Reason of Church Government urged against the Prelacy, by Mr. John Milton, in two books. The fourth was Animadversions upon the Remonstrants Defence against Smectymnuus; and the fifth was an Apology for a pamphlet titled, a Modest Confutation of the Animadversions upon the Remonstrants against Smectymnuus; or as the title page reads in some copies, an Apology for Smectymnuus, with the Reason of Church Government, by John Milton.
In the year 1643 Milton married the daughter of Richard Powel, Esq; of Forrest-hill in Oxfordshire; who not long after obtaining leave of her husband to pay a visit to her father in the country, but, upon repeated messages to her, refusing to return, Milton seemed disposed to marry another, and in 1644 published the Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce; the Judgment of Martin Bucer concerning Divorce, and the year following his Tetrachordon and Colasterion. Mr. Philips observes, and would have his readers believe, that the reason of his wife's aversion to return to him was the contrariety of their state principles. The lady being educated in loyal notions, [116] possibly imagined, that if ever the regal power should flourish again, her being connected with a person so obnoxious to the King, would hurt her father's interest; this Mr. Philips alledges, but, with submission to his authority, I dissent from his opinion. Had she been afraid of marrying a man of Milton's principles, the reason was equally strong before as after marriage, and her father must have seen it in that light; but the true reason, or at least a more rational one, seems to be, that she had no great affection for Milton's person.
In 1643, Milton married Richard Powel's daughter from Forrest Hill in Oxfordshire. Soon after, she asked for her husband's permission to visit her father in the countryside. However, after repeatedly refusing to come back, Milton seemed ready to marry someone else. In 1644, he published the *Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce*, the *Judgment of Martin Bucer concerning Divorce*, and the following year released his *Tetrachordon* and *Colasterion*. Mr. Philips suggests that the reason for his wife's reluctance to return was their opposing political views. Raised with loyalist beliefs, she likely thought that if the monarchy were to be restored, her association with someone so disliked by the King would harm her father’s interests. While Mr. Philips claims this, I respectfully disagree. If she were truly concerned about marrying a man with Milton's views, that concern would have been just as relevant before their marriage, and her father would have considered it as well. The real reason, or at least a more reasonable one, seems to be that she didn't have strong feelings for Milton himself.
Milton was a stern man, and as he was so much devoted to study, he was perhaps too negligent in those endearments and tender intercourses of love which a wife has a right to expect. No lady ever yet was fond of a scholar, who could not join the lover with it; and he who expects to secure the affections of his wife by the force of his understanding only, will find himself miserably mistaken: indeed it is no wonder that women who are formed for tenderness, and whose highest excellence is delicacy, should pay no great reverence to a proud scholar, who considers the endearments of his wife, and the caresses of his children as pleasures unworthy of him. It is agreed by all the biographers of Milton, that he was not very tender in his disposition; he was rather boldly honourable, than delicately kind; and Mr. Dryden seems to insinuate, that he was not much subject to love. "His rhimes, says he, flow stiff from him, and that too at an age when love makes every man a rhymster, tho' not a poet. There are, methinks, in Milton's love-sonnets more of art than nature; he seems to have considered the passion philosophically, rather than felt it intimately."
Milton was a serious man, and because he devoted so much time to study, he was probably too neglectful of the affection and tender moments that a wife has the right to expect. No woman has ever truly loved a scholar who couldn't also be a romantic; and anyone who thinks they can win their wife's love solely through intellect will find themselves sadly mistaken. It's no surprise that women, who are naturally inclined to be nurturing and whose greatest strength is their sensitivity, might not respect a proud scholar who sees his wife's affection and his children's hugs as unworthy pleasures. All of Milton's biographers agree that he wasn't very tender by nature; he was more boldly honorable than gently kind. Mr. Dryden even implies that he wasn't very in touch with love: "His rhymes," he says, "flow stiffly from him, even at an age when love makes every man a poet, though not a master. In Milton's love sonnets, there seems to be more craft than genuine emotion; he appears to have approached passion with a philosophical mindset rather than feeling it deeply."
In reading Milton's gallantry the breast will glow, but feel no palpitations; we admire the poetry, [117] but do not melt with tenderness; and want of feeling in an author seldom fails to leave the reader cold; but from whatever cause his aversion proceeded, she was at last prevailed upon by her relations, who could foresee the dangers of a matrimonial quarrel, to make a submission, and she was again received with tenderness.
In reading Milton's bravery, the heart will shine, but without any racing. We admire the poetry, [117] but don’t feel emotional warmth; a lack of emotion from an author usually leaves the reader indifferent. However, for whatever reason his dislike came from, she was finally convinced by her family, who could see the risks of a marital conflict, to give in, and she was welcomed back with warmth.
Mr. Philips has thus related the story.—'It was then generally thought, says he, that Milton had a design of marrying one of Dr. Davy's daughters, a very handsome and witty gentlewoman, but averse, as it is said, to this motion; however the intelligence of this caused justice Powel's family to let all engines at work to restore the married woman to the station in which they a little before had planted her. At last this device was pitched upon. There dwelt in the lane of St. Martin's Le Grand, which was hard by, a relation of our author's, one Blackborough, whom it was known he often visited, and upon this occasion the visits were more narrowly observed, and possibly there might be a combination between both parties, the friends on both sides consenting in the same action, tho' in different behalfs. One time above the rest, making his usual visits, his wife was ready in another room; on a sudden he was surprized to see one, whom he thought never to have seen more, making submission, and begging pardon on her knees before him. He might probably at first make some shew of aversion, and rejection, but partly his own generous nature, more inclinable to reconciliation than to perseverance in anger and revenge, and partly the strong intercession of friends on both sides, soon brought him to an act of oblivion and a firm league of peace for the future; and it was at length concluded that she should remain at a [118] friend's house, till he was settled in his new house in Barbican, and all things prepared for her reception. The first fruits of her return to her husband was a brave girl, born within a year after, tho', whether by ill constitution, or want of care, she grew more and more decrepit.'
Mr. Philips has thus told the story. He says it was generally believed that Milton intended to marry one of Dr. Davy's daughters, a very attractive and witty woman, who, as it’s said, was not keen on the idea. However, the news of this caused Justice Powel's family to pull out all the stops to return the married woman to the situation they had just put her in. Eventually, they settled on a plan. There lived in the lane of St. Martin's Le Grand, which was very close by, a relative of our author named Blackborough, who he was known to visit often, and on this occasion, his visits were watched more closely. There might have even been some collusion between both parties, with friends on both sides agreeing to the same course of action, although for different reasons. One time, during one of his usual visits, his wife was waiting in another room. Suddenly, he was shocked to see someone he thought he’d never see again, begging for forgiveness on her knees in front of him. He might have initially shown some signs of reluctance and rejection, but partly due to his generous nature, which was more inclined toward reconciliation than holding onto anger and revenge, and partly because of strong pleas from friends on both sides, he soon agreed to put the past behind them and establish a solid peace for the future. It was finally decided that she would stay at a [118] friend's house until he was settled in his new home in Barbican, and everything was ready for her to come back. The first result of her return to her husband was a beautiful girl, born about a year later, although she grew increasingly frail, possibly due to poor health or lack of care.
Mr. Fenton observes, that it is not to be doubted but the abovementioned interview between Milton and his wife must wonderfully affect him; and that perhaps the impressions it made on his imagination contributed much to the painting of that pathetic scene in Paradise Lost, b. 10. in which Eve addresses herself to Adam for pardon and peace, now at his feet submissive in distress.
Mr. Fenton notes that there’s no doubt the earlier conversation between Milton and his wife must have had a strong impact on him; and that maybe the impressions it left on his mind greatly influenced the portrayal of that emotional scene in Paradise Lost, b. 10, where Eve asks Adam for forgiveness and peace, now at his feet, submissive in her distress.
About the year 1644 our author wrote a small piece in one sheet 4to, under this title, Education, to Mr. Samuel Hartly, reprinted at the end of his Poems on several occasions; and in the same year he published at London in 4to, his Areopagitica, or a speech of Mr. J. Milton for the liberty of unlicensed printing, to the Parliament of England.
About the year 1644, our author wrote a short piece on a single sheet of 4to paper, titled Education, dedicated to Mr. Samuel Hartly, which was reprinted at the end of his Poems on several occasions. In the same year, he published in London a 4to edition of Areopagitica, a speech by Mr. J. Milton advocating for the freedom of unlicensed printing, addressed to the Parliament of England.
In 1645 his Juvenile Poems were printed at London, and about this time his zeal for the republican party had so far recommended him, that a design was formed of making him adjutant-general in Sir William Waller's army; but the new modelling the army proved an obstruction to that advancement. Soon after the march of Fairfax and Cromwell with the whole army through the city, in order to suppress the insurrection which Brown and Massey were endeavouring to raise there, against the army's proceedings, he left his great house in Barbican, for a smaller in High Holborn, where he prosecuted his studies till after the King's trial and death, when he published his Tenure of Kings [119] and Magistrates: His Observations on the Articles of peace between James Earl of Ormond for King Charles I. on the one hand, and the Irish Rebels and Papists on the other hand; and a letter sent by Ormond to colonel Jones governor of Dublin; and a representation of the Scotch Presbytery at Belfast in Ireland.
In 1645, his Juvenile Poems were published in London, and around this time, his enthusiasm for the republican party had gained him enough recognition that there was a plan to make him adjutant-general in Sir William Waller's army. However, the reorganization of the army blocked that advancement. Shortly after Fairfax and Cromwell marched the whole army through the city to suppress the rebellion that Brown and Massey were trying to incite against the army's actions, he moved from his large house in Barbican to a smaller one in High Holborn, where he continued his studies until after the King's trial and execution. Then, he published his Tenure of Kings [119] and Magistrates: His Observations on the Articles of peace between James Earl of Ormond for King Charles I on one side, and the Irish Rebels and Papists on the other; along with a letter sent by Ormond to Colonel Jones, the governor of Dublin; and a representation from the Scottish Presbytery in Belfast, Ireland.
He was now admitted into the service of the Commonwealth, and was made Latin Secretary to the Council of State, who resolved neither to write nor receive letters but in the Latin tongue, which was common to all states.
He was now accepted into the service of the Commonwealth and appointed as Latin Secretary to the Council of State, who decided to only write or receive letters in Latin, which was a common language among all states.
'And it were to be wished,' says Dr. Newton, 'that succeeding Princes would follow their example, for in the opinion of very wise men, the universality of the French language will make way for the universality of the French Monarchy. Milton was perhaps the first instance of a blind man's possessing the place of a secretary; which no doubt was a great inconvenience to him in his business, tho' sometimes a political use might be made of it, as men's natural infirmities are often pleaded in excuse for their not doing what they have no great inclination to do. Dr. Newton relates an instance of this. When Cromwell, as we may collect from Whitlocke, for some reasons delayed artfully to sign the treaty concluded with Sweden, and the Swedish ambassador made frequent complaints of it, it was excused to him, because Milton on account of his blindness, proceeded slower in business, and had not yet put the articles of treaty into Latin. Upon which the ambassador was greatly surprized that things of such consequence should be entrusted to a blind man; for he must necessarily employ an amanuensis, and that amanuensis might divulge the articles; and said, it was very wonderful there should be only one man in [120] England who could write Latin, and he a blind one.'
'It would be great,' says Dr. Newton, 'if future Princes followed their example, since many wise people believe that the widespread use of the French language will lead to the spread of the French Monarchy. Milton might have been the first blind person to serve as a secretary, which surely caused him some difficulties in his work, although sometimes it could be politically advantageous, as people often use natural limitations as an excuse for not wanting to do something. Dr. Newton shares an example of this. When Cromwell, as we can gather from Whitlocke, cleverly delayed signing the treaty with Sweden for certain reasons, the Swedish ambassador complained about the delay. It was explained to him that Milton, due to his blindness, worked more slowly and hadn't yet translated the treaty articles into Latin. The ambassador was quite shocked that such important matters were assigned to a blind man, as he would have to rely on a secretary, who could leak the information. He remarked that it was astonishing there was only one person in [120] England who could write Latin, and that he was blind.'
Thus we have seen Milton raised to the dignity of Latin Secretary. It is somewhat strange, that in times of general confusion, when a man of parts has the fairest opportunity to play off his abilities to advantage, that Milton did not rise sooner, nor to a greater elevation; he was employed by those in authority only as a writer, which conferred no power upon him, and kept him in a kind of obscurity, who had from nature all that was proper for the field as well as the cabinet; for we are assured that Milton was a man of confirmed courage.
Thus we have seen Milton promoted to the position of Latin Secretary. It's somewhat strange that during a time of widespread confusion, when a talented person has the best chance to showcase their abilities, Milton didn't rise sooner or achieve a higher position; he was employed by those in power only as a writer, which gave him no real authority and kept him somewhat obscure, even though he naturally possessed all the qualities suited for both the battlefield and the government. It's acknowledged that Milton was a person of solid courage.
In 1651 our author published his Pro Populo Anglicano Defensio, for which he was rewarded by the Commonwealth with a present of a thousand pounds, and had a considerable hand in correcting and polishing a piece written by his nephew Mr. John Philips, and printed at London 1652, under this title, Joannis Philippi Angli Responsio ad Apologiam Anonymi cujusdam Tenebrionis pro Rege & Populo Anglicano infantissimam. During the writing and publishing this book, he lodged at one Thomson's, next door to the Bull-head tavern Charing-Cross; but he soon removed to a Garden-house in Petty-France, next door to lord Scudamore's, where he remained from the year 1652 till within a few weeks of the Restoration. In this house, his first wife dying in child-bed, 1652, he married a second, Catherine, the daughter of Captain Woodcock of Hackney, who died of a consumption in three months after she had been brought to bed of a daughter. This second marriage was about two or three years after he had been wholly deprived of his sight; for by reason of his continual studies, and the head-ache, to which he was subject from his youth, and his perpetual tampering with physic, [121] his eyes had been decaying for twelve years before.
In 1651, our author published his *Pro Populo Anglicano Defensio*, for which he was rewarded by the Commonwealth with a gift of a thousand pounds. He also played a significant role in correcting and refining a work written by his nephew, Mr. John Philips, which was printed in London in 1652 under the title *Joannis Philippi Angli Responsio ad Apologiam Anonymi cujusdam Tenebrionis pro Rege & Populo Anglicano infantissimam*. While writing and publishing this book, he stayed at a place owned by someone named Thomson, next door to the Bull-head tavern at Charing-Cross. However, he soon moved to a garden house in Petty-France, next to Lord Scudamore's, where he lived from 1652 until just weeks before the Restoration. In this house, his first wife died in childbirth in 1652, and he then married a second time to Catherine, the daughter of Captain Woodcock from Hackney, who tragically died of consumption just three months after giving birth to a daughter. This second marriage took place about two or three years after he had completely lost his sight; due to his constant studying and the headaches he had suffered from since childhood, along with his ongoing experimentation with medicine, his eyes had been deteriorating for twelve years prior.
In 1654 he published his Defensio Secunda; and the year following his Defensio pro Se. Being now at ease from his state adversaries, and political controversies, he had leisure again to prosecute his own studies, and private designs, particularly his History of Britain, and his new Thesaurus Linguæ Latinæ according to the method of Robert Stevens, the manuscript of which contained three large volumes in folio, and has been made use of by the editors of the Cambridge Dictionary, printed 4to, 1693.
In 1654, he published his Defensio Secunda; and the following year, his Defensio pro Se. Now free from his political opponents and controversies, he had the time to dive back into his studies and personal projects, particularly his History of Britain and his new Thesaurus Linguæ Latinæ based on Robert Stevens' method. The manuscript consisted of three large folio volumes and was later used by the editors of the Cambridge Dictionary, published in 1693 in quarto format.
In 1658 he published Sir Walter Raleigh's Cabinet Council; and in 1659 a Treatise of the Civil Power in Ecclesiastical Causes, Lond. 12mo. and Considerations touching the likeliest Means to remove Hirelings out of the Church; wherein are also Discourses of Tithes, Church-fees, Church-Revenues, and whether any Maintenance of Ministers can be settled in Law, Lond. 1659, 12mo.
In 1658, he published Sir Walter Raleigh's Cabinet Council; and in 1659, a Treatise on the Civil Power in Ecclesiastical Matters, London, 12mo, along with Considerations on the Best Ways to Remove Hirelings from the Church; which also includes Discussions on Tithes, Church Fees, Church Revenues, and whether any Support for Ministers can be Established by Law, London, 1659, 12mo.
Upon the dissolution of the Parliament by the army, after Richard Cromwell had been obliged to resign the Protectorship, Milton wrote a letter, in which he lays down the model of a commonwealth; not such as he judged the best, but what might be the readiest settled at that time, to prevent the restoration of kingly government and domestic disorders till a more favourable season, and better dispositions for erecting a perfect democracy. He drew up likewise another piece to the same purpose, which seems to have been addressed to general Monk; and he published in February 1659, his ready and easy way to establish a free Commonwealth. Soon after this he published his brief notes upon a late sermon, entitled, the Fear of God and the King, printed in 4to, Lond. 1660. Just before the restoration he was removed from his office [122] of Latin secretary, and concealed himself till the act of oblivion was published; by the advice of his friends he absconded till the event of public affairs should direct him what course to take, for this purpose he retired to a friend's house in Bartholomew-Close, near West-Smithfield, till the general amnesty was declared.
When the army dissolved Parliament after Richard Cromwell was forced to resign as Protector, Milton wrote a letter outlining a model for a commonwealth. He didn't propose what he thought was the best option but what could be established quickly at that moment to prevent the return of monarchy and internal conflicts until a better time and conditions for creating a complete democracy arose. He also wrote another piece for the same purpose, which seems to have been directed to General Monk, and in February 1659, he published his straightforward guide to establishing a free Commonwealth. Shortly after, he released his brief notes on a recent sermon titled "The Fear of God and the King," printed in 4to, Lond. 1660. Just before the restoration, he lost his position as Latin secretary and went into hiding until the act of oblivion was announced. On the advice of his friends, he stayed away until the state of public affairs would indicate what steps to take, so he retreated to a friend's home in Bartholomew-Close, near West-Smithfield, until the general amnesty was proclaimed.
The act of oblivion, says Mr. Phillips, proving as favourable to him, as could be hoped or expected, through the intercession of some that stood his friends both in Council and Parliament; particularly in the House of Commons, Mr. Andrew Marvel member for Hull, and who has prefixed a copy of verses before his Paradise Lost, acted vigorously in his behalf, and made a considerable party for him, so that together with John Goodwin of Coleman-Street, he was only so far excepted as not to bear any office in the Commonwealth; but as this is one of the most important circumstances in the life of our author, we shall give an account of it at large, from Mr. Richardson, in his life of Milton, prefixed to his Explanatory Notes, and Remarks on Paradise Lost.
The act of forgetting, Mr. Phillips says, turned out to be more beneficial for him than he could have hoped for, thanks to the support of some friends in both the Council and Parliament. Notably, in the House of Commons, Mr. Andrew Marvel, the representative for Hull, who included a poem before his work Paradise Lost, worked vigorously on his behalf and rallied significant support for him. As a result, along with John Goodwin from Coleman-Street, he was only excluded from holding any office in the Commonwealth. Since this is one of the most significant events in our author's life, we will provide a detailed account of it from Mr. Richardson, in his biography of Milton, which is included before his Explanatory Notes and Remarks on Paradise Lost.
His words are
His words are
'That Milton escaped is well known, but not how. By the accounts we have, he was by the Act of Indemnity only incapacitated for any public employment. This is a notorious mistake, though Toland, the bishop of Sarum, Fenton, &c, have gone into it, confounding him with Goodwin; their cases were very different, as I found upon enquiry. Not to take a matter of this importance upon trust, I had first recourse to the Act itself. Milton is not among the excepted. If he was so conditionally pardoned, it must then be, by a particular instrument. That [123] could not be after he had been purified entirely by the general indemnity, nor was it likely the King, who had declared from Breda, he would pardon all but whom the Parliament should judge unworthy of it, and had thus lodged the matter with them, should, before they came to a determination, bestow a private act of indulgence to one so notorious as Milton. It is true, Rapin says, several principal republicans applied for mercy, while the Act was yet depending, but quotes no authority; and upon search, no such pardon appears on record, though many are two or three years after, but then they are without restrictions; some people were willing to have a particular, as well as a general pardon; but whatever was the case of others, there was a reason besides what has been already noted, that no such favour would be shewn to Milton. The House of Commons, June 16, 1660, vote the King to be moved to call in his two books, and that of John Goodwin, written in justification of the murder of the King, in order to be burnt, and that the Attorney General do proceed against them by indictment. June 27, an Order of Council reciting that Vote of the 16th, and that the persons were not to be found, directs a Proclamation for calling in Milton's two books, which are here explained, to be that against Salmasius, and the Eikon Basilike, as also Goodwin's book; and a Proclamation was issued accordingly, and another to the same purpose the 13th of August: as for Goodwin he narrowly escaped for his life, but he was voted to be excepted out of the Act of Indemnity, amongst the twenty designed to have penalties inflicted short of death, and August 27, these books of Milton and Goodwin were burnt by the hangman. The Act of Oblivion, according to Kennet's Register, was passed the 29th. It is seen by this account, that Milton's [124] person and Goodwin's are separated, tho' their books are blended together. As the King's intention appeared to be a pardon to all but actual regicides, as Burnet says, it is odd, he should assert in the same breath, almost all people were surprized that Goodwin and Milton escaped censure. Why should it be so strange, they being not concerned in the King's blood? that he was forgot, as Toland says, some people imagined, is very unlikely. However, it is certain, from what has been shewn from bishop Kennet, he was not. That he should be distinguished from Goodwin, with advantage, will justly appear strange; for his vast merit, as an honest man, a great scholar, and a most excellent writer, and his fame, on that account, will hardly be thought the causes, especially when it is remembered Paradise Lost was not produced, and the writings, on which his vast reputation stood, are now become criminal, and those most, which were the main pillars of his fame. Goodwin was an inconsiderable offender, compared with him; some secret cause must be recurred to in accounting for this indulgence. I have heard that secretary Morrice, and Sir Thomas Clarges were his friends, and managed matters artfully in his favour; doubtless they, or some body else did, and they very probably, as being powerful friends at that time. But still how came they to put their interest at such a stretch, in favour of a man so notoriously obnoxious? perplexed, and inquisitive as I was, I at length found the secret. It was Sir William Davenant obtained his remission, in return of his own life, procured by Milton's interest, when himself was under condemnation, Anno 1650. A life was owing to Milton (Davenant's) and it was paid nobly; Milton's for Davenant, at Davenant's intercession. The management of the affair in the house, whether [125] by signifying the King's desire, or otherwise, was, perhaps by those gentlemen named.'
'That Milton escaped is well known, but not how. According to the accounts we have, he was only unable to hold any public office due to the Act of Indemnity. This is a well-known error, even though Toland, the bishop of Sarum, Fenton, and others have mixed him up with Goodwin; their situations were very different, as I discovered upon investigation. Not wanting to take such an important matter on trust, I first referred to the Act itself. Milton is not among those excluded. If he was conditionally pardoned, it would have to be by a specific document. That could not happen after he had been fully cleared by the general indemnity, nor was it likely that the King, who had stated from Breda that he would pardon everyone except those the Parliament deemed unworthy, would, before they came to a decision, grant a private act of leniency to someone as notorious as Milton. It's true that Rapin mentions that several prominent republicans sought mercy while the Act was still under consideration, but he provides no source; upon investigation, no such pardon is recorded, though many were granted two or three years later, but those were without conditions. Some people were willing to have both a specific and a general pardon; but whatever the circumstances of others might have been, there was another reason, in addition to what has already been noted, that such favor would not be shown to Milton. On June 16, 1660, the House of Commons voted to ask the King to recall his two books, and that of John Goodwin, written to justify the murder of the King, so they could be burned, and that the Attorney General should proceed against them by indictment. On June 27, an Order of Council, referring to the vote of the 16th and stating that the individuals could not be found, directed a Proclamation for recalling Milton's two books, which are here specified as the one against Salmasius and the Eikon Basilike, along with Goodwin's book; a Proclamation was issued accordingly, with another for the same purpose on August 13. As for Goodwin, he narrowly escaped with his life, but he was voted to be excluded from the Act of Indemnity, among the twenty designated to have penalties imposed short of death, and on August 27, these books of Milton and Goodwin were burned by the hangman. According to Kennet's Register, the Act of Oblivion was passed on the 29th. From this account, it can be seen that Milton’s case and Goodwin’s are treated separately, though their books are grouped together. Since the King's intention seemed to be to grant a pardon to all except actual regicides, as Burnet states, it's odd that he would claim in the same breath that almost everyone was surprised that Goodwin and Milton escaped censure. Why should it be strange that they were not involved in the King's death? That he was forgotten, as Toland suggests, seems very unlikely. However, it is clear, from what has been shown from Bishop Kennet, that he was not. It would seem strange that he should be treated differently from Goodwin, as Milton's great merits as an honest man, a brilliant scholar, and an outstanding writer, and his fame based on that, wouldn't be considered the reasons, especially since it is remembered that Paradise Lost had not yet been published and the writings on which his considerable reputation rested have now become problematic, particularly those that were the main supports of his fame. Goodwin was a minor offender in comparison to him; some hidden reason must be referenced to explain this leniency. I've heard that Secretary Morrice and Sir Thomas Clarges were his friends and skillfully managed the situation in his favor; undoubtedly, they, or someone else, did, and they were likely powerful allies at that time. But still, how did they come to stretch their influence so far for someone so notoriously disliked? As puzzled and curious as I was, I eventually discovered the secret. It was Sir William Davenant who secured his pardon, in exchange for his own life, which was obtained through Milton's influence when he himself was under condemnation in 1650. A life was owed to Milton (Davenant's), and it was nobly repaid; Milton's for Davenant at Davenant's request. The management of the affair in the house, whether by signifying the King’s desire or otherwise, was perhaps handled by those gentlemen mentioned.'
This account Mr. Richardson had from Mr. Pope, who was informed of it by Betterton, the celebrated actor, who was first brought upon the stage by Sir William Davenant, and honoured with an intimacy with him, so that no better authority need be produced to support any fact.
This account Mr. Richardson got from Mr. Pope, who heard it from Betterton, the famous actor, who was introduced to the stage by Sir William Davenant and had a close friendship with him, so no better authority is needed to back up any fact.
Milton being secured by his pardon, appeared again in public, and removed to Jewin street, where he married his third wife, Elizabeth, the daughter of Mr. Minshul of Cheshire, recommended to him by his friend Dr. Paget, to whom he was related, but he had no children by her: soon after the restoration he was offered the place of Latin secretary to the King, which, notwithstanding the importunities of his wife, he refused: we are informed, that when his wife pressed him to comply with the times, and accept the King's offer, he made answer, 'You are in the right, my dear, you, as other women, would ride in your coach; for me, my aim is to live and die an honest man.' Soon after his marriage with his third wife, he removed to a house in the Artillery Walk, leading to Bunhill-fields, where he continued till his death, except during the plague, in 1665, when he retired with his family to St. Giles's Chalfont Buckinghamshire, at which time his Paradise Lost was finished, tho' not published till 1667. Mr. Philips observes, that the subject of that poem was first designed for a tragedy, and in the fourth book of the poem, says he, there are ten verses, which, several years before the poem was begun, were shewn to me, and some others, as designed for the very beginning of the tragedy. The verses are,
Milton, having received his pardon, appeared in public again and moved to Jewin Street, where he married his third wife, Elizabeth, the daughter of Mr. Minshul from Cheshire, who was recommended to him by his friend Dr. Paget, to whom he was related. However, they had no children together. Soon after the restoration, he was offered the position of Latin secretary to the King, which he refused despite his wife's persistent urging. It is said that when his wife insisted he go along with the times and accept the King's offer, he replied, "You’re right, my dear; like other women, you would want to ride in your coach. For me, my goal is to live and die as an honest man." Shortly after marrying his third wife, he moved to a house on Artillery Walk, leading to Bunhill Fields, where he lived until his death, except during the plague in 1665 when he took his family to St. Giles's Chalfont in Buckinghamshire. During that time, he finished Paradise Lost, although it wasn't published until 1667. Mr. Philips notes that the poem's subject was initially intended for a tragedy, and in the fourth book of the poem, he mentions there are ten lines that were shown to him and others several years before the poem began, intended for the very start of the tragedy. The lines are,
O thou that with surpassing glory crown'd
Look'st from thy sole dominion like the god,
Of this new world; at whose sight all the stars
[126]
Hide their diminish'd heads; to thee I call,
But with no friendly voice, and add thy name,
O Sun, to tell thee how I hate thy beams,
Which brings to my remembrance, from what state
I fell; how glorious once above thy sphere,
'Till pride, and worse ambition, threw me down,
Warring in Heaven, 'gainst Heav'ns matchless King.
O you who are crowned with unmatched glory
Look out from your sole dominion like a god,
Over this new world; at whose sight all the stars
[126]
Hide their diminished heads; to you I call,
But not with a friendly voice, and add your name,
O Sun, to tell you how much I despise your light,
Which reminds me of the state
From which I fell; how glorious I once was above your sphere,
Until pride, and worse ambition, brought me down,
Fighting in Heaven, against Heaven's unmatched King.
Mr. Philips further observes, that there was a very remarkable circumstance in the composure of Paradise Lost, which, says he, 'I have particular reason to remember, for whereas I had the perusal of it from the very beginning, for some years, as I went from time to time to visit him, in a parcel of ten, twenty, or thirty verses at a time, which being written by whatever hand came next, might possibly want correction, as to the orthography and pointing; having, as the summer came on, not been shewn any for a considerable while, and desiring the reason thereof, was answered, that his vein never happily flowed but from the autumnal equinox to the vernal, and that whatever he attempted at other times, was never to his satisfaction, though he courted his fancy never so much; so that in all the years he was about his poem, he may be said to have spent but half his time therein.'[3] Mr. Toland imagines that Mr. Philips must be mistaken in regard to the time, since Milton, in his Latin Elegy upon the Approach of the Spring, declares the contrary, and that his poetic talent returned with the spring. This is a point, as it is not worth contending, so it never can be settled; no poet ever yet could tell when the poetic vein would flow; and as no man can make verses, unless the inclination be present, so no man, can [127] be certain how long it will continue, for if there is any inspiration now amongst men, it is that which the poet feels, at least the sudden starts, and flashes of fancy bear a strong resemblance to the idea we form of inspiration.
Mr. Philips notes that there was a very interesting detail about the creation of Paradise Lost, which he says, "I have a specific reason to remember. I was fortunate enough to read it from the beginning over several years when I visited him. I would get ten, twenty, or thirty verses at a time, which, since they were written by whoever was next available, might have needed correction in terms of spelling and punctuation. As summer approached and I hadn't seen any new verses for quite a while, I asked why. I was told that his creativity only flowed well between the autumnal equinox and the vernal equinox, and that anything he tried to write outside that period never met his satisfaction, no matter how much he tried to inspire himself. So, during all those years he worked on his poem, he essentially spent only half of that time actually writing it." [3] Mr. Toland believes Mr. Philips must be mistaken about the timing, since Milton, in his Latin elegy about the arrival of spring, suggests the opposite, claiming his poetic talent returned with spring. This point isn't worth arguing, as it can never truly be resolved; no poet has ever been able to predict when their creative impulse will strike. Just as no one can force themselves to write poetry without the right urge, no one can be sure how long that inspiration will last. If there is any spark of inspiration among people today, it’s what poets experience—the sudden surges and flashes of creativity strongly resemble the idea we have of inspiration.
Mr. Richardson has informed us, 'that when Milton dictated, he used to sit leaning backwards obliquely in an easy chair, with his legs flung over the elbows of it; that he frequently composed lying a-bed in a morning, and that when he could not sleep, but lay awake whole nights, he tried, but not one verse could he make; at other times flowed easy his unpremeditated verse, with a certain Impetus as himself used to believe; then at what hour soever, he rung for his daughter to secure what came. I have been also told he would dictate many, perhaps 40 lines in a breath, and then reduce them to half the number.' I would not omit, says Mr. Richardson, the least circumstance; these indeed are trifles, but even such contract a sort of greatness, when related to what is great.
Mr. Richardson has informed us that when Milton dictated, he would sit back in an easy chair, with his legs thrown over the arms. He often composed lying in bed in the morning, and when he couldn’t sleep and lay awake for whole nights, he tried to write, but he couldn’t come up with a single verse. At other times, his spontaneous verses flowed easily, driven by a certain impulse that he believed in. Whenever inspiration struck, he would ring for his daughter to capture the words. I’ve also been told he could dictate many lines, perhaps 40 in one go, and then cut them down to half that amount. Mr. Richardson mentioned that he wouldn’t overlook any detail; these may seem like small things, but even they take on a certain significance when connected to something great.
After the work was ready for the press, it was near being suppressed by the ignorance, or malice of the licenser, who, among other trivial objections, imagined there was treason in that noble simile, b. i. v. 594—
After the work was ready for printing, it almost got blocked by the ignorance or ill will of the licenser, who, among other petty objections, thought there was treason in that noble comparison, b. i. v. 594—
—As when the sun new ris'n
Looks thro' the horizontal misty air,
Shorn of his beams; or from behind the moon,
In dim eclipse, disastrous twilight sheds
On half the nations, and with fear of change
Perplexes monarchs.
—As when the sun has just risen
Looks through the low, misty air,
Cut off from its rays; or from behind the moon,
In a dim eclipse, casting a gloomy twilight
Over half the nations, and with fear of change
Confuses monarchs.
The ignorance of this licenser, in objecting to this noble simile, has indeed perpetuated his name, but it is with no advantage; he, no doubt, imagined, that Perplexes Monarchs was levelled against the reigning Prince, which is, perhaps, the [128] highest simile in our language; how ridiculously will people talk who are blinded by prejudice, or heated by party. But to return: After Milton had finished this noble work of genius, which does honour to human nature, he disposed of it to a Bookseller for the small price of fifteen pounds; under such prejudice did he then labour, and the payment of the fifteen pounds was to depend upon the sale of two numerous impressions. This engagement with his Bookseller proves him extremely ignorant of that sort of business, for he might be well assured, that if two impressions sold, a great deal of money must be returned, and how he could dispose of it thus conditionally for fifteen pounds, appears strange; but while it proves Milton's ignorance, or inattention about his interest in this affair, it, at the same time, demonstrates the Bookseller's honesty; for he could not be ignorant what money would be got by two numerous editions. After this great work was published, however, it lay some time in obscurity, and had the Bookseller advanced the sum stipulated, he would have had reason to repent of his bargain. It was generally reported, that the late lord Somers first gave Paradise Lost a reputation; but Mr. Richardson observes, that it was known and esteemed long before there was such a man as lord Somers, as appears by a pompous edition of it printed by subscription in 1688, where, amongst the list of Subscribers, are the names of lord Dorset, Waller, Dryden, Sir Robert Howard, Duke, Creech, Flatman, Dr. Aldrich, Mr. Atterbury, Sir Roger L'Estrange, lord Somers, then only John Somers, esq; Mr. Richardson further informs us, that he was told by Sir George Hungerford, an ancient Member of Parliament, that Sir John Denham came into the House one morning with a sheet of Paradise Lost, wet from the press, in his hand, and being asked what he [129] was reading? he answered, part of the noblest poem that ever was written in any language, or in any age; however, it is certain that the book was unknown till about two years after, when the earl of Dorset recommended it, as appears from the following story related to Mr. Richardson, by Dr. Tancred Robinson, an eminent physician in London, who was informed by Sir Fleetwood Sheppard, 'that the earl, in company with that gentleman, looking over some books in Little Britain, met with Paradise Lost; and being surprized with some passages in turning it over, bought it. The Bookseller desired his lordship to speak in its favour, since he liked it, as the impression lay on his hands as waste paper. The earl having read the poem, sent it to Mr. Dryden, who, in a short time, returned it with this answer: This man cuts us all, and the ancients too.'
The ignorance of this censor, who objected to this great comparison, has indeed kept his name alive, but not to any benefit; he probably thought that Perplexes Monarchs was aimed at the current Prince, which is possibly the [128] highest comparison in our language. How foolish people sound when they are blinded by bias or fueled by their political views. But to get back on track: After Milton completed this remarkable work of genius, which honors humanity, he sold it to a Bookseller for the small amount of fifteen pounds; he was under such bias at that time, and the payment of the fifteen pounds depended on the sale of two large print runs. This deal with his Bookseller shows he was quite unaware of that type of business, since he should have known that if two editions sold, a lot of money would come back. It seems odd he could sell it conditionally for fifteen pounds, but while it shows Milton's ignorance or lack of attention to his interests in this matter, it simultaneously proves the Bookseller's integrity; for he must have known how much money could be earned from two large editions. After this significant work was published, however, it remained somewhat unknown for a while, and if the Bookseller had paid the agreed amount upfront, he would have had reasons to regret his deal. It was commonly said that the late Lord Somers was the one who gave Paradise Lost its fame; but Mr. Richardson points out that it was known and appreciated long before Lord Somers existed, as shown by a lavish edition printed by subscription in 1688, which included names like Lord Dorset, Waller, Dryden, Sir Robert Howard, Duke, Creech, Flatman, Dr. Aldrich, Mr. Atterbury, Sir Roger L'Estrange, and Lord Somers, who was then just John Somers, Esq. Mr. Richardson also tells us that Sir George Hungerford, a long-time Member of Parliament, informed him that Sir John Denham walked into the House one morning with a fresh copy of Paradise Lost in hand, and when asked what he was reading, he replied, part of the noblest poem ever written in any language, or any time; however, it’s clear that the book was mostly unknown until about two years later, when the Earl of Dorset recommended it. This is evident from a story told to Mr. Richardson by Dr. Tancred Robinson, a well-known physician in London, who learned from Sir Fleetwood Sheppard that the Earl, while with that gentleman browsing through some books in Little Britain, came across Paradise Lost and, surprised by some passages, bought it. The Bookseller asked the Earl to endorse it, since he liked it, as the stock just sat there like waste paper. After reading the poem, the Earl sent it to Mr. Dryden, who soon returned it with this reply: This man surpasses us all, even the ancients.
Critics have differed as to the source from which our author drew the first hint of writing Paradise Lost; Peck conjectures that it was from a celebrated Spanish Romance called Guzman, and Dr. Zachary Pearce, now bishop of Bangor, has alledged, that he took the first hint of it from an Italian Tragedy, called Il Paradiso Perso, still extant, and printed many years before he entered on his design. Mr. Lauder in his Essay on Milton's Use and Imitation of the Moderns, has insinuated that Milton's first hint of Paradise Lost, was taken from a Tragedy of the celebrated Grotius, called Adamus Exul, and that Milton has not thought it beneath him to transplant some of that author's beauties into his noble work, as well as some other flowers culled from the gardens of inferior genius's; but by an elegance of art, and force of nature, peculiar to him, he has drawn the admiration of the world upon passages, which in their original authors, stood neglected and undistinguished. If at any time he has adopted a sentiment of a cotemporary poet, [130] it deserves another name than plagiary; for, as Garth expresses it, in the case of Dryden, who was charged with plagiary, that, like ladies of quality who borrow beggars children, it is only to cloath them the better, and we know no higher compliment could have been paid to these moderns, than that of Milton's doing them the honour to peruse them, for, like a Prince's accepting a present from a subject, the glory is reflected on him who offers the gift, not on the Monarch who accepts it. But as Mr. Lauder's book has lately made so great a noise in the world, we must beg leave to be a little more particular.
Critics have disagreed about the source from which our author got the initial inspiration for writing Paradise Lost. Peck suggests it was from a famous Spanish romance called Guzman, and Dr. Zachary Pearce, now the bishop of Bangor, has claimed that the first inspiration came from an Italian tragedy called Il Paradiso Perso, which still exists and was printed long before he started his project. Mr. Lauder, in his essay on Milton's use and imitation of moderns, implied that Milton's first hint for Paradise Lost came from a tragedy by the well-known Grotius called Adamus Exul, and that Milton did not shy away from incorporating some of that author's brilliance into his great work, as well as some ideas taken from lesser talents. However, through his distinctive artistic style and natural force, he has attracted the world's admiration to passages that, in their original authors, were overlooked and unrecognized. If he ever adopted a sentiment from a contemporary poet, [130] it deserves a different term than plagiarism; as Garth puts it, in the case of Dryden, who was accused of plagiarism, like ladies of high society who take in beggars' children, it’s only to dress them up better, and we see no greater compliment could be paid to these moderns than Milton honoring them by reading their work; for, just as a prince accepting a gift from a subject reflects glory on the giver, not the monarch receiving it. But since Mr. Lauder's book has recently caused quite a stir in the world, we should like to be a bit more specific.
Had Mr. Lauder pursued his plan of disclosing Milton's resources, and tracing his steps through the vast tracts of erudition that our author travelled, with candour and dispassionateness, the design would have been noble and useful; he then would have produced authors into light who were before unknown; have recommended sacred poetry, and it would have been extreamly pleasing to have followed Milton over all his classic ground, and seen where the noblest genius of the world thought proper to pluck a flower, and by what art he was able to rear upon the foundation of nature so magnificent, so astonishing a fabric: but in place of that, Mr. Lauder suffers himself to be overcome by his passion, and instead of tracing him as a man of taste, and extensive reading, he hunts him like a malefactor, and seems to be determined on his execution.
Had Mr. Lauder gone ahead with his plan to reveal Milton's sources and follow his journey through the vast areas of knowledge that our author explored, with honesty and objectivity, the effort would have been commendable and beneficial; he would have brought to light authors who were previously unknown, promoted sacred poetry, and it would have been extremely enjoyable to track Milton across all his classic influences, seeing where the greatest minds in the world chose to draw inspiration and how he skillfully built such a magnificent and astonishing work on the foundation of nature. Instead, Mr. Lauder allows his emotions to take over, and instead of depicting him as a man of taste and extensive reading, he pursues him like a criminal and seems intent on his downfall.
Mr. Lauder could never separate the idea of the author of Paradise Lost, and the enemy of King Charles. Lauder has great reading, but greater ill nature; and Mr. Douglas has shewn how much his evidence is invalidated by some interpolations which Lauder has since owned. It is pity so much classical knowledge should have been thus prostituted by [131] Lauder, which might have been of service to his country; but party-zeal seldom knows any bounds. The ingenious Moses Brown, speaking of this man's furious attack upon Milton, has the following pretty stanza.
Mr. Lauder could never separate the idea of the author of Paradise Lost from that of the enemy of King Charles. Lauder has extensive reading, but even greater ill nature; and Mr. Douglas has shown how much his evidence is undermined by some changes Lauder has since admitted to. It's a shame that so much classical knowledge has been so wasted by [131] Lauder, which could have benefited his country; but zeal for a cause rarely knows any limits. The clever Moses Brown, referring to this man's furious attack on Milton, has the following nice stanza.
The Owl will hoot that cannot sing,
Spite will displume the muse's wing,
Tho' Phœbus self applaud her;
Still Homer bleeds in Zoilus' page
A Virgil 'scaped not the Mævius' rage,
And Milton has his Lauder.[4]
The owl will hoot that can't sing,
Spite will strip the muse's wings,
Even if Phoebus praises her;
Still, Homer suffers in Zoilus' writings,
A Virgil didn't escape Mævius' anger,
And Milton has his Lauder.[4]
But if Lauder is hot and furious, his passion soon subsides. Upon hearing that the grand-daughter of Milton was living, in an obscure situation in Shoreditch, he readily embraced the opportunity, in his postscript, of recommending her to the public favour; upon which, some gentlemen affected with the singularity of the circumstance, and ashamed that our country should suffer the grand-daughter of one from whom it derives its most lasting and brightest honour, to languish neglected, procured Milton's Comus to be performed for her benefit at Drury Lane, on the 5th of April, 1750: upon which, Mr. Garrick spoke a Prologue written by a gentleman, who zealously promoted the benefit, and who, at this time, holds the highest rank in literature.
But if Lauder is heated and furious, his passion quickly cools. When he learns that Milton's granddaughter is living in an obscure situation in Shoreditch, he eagerly takes the chance to recommend her to the public in his postscript. Some gentlemen, touched by the uniqueness of the situation and embarrassed that our country allows the granddaughter of such a prominent figure, from whom it gets its most enduring and brilliant honor, to fade into obscurity, arranged for Milton's Comus to be performed for her benefit at Drury Lane on April 5, 1750. During this event, Mr. Garrick delivered a prologue written by a gentleman who passionately supported the benefit and who, at that time, held the highest status in literature.
This prologue will not, we are persuaded, be unacceptable to our readers.
This prologue will, we believe, be acceptable to our readers.
[132] A Prologue spoken by Mr. Garrick, Thursday, April 5, 1750. at the Representation of COMUS, for the Benefit of Mrs. Elizabeth Foster, MILTON's Grand-daughter, and only surviving descendant.
[132] A Prologue delivered by Mr. Garrick, Thursday, April 5, 1750, at the performance of COMUS, to benefit Mrs. Elizabeth Foster, Milton's granddaughter, and only surviving descendant.
Ye patriot crouds, who burn for England's fame,
Ye nymphs, whose bosoms beat at Milton's name,
Whose gen'rous zeal, unbought by flatt'ring rhimes,
Shames the mean pensions of Augustan times;
Immortal patrons of succeeding days,
Attend this prelude of perpetual praise!
Let wit, condemn'd the feeble war to wage
With close malevolence, or public rage;
Let study, worn with virtue's fruitless lore,
Behold this theatre, and grieve no more.
This night, distinguish'd by your smile, shall tell,
That never Briton can in vain excel;
The slighted arts futurity shall trust,
And rising ages hasten to be just.
You patriotic crowds, who are passionate about England's glory,
You nymphs, whose hearts beat at Milton's name,
Whose generous spirit, not bought by flattering rhymes,
Shames the petty pensions of the Augustan era;
Immortal supporters of future generations,
Join in this introduction of everlasting praise!
Let wit, condemned to fight a weak battle
With hidden malice or public anger;
Let study, exhausted by virtue's fruitless efforts,
Look at this stage, and no longer be saddened.
This night, marked by your presence, will show,
That no Briton can fail to shine;
The undervalued arts will be trusted by future generations,
And rising ages will move quickly to be fair.
At length our mighty bard's victorious lays
Fill the loud voice of universal praise,
And baffled spite, with hopeless anguish dumb,
Yields to renown the centuries to come.
With ardent haste, each candidate of fame
Ambitious catches at his tow'ring name:
He sees, and pitying sees, vain wealth bestow:
Those pageant honours which he scorn'd below;
While crowds aloft the laureat dust behold,
Or trace his form on circulating gold.
Unknown, unheeded, long his offspring lay,
And want hung threat'ning o'er her slow decay.
[133]
What tho' she shine with no Miltonian fire,
No fav'ring muse her morning dreams inspire;
Yet softer claims the melting heart engage,
Her youth laborious, and her blameless age:
Hers the mild merits of domestic life,
The patient suff'rer, and the faithful wife.
Thus grac'd with humble virtue's native charms
Her grandsire leaves her in Britannia's arms,
Secure with peace, with competence, to dwell,
While tutelary nations guard her cell.
Yours is the charge, ye fair, ye wife, ye brave!
'Tis yours to crown desert—beyond the grave!
Finally, our great poet's triumphant songs
Fill the loud voice of universal praise,
And defeated spite, with hopeless anguish silent,
Gives way to fame for future generations.
With eager urgency, each aspiring person
Ambitiously reaches for his towering name:
He sees, and with pity, sees, empty wealth given:
Those showy honors which he scorned below;
While crowds above witness the dust of the laureate,
Or trace his image on circulating gold.
Unknown and overlooked, for a long time his legacy lay,
And poverty threatened her slow decline.
[133]
What though she doesn’t shine with Milton’s fire,
No favorable muse inspiring her morning dreams;
Yet softer claims engage the melting heart,
Her hard-working youth, and her blameless age:
Hers are the gentle merits of domestic life,
The patient sufferer, and the loyal wife.
Thus graced with the native charms of humble virtue,
Her grandparent leaves her in the embrace of Britannia,
Secure with peace, living with enough,
While protective nations guard her home.
The charge is yours, you fair ones, you wives, you brave!
It’s yours to honor merit—beyond the grave!
In the year 1670 our author published at London in 4to. his History of Britain, that part, especially, now called England, from the first traditional Beginning, continued to the Norman Conquest, collected out of the ancientest and best authors thereof. It is reprinted in the first volume of Dr. Kennet's compleat History of England. Mr. Toland in his Life of Milton, page 43, observes, that we have not this history as it came out of his hands, for the licensers, those sworn officers to destroy learning, liberty, and good sense, expunged several passages of it, wherein he exposed the superstition, pride, and cunning of the Popish monks in the Saxon times, but applied by the sagacious licensers to Charles IId's bishops. In 1681 a considerable passage which had been suppressed in the publication of this history, was printed at London in 4to under this title. Mr. John Milton's character of the Long Parliament and Assembly of Divines in 1651, omitted in his other works, and never before printed. It is reported, and from the foregoing character it appears probable, that Mr. Milton had lent most of his personal estate upon the public faith, which when he somewhat earnestly pressed to have restored, after a long, and chargeable attendance, met with very sharp rebbukes; [134] upon which, at last despairing of any success in this affair, he was forced to return from them poor and friendless, having spent all his money, and wearied all those who espoused his cause, and he had not, probably, mended his circumstances in those days, but by performing such service for them, as afterwards he did, for which scarce any thing would appear too great. In 1671 he published at London in 8vo. Paradise Regained, a Poem in four Books, to which is added Sampson Agonistes: there is not a stronger proof of human weakness, than Milton's preferring this Poem of Paradise Regained, to Paradise Lost, and it is a natural and just observation, that the Messiah in Paradise Regained, with all his meekness, unaffected dignity, and clear reasoning, makes not so great a figure, as when in the Paradise Lost he appears cloathed in the Terrors of Almighty vengeance, wielding the thunder of Heaven, and riding along the sky in the chariot of power, drawn, as Milton greatly expresses it, 'with Four Cherubic Shapes; when he comes drest in awful Majesty, and hurls the apostate spirits headlong into the fiery gulph of bottomless perdition, there to dwell in adamantine chains and penal fire, who durst defy the Omnipotent to arms.'
In 1670, our author published his History of Britain in London, particularly focusing on what we now call England, from its earliest traditional beginnings up to the Norman Conquest, drawing from the oldest and best sources. It’s reprinted in the first volume of Dr. Kennet's complete History of England. Mr. Toland, in his Life of Milton, page 43, notes that we don’t have this history as it was originally written, because the censors, those sworn to eliminate learning, freedom, and common sense, removed several sections where he criticized the superstitions, pride, and cunning of the Catholic monks during the Saxon era, which were wrongly attributed by the clever censors to the bishops of Charles II. In 1681, a significant section that had been left out of the original publication was printed in London under the title Mr. John Milton's character of the Long Parliament and Assembly of Divines in 1651, which was omitted from his other works and had never been printed before. It’s said, and it seems likely from the preceding character, that Mr. Milton had invested most of his personal wealth based on the public good, which, when he earnestly sought to have returned, resulted in harsh rebukes after lengthy and costly efforts. Eventually, feeling hopeless about any success in this matter, he had to return empty-handed and alone, having spent all his money and exhausted the patience of those who supported him. He probably only improved his situation later by performing services for them, for which almost anything would seem too great a cost. In 1671, he published Paradise Regained, a poem in four books, alongside Sampson Agonistes, in 8vo in London. There’s no stronger proof of human frailty than Milton’s preference for Paradise Regained over Paradise Lost, and it’s a fair observation that the Messiah in Paradise Regained, with all his humility, unpretentious dignity, and clear reasoning, doesn’t stand out as much as he does in Paradise Lost, where he is depicted as wielding the terrifying power of Almighty vengeance, controlling the thunder of Heaven and racing across the sky in a chariot of power, which Milton grandly describes as drawn “with Four Cherubic Shapes.” When He approaches in awe-inspiring Majesty, hurling the fallen spirits into the fiery pit of eternal damnation, binding them in unbreakable chains and torturous flames, who dared to challenge the Almighty to battle.
Dr. Newton has dissented from the general opinion of mankind, concerning Paradise Regained: 'Certainly, says he, it is very worthy of the author, and contrary to what Mr. Toland relates, Milton may be seen in Paradise Regained as well as Paradise Lost; if it is inferior in poetry, I know not whether it is inferior in sentiment; if it is less descriptive, it is more argumentative; if it does not sometimes rise so high, neither doth it ever sink below; and it has not met with the approbation it deserves, only because it has not been more read and considered. His subject indeed is confined, and he has a narrow foundation [135] to build upon, but he has raised as noble a superstructure, as such little room, and such scanty materials would allow. The great beauty of it is the contrast between the two characters of the tempter and Our Saviour, the artful sophistry, and specious insinuations of the one, refuted by the strong sense, and manly eloquence of the other.' The first thought of Paradise Regained was owing to Elwood the Quaker, as he himself relates the occasion, in the History of his own Life. When Milton had lent him the manuscript of Paradise Lost at St. Giles's Chalfont, and he returned it, Milton asked him how he liked it, and what he thought of it? 'which I modestly and freely told him (says Elwood) and after some further discourse about it, I pleasantly said to him, thou hast said much of Paradise Lost, but what hast thou to say of a Paradise Found? He made me no answer, but sat some time in a muse, then broke off that discourse, and fell upon another subject.' When Elwood afterwards waited upon him in London, Milton shewed him his Paradise Regained, and in a pleasant tone said to him, 'this is owing to you, for you put it into my head by the question you put me at Chalfont, which before I had not thought of.'
Dr. Newton disagreed with the general view about Paradise Regained: "Certainly," he says, "it truly reflects the author, and contrary to what Mr. Toland claims, Milton can be found in both Paradise Regained and Paradise Lost. If it's not as strong in poetry, I'm not sure it's lacking in sentiment; if it's less descriptive, it's more argumentative. If it doesn’t sometimes reach such great heights, it also never falls below a certain standard; and it hasn’t received the recognition it deserves simply because it hasn't been read and considered enough. His subject is indeed limited, and he has a small foundation to build on, but he has created as noble an edifice as such limited space and minimal materials can allow. The real beauty lies in the contrast between the two characters: the tempter and Our Savior, with the cunning sophistry and deceptive insinuations of the first countered by the strong reasoning and powerful eloquence of the second." The initial idea for Paradise Regained came from Elwood the Quaker, as he describes in his own Life History. When Milton lent him the manuscript of Paradise Lost at St. Giles's Chalfont and he returned it, Milton asked him how he liked it and what he thought. "I modestly and honestly told him," Elwood recounts, "and after some more discussion on it, I jokingly said to him, 'You’ve said a lot about Paradise Lost, but what do you have to say about a Paradise Found?' He didn’t respond, but sat in thought for a while, then changed the subject." Later, when Elwood visited him in London, Milton showed him Paradise Regained and pleasantly said, "This is thanks to you, as your question at Chalfont inspired me, something I hadn’t thought of before."
In the year 1672 he published his Artis Logicæ plenior Institutio ad Rami methodum concinnata, London, in 8vo. and in 1673, a Discourse intitled, Of True Religion, Heresy, Schism, Toleration, and what best Means may be used against the Growth of Popery, London, in 4to. He published likewise the same year, Poems, &c. on several Occasions, both English and Latin, composed at several times, with a small Tractate of Education to Mr. Hartlib, London, 8vo. In 1674 he published his Epistolarum familiarium, lib. i. & Prolusiones quædam Oratoriæ in Collegio Christi habitæ, London, in 8vo and in the same year in [136] 4to. a Declaration of the Letters Patent of the King of Poland, John III. elected on the 22d of May, Anno Dom. 1674, now faithfully translated from the Latin copy. Mr. Wood tells us[5], that Milton was thought to be the author of a piece called the Grand Case of Conscience, concerning the Engagement Stated and Resolved; or a Strict Survey of the Solemn League and Covenant in reference to the present Engagement; but others are of opinion that the stile and manner of writing do not in the least favour that supposition. His State Letters were printed at London 1676 in 12mo. and translated into English, and printed 1694, as his Brief History of Muscovy, and of their less known Countries, lying Eastward of Russia, as far as Cathay, was in 1682 in 8vo. His Historical, Poetical, and Miscellaneous Works were printed in three volumes in folio 1698 at London, though Amsterdam is mentioned in the title page with the life of the author, by Mr. Toland; but the most compleat and elegant edition of his prose works was printed in two volumes in folio at London 1738, by the rev. Mr. Birch, now secretary to the Royal Society, with an Appendix concerning two Dissertations, the first concerning the Author of the ΕΙΚΩΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΙΚΗ, the Portraiture of his sacred Majesty in his solitude and sufferings; and the prayer of Pamela subjoined to several editions of that book; the second concerning the Commission said to be given by King Charles I. in 1641, to the Irish Papists, for taking up arms against the Protestants in Ireland. In this edition the several pieces are disposed according to the order in which they were printed, with the edition of a Latin Tract, omitted by Mr. Toland, concerning the Reasons of the War with Spain in 1655, and several pages in the History of Great Britain, expanged [137] by the licensers of the press, and not to be met with in any former impressions. It perhaps is not my province to make any remarks upon the two grand disputations, that have subsisted between the friends and enemies of Charles I. about the author of the Basilike, and the Commission granted to the Irish Papists; as to the last, the reader, if he pleases, may consult at the Life of Lord Broghill, in which he will find the mystery of iniquity disclosed, and Charles entirely freed from the least appearance of being concerned in granting so execrable a commission; the forgery is there fully related, and there is all the evidence the nature of the thing will admit of, that the King's memory has been injured by so base an imputation. As to the first, it is somewhat difficult to determine, whether his Majesty was or was not the author of these pious Meditations; Mr. Birch has summed up the evidence on both sides; we shall not take upon us to determine on which it preponderates; it will be proper here to observe, the chief evidence against the King in this contention, is, Dr. Gauden, bishop of Exeter, who claimed that book as his, and who, in his letters to the earl of Clarendon, values himself upon it, and becomes troublesomely sollicitous for preferment on that account; he likewise told the two princes that the Basilike was not written by their father, but by him; now one thing is clear, that Gauden was altogether without parts; his Life of Hooker, which is the only genuine and indisputed work of his, shews him a man of no extent of thinking; his stile is loose, and negligently florid, which is diametrically opposite to that of these Meditations. Another circumstance much invalidates his evidence, and diminishes his reputation for honesty. After he had, for a considerable time, professed himself a Protestant, and been in possession of an English bishopric, and discovered an ardent [138] desire of rising in the church, notwithstanding this, he declared himself at his death a Papist; and upon the evidence of such a man, none can determine a point in disputation; for he who durst thus violate his conscience, by the basest hypocrisy, will surely make no great scruple to traduce the memory of his sovereign.
In 1672, he published his Artis Logicæ plenior Institutio ad Rami methodum concinnata, London, in 8vo. In 1673, he released a discourse titled, Of True Religion, Heresy, Schism, Toleration, and what best Means may be used against the Growth of Popery, London, in 4to. That same year, he also published Poems, &c. on several Occasions, both English and Latin, written at various times, along with a small treatise on education for Mr. Hartlib, London, 8vo. In 1674, he published his Epistolarum familiarium, lib. i. & Prolusiones quædam Oratoriæ in Collegio Christi habitæ, London, in 8vo and also in the same year, in [136] 4to. a Declaration of the Letters Patent of the King of Poland, John III, elected on the 22nd of May, Anno Dom. 1674, now faithfully translated from the Latin copy. Mr. Wood tells us [5], that Milton was thought to be the author of a piece called the Grand Case of Conscience, concerning the Engagement Stated and Resolved; or a Strict Survey of the Solemn League and Covenant regarding the present Engagement; but others believe that the style and writing manner do not support this idea at all. His State Letters were printed in London in 1676 in 12mo and translated into English, printed in 1694; his Brief History of Muscovy, and of their lesser-known Countries, lying Eastward of Russia, as far as Cathay, was published in 1682 in 8vo. His Historical, Poetical, and Miscellaneous Works were printed in three volumes in folio in London in 1698, although Amsterdam is mentioned on the title page, along with the author's life by Mr. Toland; but the most complete and elegant edition of his prose works was printed in two volumes in folio in London in 1738 by the Rev. Mr. Birch, now secretary to the Royal Society, with an Appendix regarding two Dissertations, the first about the Author of the Royal Images, the Portrait of his sacred Majesty in his solitude and sufferings; and the prayer of Pamela added to several editions of that book; the second about the Commission said to be given by King Charles I in 1641 to the Irish Papists, for taking up arms against the Protestants in Ireland. In this edition, the various pieces are arranged according to the order in which they were printed, with the addition of a Latin Treatise omitted by Mr. Toland, concerning the Reasons for the War with Spain in 1655, and several pages in the History of Great Britain, expunged [137] by the press licensers, which cannot be found in any earlier editions. It may not be my role to comment on the two major disputes that have existed between the supporters and opponents of Charles I regarding the authorship of the Basilike and the Commission granted to the Irish Papists; in regard to the latter, readers can refer to the Life of Lord Broghill, where they will find the mystery of wrongdoing revealed, clearing Charles of any implication in granting such a detestable commission; the forgery is fully discussed there, providing all the evidence that the situation can support, that the King's reputation has been tarnished by such a vile accusation. Regarding the first point, it is somewhat hard to determine if his Majesty was indeed the author of these pious Meditations; Mr. Birch has summarized the evidence from both sides; we will not claim to decide which way it leans; it is relevant here to note that the main evidence against the King in this debate comes from Dr. Gauden, Bishop of Exeter, who claimed authorship of that book and, in his letters to the Earl of Clarendon, boasts about it while being bothersomely eager for advancement on that basis; he also told the two princes that the Basilike was not written by their father, but by him; one thing is clear, Gauden lacked talent; his Life of Hooker, which is the only genuine work credited to him, shows him to be a man with limited thinking; his style is loose and carelessly flowery, which is completely opposite to that of these Meditations. Another factor greatly undermines his evidence and casts doubt on his honesty. After professing as a Protestant for a considerable time, holding an English bishopric, and displaying a strong desire to advance in the church, he declared himself a Papist at his death; based on the testimony of such a man, no one can conclusively determine a disputed point; for he who would so disgrace himself with the lowest hypocrisy will surely have no qualms about tarnishing the memory of his sovereign.
In a work of Milton's called Icon Oclastes, or the Image broken, he takes occasion to charge the king with borrowing a prayer from Sir Philip Sidney's Arcadia, and placing it in his Meditations without acknowledging the favour. Soon after the sentence of the Regicides had been put in execution these Meditations were published, and as Anthony by shewing the body of murdered Cæsar, excited the compassion of multitudes, and raised their indignation against the enemies of that illustrious Roman; so these Meditations had much the same effect in England. The Presbyterians loudly exclaimed against the murder of the King; they asserted, that his person was sacred, and spilling his blood upon a scaffold was a stain upon the English annals, which the latest time could not obliterate. These tragical complaints gaining ground, and the fury which was lately exercised against his Majesty, subsiding into a tenderness for his memory, heightened by the consideration of his piety, which these Meditations served to revive, it was thought proper, in order to appease the minds of the people, that an answer should be wrote to them.
In a work by Milton called Icon Oclastes, or The Image Broken, he takes the opportunity to accuse the king of borrowing a prayer from Sir Philip Sidney's Arcadia and including it in his Meditations without giving credit. Shortly after the execution of the Regicides, these Meditations were published, and just as Antony stirred the public's sympathy and outrage against the enemies of the slain Caesar by showing his body, these Meditations had a similar impact in England. The Presbyterians loudly condemned the murder of the king; they claimed that his person was sacred, and that shedding his blood on a scaffold was a stain on English history that time could never erase. As these tragic complaints gained traction and the rage once directed at his Majesty softened into a compassion for his memory—intensified by the acknowledgment of his piety that these Meditations helped revive—it was decided that an answer should be written to address the people's sentiments.
In this task Milton engaged, and prosecuted it with vigour; but the most enthusiastic admirer of that poet, upon reading it will not fail to discover a spirit of bitterness, an air of peevishness and resentment to run through the whole. Milton has been charged with interpolating the prayer of Pamela into the King's Meditations, by the assistance of Bradshaw, who laid his commands upon [139] the printer so to do, to blast the reputation of the King's book. Dr. Newton is of opinion that this fact is not well supported, for it is related chiefly upon the authority of Henry Hills the printer, who had frequently affirmed it to Dr. Gill, and Dr. Bernard, his physicians, as they themselves have testified; but tho' Hills was Cromwell's printer, yet afterwards he turned Papist in the reign of King James II. in order to be that King's Printer; and it was at that time he used to relate this story; so that little credit is due to his testimony. It is almost impossible to believe Milton capable of such disingenuous meanness, to serve so bad a purpose, and there is as little reason for fixing it upon him, as he had to traduce the King for profaning the duty of prayer, with the polluted trash of romances; for in the best books of devotion, there are not many finer prayers, and the King might as lawfully borrow and apply it to his own purpose, as the apostle might make quotations from Heathen poems and plays; and it became Milton, the least of all men, to bring such an accusation against the King, as he was himself particularly fond of reading romances, and has made use of them in some of the best and latest of his writings.
In this task, Milton got involved and pursued it with energy; however, even the most devoted fan of that poet will notice a sense of bitterness, a hint of irritability, and resentment throughout the piece. Milton has been accused of inserting Pamela's prayer into the King's Meditations, with the help of Bradshaw, who ordered the printer to do so, aiming to tarnish the King's book's reputation. Dr. Newton believes this claim isn't well-founded, as it primarily comes from Henry Hills, the printer, who often told it to Dr. Gill and Dr. Bernard, his physicians, as they have confirmed. Although Hills was Cromwell's printer, he later converted to Catholicism during King James II's reign to become that King's Printer, and that's when he started sharing this story; therefore, little trust can be placed in his account. It's almost unbelievable that Milton would be capable of such deceitful behavior for such a poor purpose, and there's just as little reason to hold him responsible for accusing the King of corrupting the prayer's duty with trashy romances. In fact, among the best books of devotion, there aren't many prayers more beautiful, and the King could just as legitimately borrow and apply it to his own intentions as the apostle could quote from pagan poems and plays. It was especially unbecoming for Milton, above all people, to make such an accusation against the King, considering he himself enjoyed reading romances and has incorporated them into some of his finest and most recent works.
There have been various conjectures concerning the cause that produced in Milton so great an aversion to Charles I. One is, that when Milton stood candidate for a professorship at Cambridge with his much esteemed friend Mr. King, their interest and qualifications were equal, upon which his Majesty was required by his nomination to fix the professor; his answer was, let the best-natured man have it; to which they who heard him, immediately replied; 'then we are certain it cannot be Milton's, who was ever remarkable for a stern ungovernable man.'—Whether [140] this conjecture is absolutely true, we cannot determine; but as it is not without probability, it has a right to be believed, till a more satisfactory one can be given.
There have been various theories about what made Milton dislike Charles I so much. One is that when Milton was competing for a professorship at Cambridge alongside his highly regarded friend Mr. King, their qualifications and support were equal. The King was then asked to choose between them, and his response was to let the kindest person get the position. The listeners immediately replied, "Then we know it can't be Milton's, who was always seen as a stern and unmanageable man."—Whether [140] this theory is entirely true, we can't be sure; but since it's somewhat plausible, it deserves to be accepted until a better explanation comes along.
In whatever light Milton may be placed as a statesman, yet as a poet he stands in one point of view without a rival; the sublimity of his conceptions, the elevation of his stile, the fertility of his imagination, and the conduct of his design in Paradise Lost is inimitable, and cannot be enough admired.
In whatever way Milton may be seen as a statesman, as a poet he is unmatched. The greatness of his ideas, the sophistication of his style, the richness of his imagination, and the execution of his design in Paradise Lost are unparalleled and deserve endless admiration.
Milton's character as a poet was never better pourtray'd than in the epigram under his picture written by Mr. Dryden.
Milton's character as a poet was never better captured than in the epigram below his picture written by Mr. Dryden.
Three poets in three distant ages born,
Greece, Italy, and England, did adorn.
The first in loftiness of thought surpass'd;
The next in majesty; in both the last:
The force of nature could no further go,
To make a third, she join'd the former two.—
Three poets from three different times,
Greece, Italy, and England, added their shine.
The first excelled in deep thought;
The next in grandeur; both the last too:
Nature couldn’t create beyond this point,
So she combined the first two to create a third.—
This great man died at his house at Bunhill, Nov. 15, 1674, and was interred near the body of his father, in the chancel of the church of St. Giles, Cripplegate. By his first wife he had four children, a son and three daughters. The daughters survived their father. Anne married a master-builder, and died in child-bed of her first child, which died with her; Mary lived single; Deborah left her father when she was young, and went over to Ireland with a lady, and came to England again during the troubles of Ireland under King James II. She married Mr. Abraham Clark, a weaver in Spittal-fields, and died Aug. 24, 1727, in the 76th year of age. She had ten children, viz. seven sons, and three daughters, but none of them had any children except one of her sons named Caleb, and the youngest daughter, [141] whose name is Elizabeth. Caleb went over to Fort St. George in the East-Indies, where he married and had two sons, Abraham and Isaac; of these Abraham the elder came to England with governor Harrison, but returned again upon advice of his father's death, and whether he or his brother be now living is uncertain. Elizabeth, the youngest child of Deborah, married Mr. Thomas Foster, a weaver, and lives now in Hog-lane, Shoreditch, for whom Comus, as we have already observed, was performed at Drury-Lane, and produced her a great benefit. She has had seven children, three sons and four daughters, who are all now dead. This Mrs. Foster is a plain decent looking Woman. Mr. John Ward, fellow of the Royal Society, and professor of rhetoric in Gresham-College, London, saw the above Mrs. Clark, Milton's daughter at the house of one of her relations not long before her death, when she informed me, says that gentleman, 'That she and her sisters used to read to their father in eight languages, which by practice they were capable of doing with great readiness, and accuracy, tho' they understood no language but English, and their father used often to say in their hearing, one tongue was enough for a woman. None of them were ever sent to school, but all taught at home by a mistress kept for that purpose. Isaiah, Homer, and Ovid's Metamorphoses were books which they were often called to read to their father; and at my desire she repeated a great number of verses from the beginning of both these poets with great readiness. I knew who she was upon the first sight of her, by the similitude of her countenance with her father's picture. And upon my telling her so, she informed me, that Mr. Addison told her the same thing, on her going to wait on him; for he, upon hearing she was living sent for her, and [142] desired if she had any papers of her father's, she would bring them with her, as an evidence of her being Milton's daughter; but immediately on her being introduced to him, he said, Madam, you need no other voucher; your face is a sufficient testimonial whose daughter you are; and he then made her a handsome present of a purse of guineas, with a promise of procuring for her an annual provision for life; but he dying soon after, she lost the benefit of his generous design. She appeared to be a woman of good sense, and genteel behaviour, and to bear the inconveniencies of a low fortune with decency and prudence.'
This great man died at his home in Bunhill on November 15, 1674, and was buried next to his father in the chancel of St. Giles, Cripplegate church. With his first wife, he had four children: one son and three daughters. His daughters outlived him. Anne married a master builder and died during childbirth with her first child, who also died. Mary remained single. Deborah left home at a young age to go to Ireland with a lady and returned to England during the troubles in Ireland under King James II. She married Mr. Abraham Clark, a weaver in Spitalfields, and died on August 24, 1727, at the age of 76. She had ten children: seven sons and three daughters, but only one of her sons, Caleb, and her youngest daughter, Elizabeth, had children. Caleb went to Fort St. George in the East Indies, where he married and had two sons, Abraham and Isaac. Abraham, the older son, came to England with Governor Harrison but returned after hearing of his father's death; it is uncertain whether he or his brother is still alive. Elizabeth, the youngest child of Deborah, married Mr. Thomas Foster, a weaver, and currently lives in Hog Lane, Shoreditch. For her, Comus was performed at Drury Lane, which brought her a significant benefit. She had seven children: three sons and four daughters, all of whom have died. Mrs. Foster is a modestly attractive woman. Mr. John Ward, a fellow of the Royal Society and professor of rhetoric at Gresham College in London, saw Mrs. Clark, Milton's daughter, at the home of a relative shortly before her death. He shared, "She and her sisters used to read to their father in eight languages, which they could do with great ease and accuracy, even though they only understood English. Their father often said in their presence that one language was enough for a woman. None of them attended school; they were all taught at home by a tutor hired for that purpose. They frequently read books like Isaiah, Homer, and Ovid's Metamorphoses to their father, and at my request, she was able to recite a good number of verses from the beginning of both poets with ease. I recognized her immediately by the resemblance of her face to her father's portrait. When I mentioned it to her, she told me that Mr. Addison had said the same when she went to see him. He had sent for her, having heard she was alive, and asked if she had any of her father's papers to bring with her as proof that she was Milton's daughter. However, as soon as she was introduced to him, he said, 'Madam, you need no other proof; your face is enough to show whose daughter you are.' He then generously gave her a purse of guineas and promised to secure her a lifetime annual allowance, but he died soon after, and she lost out on his kind intention. She seemed to be a woman of good sense and elegant demeanor, managing the challenges of her modest circumstances with grace and wisdom."
Her late Majesty Queen Caroline sent her fifty pounds, and she received presents of money from several gentlemen not long before her death. Milton had a brother, Mr. Christopher Milton who was knighted and made one of the barons of the Exchequer in King James II's reign, but he does not appear to have been a man of any abilities, at least if he had any, they are lost to posterity in the lustre of his brother's.
Her late Majesty Queen Caroline sent her fifty pounds, and she received money gifts from several gentlemen shortly before her death. Milton had a brother, Mr. Christopher Milton, who was knighted and became one of the barons of the Exchequer during King James II's reign, but he doesn’t seem to have been a man of any talents. If he had any, they are overshadowed by his brother's.
There is now alive a grand-daughter of this Christopher Milton, who is married to one Mr. John Lookup, advocate at Edinburgh, remarkable for his knowledge of the Hebrew tongue. The lady, whom I have often seen, is extremely corpulent, has in her youth been very handsome, and is not destitute of a poetical genius. She has writ several copies of verses, published in the Edinburgh Magazines; and her face bears some resemblance to the picture of Milton.
There is currently a granddaughter of Christopher Milton who is married to Mr. John Lookup, a lawyer in Edinburgh known for his expertise in Hebrew. The lady, whom I have seen several times, is quite heavyset, was very attractive in her youth, and has a bit of poetic talent. She has written several poems published in the Edinburgh Magazines, and her face has some resemblance to Milton’s portrait.
Mr. Wood, and after him Mr. Fenton, has given us the following description of Milton's person.
Mr. Wood, and then Mr. Fenton, provided us with the following description of Milton's appearance.
[143] "He was of a moderate size, well-proportioned, and of a ruddy complexion, light brown hair, and had handsome features, yet his eyes were none of the quickest. When he was a student in Cambridge, he was so fair and clear, that many called him the Lady of Christ's-College. His deportment was affable, and his gait erect and manly, bespeaking courage and undauntedness; while he had his sight he wore a sword, and was well skilled in using it. He had a delicate tuneable voice, an excellent ear, could play on the organ, and bear a part in vocal and instrumental music."[6]
[143] "He was of average height, well-built, with a healthy complexion and light brown hair, and had attractive features, although his eyes weren't particularly sharp. When he was a student at Cambridge, he was so fair-skinned and clear that many called him the Lady of Christ's College. He carried himself in a friendly way, and walked upright and confidently, showing bravery and fearlessness. While he could see, he wore a sword and was skilled in using it. He had a pleasant, melodic voice, a great ear for music, could play the organ, and participated in both vocal and instrumental music."[6]
The great learning and genius of Milton, have scarcely raised him more admirers, than the part he acted upon the political stage, has procured him enemies. He was in his inclination a thorough Republican, and in this he thought like a Greek or Roman, as he was very conversant with their writings. And one day Sir Robert Howard, who was a friend of Milton's, and a well wisher to the liberty of his country, asked him, how he came to side with the Republicans? Milton answered, among other things, 'Because theirs was the most frugal government; for the trappings of a Monarchy might set up an ordinary Commonwealth.' But then his attachment to Cromwell must be condemned, as being neither consistent with his republican principles, nor with his love of liberty. It may be reasonably presumed, that he was far from entirely approving of Cromwell's proceeding; but considered him as the only person who could rescue the nation from the tyranny of the Presbyterians, who he saw, were about to erect a worse dominion of their own upon the ruins of prelatical episcopacy; for if experience may be [144] allowed to teach us, the Presbyterian government carries in it more of ecclesiastical authority, and approaches more to the thunder of the Vatican, than any other government under the sun. Milton was an enemy to spiritual slavery, he thought the chains thrown upon the mind were the least tolerable; and in order to shake the pillars of mental usurpation, he closed with Cromwell and the independants, as he expected under them greater liberty of conscience. In matters of religion too, Milton has likewise given great offence, but infidels have no reason to glory. No such man was ever amongst them. He was persuaded of the truth of the christian religion; he studied and admired the holy scriptures, and in all his writings he plainly discovers a religious turn of mind.
The great intelligence and talent of Milton have attracted just as many admirers as the role he played in politics has gained him enemies. At heart, he was a true Republican, thinking like a Greek or Roman due to his deep familiarity with their writings. One day, Sir Robert Howard, a friend of Milton and a supporter of his country's freedom, asked him why he aligned with the Republicans. Milton replied, among other things, “Because theirs was the most economical government; the trappings of a monarchy could finance a regular commonwealth.” However, his loyalty to Cromwell must be criticized, as it conflicted with both his republican ideals and his love of freedom. It's reasonable to assume that he did not entirely agree with Cromwell's actions; he viewed him as the only one who could free the nation from the tyranny of the Presbyterians, who he believed were about to establish an even worse dominance on the ruins of episcopal rule. If experience teaches us anything, the Presbyterian government embodies more ecclesiastical power and is closer to the authority of the Vatican than any other system on Earth. Milton was against spiritual oppression, believing that the chains placed on the mind were the least bearable; to challenge the foundations of mental domination, he allied with Cromwell and the Independents, expecting greater freedom of conscience under their rule. In religious matters, Milton has also caused considerable offense, yet nonbelievers have no reason to take pride; there was never a figure like him among them. He was convinced of the truth of Christianity; he studied and admired the holy scriptures, and his writings clearly reflect a religious mindset.
When he wrote the Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, he appears to have been a Calvinist; but afterwards he entertained a more favourable opinion of Arminius. Some have thought that he was an Arian, but there are more express passages in his works to overthrow this opinion, than any there are to confirm it. For in the conclusion of his Treatise on Reformation, he thus solemnly invokes the Trinity:
When he wrote the Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, he seemed to be a Calvinist; but later he had a more positive view of Arminius. Some people have believed that he was an Arian, but there are clearer passages in his works that contradict this belief than there are to support it. In the conclusion of his Treatise on Reformation, he solemnly calls upon the Trinity:
'Thou therefore that sittest in light and glory unapproachable, parent of angels and of men! next thee I implore omnipotent king, redeemer of that lost remnant, whose nature thou didst assume, ineffable and everlasting love! and thee the third subsistence of the divine infinitude, illuminating spirit, the joy and solace of created things! one tri-personal god-head.'
'You, who sit in light and glory, beyond reach, parent of angels and humans! Next to you, I plead with the all-powerful king, redeemer of that lost remnant, whose nature you took on, indescribable and eternal love! And you, the third aspect of the divine infinity, illuminating spirit, the joy and comfort of all creation! One tri-personal godhead.'
In the latter part of his life he was not a professed member of any particular sect of christians; he frequented no public worship, nor used any religious [145] rite in his family; he was an enemy to all kinds of forms, and thought that all christians had in some things corrupted the simplicity and purity of the gospel. He believed that inward religion was the best, and that public communion had more of shew in it, than any tendency to promote genuine piety and unaffected goodness.
In the later years of his life, he didn't openly identify with any specific Christian denomination; he didn't attend any public worship or practice any religious [145] rituals at home. He was against all kinds of formalities and believed that Christians had, in some ways, tainted the simplicity and purity of the gospel. He thought that personal faith was more important and that public gatherings were more about appearances than fostering true devotion and genuine goodness.
The circumstances of our author were never very mean, nor very affluent; he lived above want, and was content with competency. His father supported him during his travels. When he was appointed Latin secretary, his sallary amounted to 200 l. per ann. and tho' he was of the victorious party, yet he was far from sharing the spoils of his country. On the contrary, as we learn from his Second Defence, he sustained great losses during the civil war, and was not at all favoured in the imposition of taxes, but sometimes paid beyond his due proportion; and upon a turn of affairs, he was not only deprived of his place, but also lost 2000 l. which he had for security, put into the Excise office.
The author never lived in extreme poverty or wealth; he had enough to get by and was satisfied with a modest lifestyle. His father financially supported him while he traveled. When he became Latin secretary, his salary was 200 pounds a year, and even though he was on the winning side, he didn’t benefit from the spoils of his country. In fact, according to his Second Defence, he suffered significant losses during the civil war and was often unfairly burdened with taxes, sometimes paying more than his fair share. When the situation changed, he not only lost his job but also lost 2000 pounds he had deposited for security in the Excise office.
In the fire of London, his house in Bread-street was burnt, before which accident foreigners have gone out of devotion, says Wood, to see the house and chamber where he was born. Some time before he died, he sold the greatest part of his library, as his heirs were not qualified to make a proper use of it, and as he thought he could dispose of it to greater advantage, than they could after his death. He died (says Dr. Newton) by one means or other worth 1500 l. besides his houshold goods, which was no incompetent subsistence for him, who was as great a philosopher as a poet.
In the Great Fire of London, his house on Bread Street was burned down, which caused tourists to visit out of devotion, according to Wood, to see the house and room where he was born. Some time before he passed away, he sold off most of his library since his heirs weren't capable of using it properly, and he believed he could sell it for a better value than they could after he was gone. He died (says Dr. Newton) having amassed about £1,500, not counting his household goods, which was a decent living for someone who was both a great philosopher and a poet.
Milton seems not to have been very happy in his marriages. His first wife offended him by her elopement; the second, whose love, sweetness, and delicacy he celebrates, lived not a [146] twelvemonth with him; and his third was said to be a woman of a most violent spirit, and a severe step-mother to his children.
Milton doesn't seem to have been very happy in his marriages. His first wife upset him by running away; the second, whose love, charm, and gentleness he praises, was with him for less than a year; and his third was described as a woman with a very aggressive temper and a harsh stepmother to his children.
'She died, says Dr. Newton, very old, about twenty years ago, at Nantwich in Cheshire, and from the accounts of those who had seen her, I have learned that she confirmed several things related before; and particularly that her husband used to compose his poetry chiefly in the winter, and on his waking on a morning would make her write down sometimes twenty or thirty verses: Being asked whether he did not often read Homer and Virgil, she understood it as an imputation upon him for stealing from these authors, and answered with eagerness, that he stole from no body but the muse that inspired him; and being asked by a lady present who the muse was, she answered, it was God's grace and holy spirit, that visited him nightly. She was likewise asked, whom he approved most of our English poets, and answered, Spenser, Shakespear, and Cowley; and being asked what he thought of Dryden, she said Dryden used sometimes to visit him, but he thought him no poet, but a good rhimist.'
'She passed away, Dr. Newton says, at a very old age, about twenty years ago, in Nantwich, Cheshire. From what those who knew her have shared, I’ve learned that she confirmed several previous accounts. In particular, she mentioned that her husband primarily wrote his poetry in the winter. On some mornings, he would wake up and have her write down twenty or thirty verses. When asked if he often read Homer and Virgil, she took it as an accusation of him plagiarizing those authors. She eagerly replied that he stole from no one except for the muse that inspired him. A lady present then asked who the muse was, and she said it was God’s grace and holy spirit that visited him at night. She was also asked which English poets he admired most, and she named Spenser, Shakespeare, and Cowley. When asked about Dryden, she said that Dryden sometimes visited him, but he didn’t consider him a poet, just a good rhymist.'
The reader will be pleased to observe, that this censure of Milton's was before Dryden had made any great appearance in poetry, or composed those immortal works of genius, which have raised eternal monuments to him, and carried his name to every country where poetry and taste are known. Some have thought that Dryden's genius was even superior to Milton's: That the latter chiefly shines in but one kind of poetry; his thoughts are sublime, and his language noble; but in what kind of writing has not Dryden been distinguished? He is in every thing excellent, says Congreve, and he has [147] attempted nothing in which he has not so succeeded as to be entitled to the first reputation from it.
The reader will be pleased to note that this criticism of Milton's came before Dryden had made any significant impact in poetry or created those timeless masterpieces that have established lasting legacies for him and brought his name to every country where poetry and taste are appreciated. Some have argued that Dryden's talent was even greater than Milton's: that the latter excels mainly in one type of poetry; his thoughts are profound, and his language is elevated. However, in what type of writing hasn't Dryden excelled? He is outstanding in everything, says Congreve, and he has [147] attempted nothing in which he hasn't succeeded well enough to deserve the highest acclaim for it.
It is not to be supposed, that Milton was governed by so mean a principle as envy, in his thus censuring Dryden. It is more natural to imagine, that as he was himself no friend to rhime, and finding Dryden in his early age peculiarly happy in the faculty of rhiming, without having thrown out any thoughts, which were in themselves distinguishedly great, Milton might, without the imputation of ill nature, characterise Dryden, as we have already seen.
It shouldn't be assumed that Milton was driven by such a petty motivation as envy when he criticized Dryden. It's more reasonable to think that, since he was never a fan of rhyme himself, and noticing that Dryden, early in his career, had a particular knack for rhyming without expressing any truly remarkable ideas, Milton might, without being considered unkind, describe Dryden as we have already observed.
These are the most material incidents in the life of this great man, who if he had less honour during the latter part of his life than he deserved, it was owing to the unfavourable circumstances under which he laboured. It is always unpleasing to a good man to find that they who have been distinguished for their parts, have not been equally so for their moral qualities; and in this case we may venture to assert, that Milton was good as well as great; and that if he was mistaken in his political principles, he was honestly mistaken, for he never deviated from his first resolution; no temptations could excite him to temporise, or to barter his honour for advantage; nor did he ever once presume to partake of the spoils of his ruined country. Such qualities as these are great in themselves, and whoever possesses them, has an unexceptionable claim to rank with the good.
These are the most significant events in the life of this great man, who, if he had less recognition during the latter part of his life than he deserved, it was due to the challenging circumstances he faced. It’s always disheartening for a good person to see that those who are celebrated for their talents are not equally recognized for their moral character; in this case, we can confidently say that Milton was both good and great. Even if he was wrong about his political beliefs, he was sincerely mistaken, as he never strayed from his initial commitment. No temptations could lead him to compromise or trade his honor for personal gain; nor did he ever think to take advantage of his country's misfortunes. Qualities like these are inherently admirable, and anyone who possesses them has a solid claim to be considered among the virtuous.
We might have entered more minutely into the merit of Milton's poems, particularly the great work of Paradise Lost; but we should reckon it arrogant as well as superfluous in us, to criticise on a work whose beauties have been displayed by the hand of Mr. Addison. That critic has [148] illustrated the most remarkable passages in Paradise Lost; such as are distinguished by their sublimity; and elevation; such whose excellence is propriety; others raised by the nobleness of the language; and those that are remarkable for energy and strong reasoning.
We could have talked more about the merits of Milton's poems, especially the great work Paradise Lost; however, we would consider it both arrogant and unnecessary to critique a work that Mr. Addison has already highlighted. That critic has [148] illustrated the most notable passages in Paradise Lost, showcasing those that are known for their sublime and elevated qualities, those that excel in propriety, others that stand out for the nobility of the language, and those that are notable for their energy and strong reasoning.
A later critic, the ingenious author of the Rambler, has animadverted upon Milton's versification with great judgment; and has discovered in some measure that happy art, by which Milton has conducted so great a design, with such astonishing success.
A later critic, the clever author of the Rambler, has commented on Milton's verse with great insight and has somewhat recognized that skillful technique by which Milton has carried out such an ambitious project with impressive success.
From these two writers may be drawn all the necessary assistances for reading the Paradise Lost with taste and discernment; and as their works are in almost in every body's hands, it would be needless to give any abstract of them here.
From these two authors, you can find all the essential help needed to read Paradise Lost with appreciation and insight. Since their works are nearly in everyone’s possession, there’s no need to provide a summary of them here.
Footnotes:
References:
Mrs. Katherine Philips,
The celebrated Orinda, was daughter of John Fowles of Bucklersbury, a merchant in London. She was born in the parish of St. Mary Wool Church, 1631. Mr. Aubrey tells us, (in a MS. of his in Mr. Ashmole's study, No. 18. Vol. 23.) that she had the early part of her education from her cousin Mrs. Blacker. At eight years old she was removed to a school at Hackney, and soon made great improvements under the care of Mrs. Salmon; so great that whoever reads the account that Mr. Aubrey gives of her at that time of her life, will consider her succeeding progress to be no more than what might be naturally expected from such indications [149] of genius. He tells us, 'that she was very apt to learn, and made verses when she was at school; that she devoted herself to religious duties when she was very young; that she would then pray by herself an hour together; that she had read the bible through before she was full five years old; that she could say, by heart, many chapters and passages of scripture; was a frequent hearer of sermons, which she would bring away entire in her memory.'
The celebrated Orinda was the daughter of John Fowles, a merchant from Bucklersbury in London. She was born in the parish of St. Mary Wool Church in 1631. Mr. Aubrey tells us (in a manuscript of his located in Mr. Ashmole's study, No. 18, Vol. 23) that she received the early part of her education from her cousin, Mrs. Blacker. At eight years old, she was moved to a school in Hackney, where she quickly made significant progress under the guidance of Mrs. Salmon; her improvements were so notable that anyone who reads Mr. Aubrey's account of her at that young age would consider her future achievements to be the natural outcome of such signs of genius. He mentions that she was very quick to learn and wrote verses while she was at school, that she dedicated herself to religious activities from a very young age, praying by herself for an hour at a time, that she had read the Bible completely before she turned five, and that she could recite many chapters and passages from scripture by heart. She was also a regular listener of sermons, which she would remember in full.
The above is extracted from Mr. Ballard's account of the Ladies of Great Britain, who have been celebrated for their writings; and serves to shew the early piety of this amiable lady, who lived to be distinguished for her ripened understanding.—She became afterwards a perfect mistress of the French tongue, and learned the Italian under the tuition of her ingenious and worthy friend Sir Charles Cotterel. She was instructed in the Presbyterian principles, which it appears by her writings, she deserted, as soon as her reason was strong enough to exert itself in the examination of religious points. She warmly embraced the royal interest, and upon many occasions was a strenuous advocate for the authority of the established church.
The above is taken from Mr. Ballard's account of the Ladies of Great Britain, who are known for their writings; it highlights the early piety of this admirable woman, who went on to be recognized for her mature understanding. She later became fluent in French and learned Italian under the guidance of her clever and worthy friend Sir Charles Cotterel. She was educated in Presbyterian principles, which, as her writings show, she abandoned once her reasoning became strong enough to explore religious issues. She passionately supported the royal cause and frequently advocated for the authority of the established church.
She was married to James Philips of the Priory of Cardigan, Esq; about the year 1647. By this gentleman she had one son, who died in his infancy, and one daughter, married to a gentleman of Pembrokeshire. She proved an excellent wife, not only in the conjugal duties, and tender offices of love, but was highly serviceable to her husband in affairs, in which few wives are thought capable of being useful; for his fortune being much encumbered, she exerted her interest with Sir Charles Cotterel, and other persons of distinction, who admired her understanding (for she had few graces of person) in her [150] husband's favour, who soon extricated him from the difficulties under which he laboured. It no where appears that the husband of Mrs. Philips was a man of any abilities, and if he met with respect in the world, it was probably reflected from his wife. This lady had too much piety and good sense to suffer her superior understanding to make her insolent; on the other hand, she always speaks of her husband with the utmost respect, under the name of Antenor. In a letter to Sir Charles Cotterel, after having mentioned her husband in the most respectful terms, and of his willingness to forward her journey to London, in order to settle his perplexed affairs, she adds
She was married to James Philips of the Priory of Cardigan, Esq., around 1647. Together, they had one son, who sadly died in infancy, and one daughter who married a man from Pembrokeshire. She was an excellent wife, not only in her marital duties and loving care but also highly supportive of her husband in matters where few wives are expected to be helpful. Given that his finances were quite burdened, she used her connections with Sir Charles Cotterel and other distinguished individuals, who admired her intellect (despite her lacking physical beauty), to advocate on her husband's behalf. Thanks to her efforts, he was soon relieved of the difficulties he faced. It doesn’t seem that Mrs. Philips's husband possessed any remarkable abilities, and if he received respect in society, it was likely due to his wife. This lady had too much piety and good sense to let her superior intellect make her arrogant; on the contrary, she always spoke about her husband with the utmost respect, referring to him as Antenor. In a letter to Sir Charles Cotterel, after mentioning her husband in the most respectful terms and noting his willingness to help her travel to London to resolve his complicated financial issues, she adds
"And I hope God will enable me to answer his expectations, by making me an instrument of doing some handsome service, which is the only ambition I have in the world, and which I would purchase with the hazard of my life. I am extreamly obliged to my lady Cork for remembering me with so much indulgence; for her great desire to be troubled with my company; but above all for her readiness to assist my endeavours for Antenor, which is the most generous kindness can be done me."
"And I hope God will help me meet his expectations by making me an instrument of doing some good work, which is my only ambition in the world and something I would risk my life for. I am extremely grateful to my Lady Cork for remembering me with such kindness; for her great desire to spend time with me; but above all for her willingness to support my efforts for Antenor, which is the most generous kindness anyone could show me."
As this lady was born with a genius for poetry, so she began early in life to improve it, and composed many poems on various occasions for her amusement, in her recess at Cardigan, and retirement elsewhere. These being dispersed among her friends and acquaintance, were by an unknown hand collected together, and published in 8vo. 1663, without her knowledge or consent. This accident is said to have proved so oppressive to our poetess, as to throw her into a fit of illness, and she pours out her complaints in a letter to Sir Charles Cotterel, in which she laments, in the most affecting manner, the misfortune [151] and the injuries which had been done to her by this surreptitious edition of her Poems.
As this woman was born with a natural talent for poetry, she began refining it early in her life and wrote many poems for her own enjoyment during her breaks at Cardigan and in solitude elsewhere. These poems were shared among her friends and acquaintances, and were collected and published in 8vo in 1663 without her knowledge or consent. This incident reportedly upset our poetess so much that it caused her to fall ill, and she expressed her grievances in a letter to Sir Charles Cotterel, in which she sorrowfully recounts the misfortune and the harm caused by this unauthorized edition of her Poems.
That Mrs. Philips might be displeased that her Poems were published without her consent, is extremely probable, as by these means they might appear without many graces, and ornaments which they otherwise would have possessed; but that it threw her into a fit of illness, no body who reads the human heart can believe. Surreptitious editions are a sort of compliment to the merit of an author; and we are not to suppose Mrs. Philips so much a saint, as to be stript of all vanity, or that natural delight, which arises from the good opinion of others, however aukwardly it may be discovered; and we may venture to affirm, that Mrs. Philips's illness proceeded from some other cause, than what is here assigned.
That Mrs. Philips might be upset that her poems were published without her permission is very likely, as this could make them seem less polished and lacking the charm they would have had otherwise. However, no one who understands human nature can believe that it caused her to fall seriously ill. Unauthorized editions are actually a kind of compliment to an author's talent, and we shouldn't assume Mrs. Philips is so much of a saint that she is free from all vanity or the natural pleasure that comes from being well-thought-of by others, even if it's revealed in a clumsy way. We can confidently say that Mrs. Philips's illness was caused by something other than what is suggested here.
The reputation of her abilities procured her the esteem of many persons of distinction and fashion, and upon her going into Ireland with the viscountess of Duncannon, to transact her husband's affairs there, her great merit soon made her known to those illustrious peers, Ormond, Orrery, and Roscommon, and many other persons of the first fashion, who shewed her singular marks of their esteem. While Mrs. Philips remained in that kingdom, at the pressing importunity of the abovementioned noblemen, but particularly lord Roscommon, she translated, from the French of Corneille, the tragedy of Pompey, which was brought upon the Irish stage somewhat against her inclination; however it was several times acted in the new theatre there, with very great applause in the years 1663 and 1664, in which last year it was made public. It was afterwards acted with equal applause at the Duke of York's theatre, 1678. This [152] play is dedicated to the Countess of Cork. Lord Roscommon wrote the Prologue, wherein he thus compliments the ladies and the translator.
The reputation of her skills earned her the respect of many prominent and fashionable individuals. When she went to Ireland with the Viscountess of Duncannon to handle her husband's affairs, her talent quickly gained her recognition among notable peers like Ormond, Orrery, and Roscommon, along with many other high-profile people who showed her significant appreciation. While Mrs. Philips was in that country, at the strong request of the aforementioned nobles, especially Lord Roscommon, she translated the tragedy of Pompey from Corneille's French. Although she was somewhat reluctant, it premiered on the Irish stage and was performed multiple times in the new theater there to great acclaim in 1663 and 1664, the latter marking its public release. It was later performed with similar success at the Duke of York's theater in 1678. This [152] play is dedicated to the Countess of Cork. Lord Roscommon wrote the Prologue, in which he compliments both the ladies and the translator.
But you bright nymphs, give Cæsar leave to woo,
The greatest wonder of the world, but you;
And hear a muse, who has that hero taught
To speak as gen'rously, as e'er he fought;
Whose eloquence from such a theme deters
All tongues but English, and all pens but hers.
By the just fates your sex is doubly blest,
You conquer'd Cæsar, and you praise him best.
But you bright nymphs, allow Caesar to pursue,
The greatest wonder of the world, except for you;
And listen to a muse, who has taught that hero
To speak as generously as he ever fought;
Whose eloquence on such a topic turns away
All languages except English, and all writers except her.
By the fair fates, your gender is doubly blessed,
You conquered Caesar, and you praise him best.
She also translated from the French of Corneille, a Tragedy called Horace; Sir John Denham added a fifth Act to this Play, which was acted at Court by Persons of Quality. The Duke of Monmouth spoke the Prologue, in which are these lines.
She also translated a tragedy called Horace from the French of Corneille; Sir John Denham added a fifth act to this play, which was performed at court by people of high status. The Duke of Monmouth delivered the prologue, which includes these lines.
So soft that to our shame we understand
They could not fall but from a lady's hand.
Thus while a woman Horace did translate,
Horace did rise above the name of fate.
So soft that, to our embarrassment, we realize
They could only come from a woman's hand.
Thus, while a woman translated Horace,
Horace rose above the label of fate.
While Mrs. Philips was in Ireland, she was happy in carrying on her former intimacy with the famous Jeremy Taylor, the bishop of Down and Connor, who had some time before done her much honour by writing, and publishing a Discourse on the Nature, Offices, and Measures of Friendship, with Rules for conducting it, in a letter addressed to her. It is probable that this prelate's acquaintance with so accomplished a lady as Mrs. Philips, might be one reason of his entertaining so high an opinion of the fair sex in general; it is certain he was a great admirer of them, by which the good sense, as well as piety, of that great man is demonstrated; for whoever has studied life, examined the [153] various motives of human actions, compared characters, and, in a word, scrutinized the heart, will find that more real virtue, more genuine and unaffected goodness exist amongst the female sex, than the other, and were their minds cultivated with equal care, and did they move in the bustle of life, they would not fall short of the men in the acute excellences; but the softness of their natures exempts them from action, and the blushes of beauty are not to be effaced by the rough storms of adversity: that man is happy who enjoys in the conjugal state, the endearments of love and innocence, and if his wife is less acquainted with the world than he, she makes a large amends, by the artless blandishments of a delicate affection.
While Mrs. Philips was in Ireland, she was delighted to maintain her friendship with the renowned Jeremy Taylor, the bishop of Down and Connor, who had previously honored her by writing and publishing a Discourse on the Nature, Offices, and Measures of Friendship, with guidelines on how to conduct it, in a letter addressed to her. It’s likely that this bishop’s friendship with such an accomplished woman as Mrs. Philips contributed to his high regard for women in general; he certainly admired them, which highlights both the wisdom and piety of that great man. Anyone who has studied life, examined the various motives behind human actions, compared characters, and scrutinized the heart will find that there is more genuine virtue and true goodness among women than among men. If their minds were nurtured with the same care and they engaged more in the hustle of life, they would not fall behind men in sharp skills. However, their natural tenderness keeps them from action, and the blushes of beauty can't be erased by the harsh storms of adversity. A man is fortunate who experiences the affection of love and innocence in marriage, and if his wife knows less about the world than he does, she compensates with the sincere charms of a gentle love.
We are persuaded our fair readers will not be displeased if we insert a paragraph from the discourse already mentioned by this worthy churchman; it appearing to be so sincere a tribute to their merit. 'But by the way, madam, you may see how I differ from the majority of those cynics, who would not admit your sex into the community of a noble friendship. I believe some wives have been the best friends in the world; and few stories can outdo the nobleness and piety of that lady, that sucked the poisonous purulent matter from the wounds of the brave Prince in the holy land, when an assassin had pierced him with a venomed arrow: and if it be told that women cannot retain council, and therefore can be no brave friends, I can best confute them by the story of Porcia, who being fearful of the weakness of her sex, stabbed herself in the thigh to try how she could bear pain; and finding herself constant enough to that sufferance, gently chid her Brutus for not trusting her, since now she perceived, that no torment could wrest that secret from her, which she hoped might be entrusted to her. If [154] there were no more things to be said for your satisfaction, I could have made it disputable, which have been more illustrious in their friendship, men or women. I cannot say that women are capable of all those excellencies by which men can oblige the world, and therefore a female friend, in some cases, is not so good a counsellor as a wise man, and cannot so well defend my honour, nor dispose of relief and assistances, if she be under the power of another; but a woman can love as passionately, and converse as pleasantly, and retain a secret as faithfully, and be useful in her proper ministries, and she can die for her friend, as well as the bravest Roman knight; a man is the best friend in trouble, but a woman may be equal to him in the days of joy: a woman can as well increase our comforts, but cannot so well lessen our sorrows, and therefore we do not carry women with us when we go to fight; but in peaceful cities and times, women are the beauties of society, and the prettinesses of friendship, and when we consider that few persons in the world have all those excellences by which friendship can be useful, and illustrious, we may as well allow women as men to be friends; since they have all that can be necessary and essential to friendships, and those cannot have all by which friendships can be accidentally improved.'
We believe our dear readers will be pleased if we include a paragraph from the previously mentioned speech by this respected churchman, as it seems to be a sincere tribute to their worth. "But by the way, madam, you can see how I differ from most cynics, who wouldn’t allow your gender into the realm of true friendship. I believe some wives have been the greatest friends in the world; and few stories can surpass the nobility and devotion of that lady who sucked the poisonous pus from the wounds of the brave Prince in the Holy Land, when an assassin shot him with a poisoned arrow: and if it is said that women can’t keep a secret and therefore can’t be true friends, I can best prove them wrong with the story of Porcia, who, fearing the frailty of her gender, stabbed herself in the thigh to see how she could handle pain; and realizing she could endure that suffering, gently chastised Brutus for not trusting her, since she now knew that no torture could force her to reveal a secret she hoped might be shared with her. If [154] there weren’t more to say for your satisfaction, I could argue over whether men or women have been more renowned for their friendships. I can’t say that women possess all the qualities that allow men to serve the world, and thus a female friend may not be as good a counselor as a wise man, nor can she defend my honor as well or provide support if she’s under someone else's authority; but a woman can love as passionately, engage in conversation as pleasantly, keep a secret as faithfully, and be effective in her own roles, and she can die for her friend just like the bravest Roman knight; a man may be the best friend in times of trouble, but a woman can be just as supportive during joyful times: a woman can enhance our happiness but may not lessen our sorrows as effectively, which is why we don’t take women with us into battle; however, in peaceful cities and times, women are the beauties of society and the charms of friendship, and when we consider that few people in the world possess all the qualities that make friendship valuable and splendid, we should allow women to be friends just as much as men, since they have all that is necessary and essential for friendships, and they cover all that can enhance friendships by chance."
Thus far this learned prelate, whose testimony in favour of women is the more considerable, as he cannot be supposed to have been influenced by any particular passion, at least for Mrs. Philips, who was ordinary in her person and was besides a married lady. In the year 1663 Mrs. Philips quitted Ireland, and went to Cardigan, where she spent the remaining part of that, and the beginning of the next year, in a sort of melancholy retirement; as appears by her [155] letters, occasioned, perhaps, by the bad success of her husband's affairs. Going to London, in order to relieve her oppressed spirits with the conversation of her friends there, she was seized by the smallpox, and died of it (in Fleet street,) to the great grief of her acquaintance, in the 32d year of her age, and was buried June 22, 1664, in the church of St. Bennet Sherehog[1], under a large monumental stone, where several of her ancestors were before buried. Mr. Aubrey in his manuscript abovementioned, observes, that her person was of a middle stature, pretty fat, and ruddy complexioned.
So far, this knowledgeable bishop, who speaks positively about women, is particularly noteworthy because he likely wasn’t swayed by any personal feelings, especially for Mrs. Philips, who was plain-looking and also a married woman. In 1663, Mrs. Philips left Ireland and moved to Cardigan, where she spent the rest of that year and the beginning of the next in a sort of sad isolation, as shown in her [155] letters, possibly due to her husband's unsuccessful business ventures. When she went to London to uplift her spirits by seeing her friends, she contracted smallpox and died from it (in Fleet Street), causing great sorrow among her friends, at the age of 32. She was buried on June 22, 1664, in St. Bennet Sherehog[1], under a large memorial stone where several of her ancestors had been laid to rest. Mr. Aubrey, in his aforementioned manuscript, notes that she was of average height, somewhat overweight, and had a rosy complexion.
Soon after her death, her Poems and Translations were collected and published in a volume in folio, to which was added Monsieur Corneille's Pompey and Horace, Tragedies; with several other Translations out of French, London 1667, with her picture, a good busto, before them, standing on a pedestal, on which is inscribed Orinda; it was printed again at London 1678. In a collection of Letters published by Mr. Thomas Brown, in 1697, are printed four Letters from Mrs. Philips to the Honourable Berenice. Many years after her death, were published a volume of excellent Letters from Mrs. Philips to Sir Charles Cotterel with the ensuing title, Letters from Orinda to Polliarchus, 8vo. London 1705. Major Pack, in his Essay on Study, inserted in his Miscellanies, gives the following character of these Letters; 'The best Letters I have met with in our English tongue, are those of the celebrated Mrs. Philips to Sir Charles Cotterel; as they are directed all to the same person, so they run all in the same strain, and seem to have been employed in the service of a refined and generous friendship. In a word, they are such as a woman of spirit and virtue, should [156] write to a courtier of honour, and true gallantry.' The memory of this ingenious lady has been honoured with many encomiums. Mr. Thomas Rowe in his epistle to Daphne, pays the following tribute to her fame.
Soon after her death, her Poems and Translations were collected and published in a folio volume, which also included Monsieur Corneille's tragedies, Pompey and Horace, along with several other translations from French, published in London in 1667. Her picture, a nice bust, was placed on a pedestal inscribed with "Orinda." It was reprinted in London in 1678. In a collection of letters published by Mr. Thomas Brown in 1697, there are four letters from Mrs. Philips to the Honorable Berenice. Many years after her death, a volume of excellent letters from Mrs. Philips to Sir Charles Cotterel was published under the title Letters from Orinda to Polliarchus, 8vo, in London in 1705. Major Pack, in his Essay on Study included in his Miscellanies, provided this assessment of those letters: "The best letters I have come across in our English language are those of the celebrated Mrs. Philips to Sir Charles Cotterel; since they are all addressed to the same person, they share a consistent tone and seem to serve a refined and generous friendship. In short, they are what a spirited and virtuous woman should write to a courtier of honor and true gallantry." The legacy of this talented lady has been celebrated with numerous tributes. Mr. Thomas Rowe, in his epistle to Daphne, pays the following homage to her reputation.
At last ('twas long indeed!) Orinda came, To ages yet to come an ever glorious name; To virtuous themes, her well tun'd lyre she strung; Of virtuous themes in easy numbers sung. Horace and Pompey in her line appear, With all the worth that Rome did once revere: Much to Corneille they owe, and much to her. Her thoughts, her numbers, and her fire the same, She soar'd as high, and equal'd all his fame. Tho' France adores the bard, nor envies Greece The costly buskins of her Sophocles. More we expected, but untimely death, Soon stopt her rising glories with her breath. |
} } } |
More testimonies might be produced in favour of Mrs. Philips, but as her works are generally known, and are an indelible testimony of her merit, we reckon it superfluous. Besides the poetical abilities of the amiable Orinda, she is said to have been of a generous, charitable disposition, and a friend to all in distress.
More testimonies could be offered in support of Mrs. Philips, but since her works are well-known and serve as undeniable evidence of her talent, we consider it unnecessary. Besides the poetic skills of the lovely Orinda, she is said to have been generous, charitable, and a friend to everyone in need.
As few ladies ever lived more happy in her friends than our poetess, so those friends have done justice to her memory, and celebrated her, when dead, for those virtues they admired, when living. Mr. Dryden more than once mentions her with honour, and Mr Cowley has written an excellent Ode upon her death. As this Ode will better shew the high opinion once entertained of Mrs. Philips, than any thing we can say, after giving a specimen of her [157] poetry, we shall conclude with this performance of Cowley's, which breathes friendship in every line, and speaks an honest mind: so true is the observation of Pope, upon the supposition that Cowley's works are falling into oblivion,
As few women ever lived as happily in the company of friends as our poetess did, those friends have honored her memory and celebrated her, when she passed away, for the virtues they admired when she was alive. Mr. Dryden mentions her with respect more than once, and Mr. Cowley wrote an excellent Ode about her death. Since this Ode will better showcase the high regard once held for Mrs. Philips than anything we could say, after providing a sample of her [157] poetry, we will conclude with Cowley's piece, which expresses friendship in every line and reflects an honest mind: so true is Pope's observation about the fear that Cowley's works might be forgotten.
Lost is his epic, nay, pindaric art,
But still I love the language of his heart.
Lost is his grand, almost praiseworthy art,
But I still love the language from his heart.
Mrs. Philips's poetry has not harmony of versification, or amorous tenderness to recommend it, but it has a force of thinking, which few poets of the other sex can exceed, and if it is without graces, it has yet a great deal of strength. As she has been celebrated for her friendship, we shall present the reader with an Ode upon that subject, addressed to her dearest Lucasia.
Mrs. Philips's poetry lacks the rhythm and romantic tenderness that usually appeal to readers, but it possesses a depth of thought that few male poets can match. While it may not have the charm of other works, it certainly has a lot of strength. Since she is known for her friendships, we will share an Ode on that topic, directed to her closest friend, Lucasia.
I.
Come my Lucasia, since we see
That miracles men's faith do move
By wonder, and by prodigy;
To the dull angry world lets prove
There's a religion in our love.
Come my Lucasia, since we see
Miracles can change people's faith.
Through wonder and by extraordinary acts;
Let’s show the boring, angry world
There's a deeper meaning to our love.
II.
For tho' we were designed t'agree,
That fate no liberty destroys,
But our election is as free
As angels, who with greedy choice
Are yet determined to their joys.
For though we were meant to agree,
That fate doesn't take away our freedom,
But our choice is just as free
As angels, who with enthusiastic choice
Are still dedicated to their happiness.
III.
Our hearts are doubled by the loss,
Here mixture is addition grown;
We both diffuse, and both engross:
And we whose minds are so much one,
Never, yet ever are alone.
Our hearts are heavy with loss,
Here, blending feels like growth;
We both share and both consume:
And we who think together,
Are never, yet always lonely.
IV.
We court our own captivity,
Than thrones more great and innocent:
'Twere banishment to be set free,
Since we wear fetters whose intent
Not bondage is, but ornament.
We invite our own entrapment,
Than more powerful and innocent thrones:
It would be exile to be liberated,
Since we wear chains that serve the purpose of
Isn't meant to restrict us, but to enhance us.
V.
Divided joys are tedious found,
And griefs united easier grow:
We are ourselves, but by rebound,
And all our titles shuffled so,
Both princes, and both subjects too.
Divided joys are boring,
Shared grief is easier to handle:
We define ourselves through others,
And all our roles get shuffled around,
Both kings and commoners at the same time.
VI.
Our hearts are mutual victims laid,
While they (such power in friendship lies)
Are altars, priests, and offerings made:
And each heart which thus kindly dies,
Grows deathless by the sacrifice.
Our hearts are shared victims laid,
While they (there's so much power in friendship)
Are altars, priests, and gifts made:
And each heart that generously offers its life,
Becomes immortal through sacrifice.
On the Death of Mrs. PHILIPS.
I.
Cruel disease! ah, could it not suffice,
Thy old and constant spite to exercise
Against the gentlest and the fairest sex,
Which still thy depredations most do vex?
Where still thy malice, most of all
(Thy malice or thy lust) does on the fairest fall,
And in them most assault the fairest place,
The throne of empress beauty, ev'n the face.
There was enough of that here to assuage,
(One would have thought) either thy lust or rage;
Was't not enough, when thou, profane disease,
Didst on this glorious temple seize:
Was't not enough, like a wild zealot, there,
All the rich outward ornaments to tear,
Deface the innocent pride of beauteous images?
Was't not enough thus rudely to defile,
But thou must quite destroy the goodly pile?
And thy unbounded sacrilege commit
On th'inward holiest holy of her wit?
Cruel disease! there thou mistook'st thy power;
No mine of death can that devour,
On her embalmed name it will abide
An everlasting pyramide,
As high as heav'n the top, as earth, the basis wide.
Cruel disease! Ah, couldn’t you just be content,
To unleash your old, constant wrath
Against the gentlest and fairest women,
Whose suffering you seem to enjoy the most?
Where your bitterness, more than anything
(Your malice or your lust) falls hardest on the most beautiful,
And attacks their most precious feature,
The crown of beauty—their faces.
There was enough of that here to satisfy,
(One would think) either your lust or anger;
Wasn't it enough when you, vile disease,
Claimed this glorious temple:
Wasn't it enough, like a wild fanatic, to tear apart
All the rich, outward decorations,
Ruin the innocent pride of beautiful images?
Wasn't it enough to defile her so brutally,
But you had to completely destroy the lovely structure?
And commit your outrageous sacrilege
On the innermost sanctum of her intellect?
Cruel disease! There you misjudged your power;
No serious illness can take that away,
Her cherished name will endure
As a timeless pyramid,
As high as heaven at the top, with a foundation wide as the earth.
II.
All ages past record, all countries now,
In various kinds such equal beauties show,
That ev'n judge Paris would not know
On whom the golden apple to bestow,
Though goddesses to his sentence did submit,
Women and lovers would appeal from it:
[160]
Nor durst he say, of all the female race,
This is the sovereign face.
And some (tho' these be of a kind that's rare,
That's much, oh! much less frequent than the fair)
So equally renown'd for virtue are,
That is the mother of the gods might pose,
When the best woman for her guide she chose.
But if Apollo should design
A woman Laureat to make,
Without dispute he would Orinda take,
Though Sappho and the famous nine
Stood by, and did repine.
To be a Princess or a Queen
Is great; but 'tis a greatness always seen;
The world did never but two women know,
Who, one by fraud, th'other by wit did rise
To the two tops of spiritual dignities,
One female pope of old, one female poet now.
All ages recorded, all countries today,
Show equal beauty in different ways,
Not even Judge Paris would know.
Who to give the golden apple to,
Though goddesses submitted to his choice,
Both women and lovers would disagree:
[160]
Nor would he claim, of all the women out there,
This is the most powerful face.
And some (though these are quite rare,
Much, oh! much less common than the beautiful)
Are equally renowned for their virtue,
That the mother of the gods might ponder,
When she chose the best woman for her guide.
But if Apollo decides
To make a woman a Laureate,
Without a doubt, he would choose Orinda,
Though Sappho and the renowned nine
Were there, feeling resentful.
To be a Princess or a Queen
Is significant; but it's a well-known greatness;
The world has known only two women,
One rose by deceit and the other by intellect,
To the highest spiritual honors,
One female pope from long ago, one female poet today.
III.
Of female poets, who had names of old,
Nothing is shown, but only told,
And all we hear of them perhaps may be
Male-flatt'ry only, and male-poetry.
Few minutes did their beauties light'ning waste,
The thunder of their voice did longer last,
But that too soon was past.
The certain proofs of our Orinda's wit,
In her own lasting characters are writ,
And they will long my praise of them survive,
Though long perhaps too that may live,
The trade of glory manag'd by the pen
Though great it be, and every where is found.
Does bring in but small profit to us men;
'Tis by the number of the sharers drown'd.
Orinda on the female coasts of fame,
Ingrosses all the goods of a poetic name.
[161]
She does no partner with her see,
Does all the business there alone, which we
Are forc'd to carry on by a whole company.
Of female poets from the past,
Only conversations take place, nothing is displayed,
And what we hear about them might just be
Male praise and male poetry.
Their beauty only shined for a few moments,
While the strength of their voices lasted longer,
But that also was gone too soon.
The clear evidence of Orinda’s talent,
Is written in her own lasting style,
And they will outlive my praise of them,
Even if that lasts for a long time,
The pursuit of glory handled through writing
Though significant, is found everywhere.
It brings in little benefit for us men;
It’s drowned out by the number of participants.
Orinda, in the world of female fame,
Holds all the rewards of a poetic name.
[161]
She doesn’t share her limelight,
Handles everything there alone, while we
Are forced to carry it out with a whole team.
IV.
But wit's like a luxuriant vine;
Unless to virtue's prop it join,
Firm and erect towards Heav'n bound;
Tho' it with beauteous leaves and pleasant fruit be crown'd,
It lyes deform'd, and rotting on the ground.
Now shame and blushes on us all,
Who our own sex superior call!
Orinda does our boasting sex out do,
Not in wit only, but in virtue too.
She does above our best examples rise,
In hate of vice, and scorn of vanities.
Never did spirit of the manly make,
And dipp'd all o'er in learning's sacred lake,
A temper more invulnerable take.
No violent passion could an entrance find,
Into the tender goodness of her mind;
Through walls of stone those furious bullets may
Force their impetuous way,
When her soft breast they hit, damped and dead they lay.
But wit is like a lush vine;
Unless it aligns with the support of virtue,
Standing strong and upright towards Heaven;
Even if it is crowned with beautiful leaves and sweet fruit,
It lies deformed, rotting on the ground.
Now shame and embarrassment are on all of us,
Who claims that our gender is superior!
Orinda surpasses our boastful sex,
Not just in wit, but in virtue as well.
She rises above our best examples,
In her hatred of vice and disdain for vanities.
Never has the spirit of manfully made,
And immersed all over in the sacred lake of learning,
Taken on a temperament more invulnerable.
No violent passion could find entrance,
Into the gentle goodness of her mind;
Through walls of stone, those furious bullets may
Push through with reckless speed,
But when they hit her soft heart, they lie dampened and dead.
V.
The fame of friendship which so long had told
Of three or four illustrious names of old,
'Till hoarse and weary with the tale she grew,
Rejoices now t'have got a new,
A new, and more surprizing story,
Of fair Leucasia's and Orinda's glory.
As when a prudent man does once perceive
That in some foreign country he must live,
The language and the manners he does strive
[162]
To understand and practise here,
That he may come no stranger there;
So well Orinda did her self prepare,
In this much different clime for her remove,
To the glad world of poetry and love.
The fame of friendship that for so long had told
Of a few famous names from the past,
Until the story grew tired and worn,
Is now excited to have a new,
A new and unexpected story,
Of fair Leucasia and Orinda's fame.
Like when a wise man realizes
That he must live in a foreign land,
He strives to learn the language and customs
[162]
So he won't feel out of place there;
Orinda got herself ready so well,
In this very different place for her journey,
To the joyful realm of poetry and love.
Margaret, Duchess of Newcastle,
The second wife of William Cavendish, duke of Newcastle, was born at St. John's near Colchester in Essex, about the latter end of the reign of King James I. and was the youngest daughter of Sir Charles Lucas, a gentleman of great spirit and fortune, who died when she was very young. The duchess herself in a book intitled Nature's Pictures, drawn by Fancy's pencil to the life, has celebrated both the exquisite beauty of her person, and the rare endowments of her mind. This lady's mother was remarkably assiduous in the education of her children, and bestowed upon this, all the instructions necessary for forming the minds of young ladies, and introducing them into life with advantage. She found her trouble in cultivating this daughter's mind not in vain, for she discovered early an inclination to learning, and spent so much of her time in study and writing, that some of her Biographers have lamented her not being acquainted with the learned languages, which would have extended her [163] knowledge, corrected the exuberances of genius, and have been of infinite service to her, in her numerous compositions.
The second wife of William Cavendish, Duke of Newcastle, was born in St. John's near Colchester in Essex, towards the end of King James I's reign. She was the youngest daughter of Sir Charles Lucas, a man of great spirit and wealth, who passed away when she was very young. The duchess herself, in a book titled Nature's Pictures, Drawn by Fancy's Pencil to the Life, praised both her stunning beauty and her exceptional intelligence. Her mother was particularly dedicated to educating her children and provided her with all the guidance needed to shape the minds of young women and help them start their lives successfully. Her efforts were not in vain, as this daughter showed an early interest in learning and dedicated so much of her time to study and writing that some of her biographers have expressed regret that she wasn’t familiar with the classical languages, which could have broadened her [163] knowledge, refined her creative outpourings, and been tremendously helpful in her many writings.
In the year 1643 she obtained leave of her mother to go to Oxford, where the court then resided, and was made one of the Maids of Honour to Henrietta Maria, the Royal Consort of King Charles I. and when the Queen was forced to leave the arms of her Husband, and fly into France, by the violence of the prevailing power, this lady attended her there. At Paris she met with the marquis of Newcastle, whose loyalty had likewise produced his exile; who, admiring her person and genius, married her in the year 1645. The marquis had before heard of this lady, for he was a patron and friend of her gallant brother, lord Lucas, who commanded under him in the civil wars. He took occasion one day to ask his lordship what he could do for him, as he had his interest much at heart? to which he answered, that he was not sollicitous about his own affairs, for he knew the worst could be but suffering either death, or exile in the Royal cause, but his chief sollicitude was for his sister, on whom he could bestow no fortune, and whose beauty exposed her to danger: he represented her amiable qualities, and raised the marquis's curiosity to see her, and from that circumstance arose the marquis's affection to this lady. From Paris they went to Rotterdam, where they resided six months: from thence they returned to Antwerp, where they settled, and continued during the time of their exile, as it was the most quiet place, and where they could in the greatest peace enjoy their ruined fortune. She proved a most agreeable companion to the marquis, during the gloomy period of exile, and enlivened their recess, both by her writing and conversation, as appears by the many compliments and addresses he made her on that occasion.
In 1643, she got permission from her mother to go to Oxford, where the court was at the time, and became one of the Maids of Honour to Henrietta Maria, the Royal Consort of King Charles I. When the Queen was forced to leave her husband and flee to France due to the violence of those in power, this lady accompanied her. In Paris, she met the Marquis of Newcastle, whose loyalty had also led to his exile. He was taken by her beauty and intellect, and married her in 1645. The Marquis had already heard about her, as he was a patron and friend of her brave brother, Lord Lucas, who commanded under him during the civil wars. One day, he asked Lord Lucas what he could do for him, as he genuinely cared about his well-being. Lord Lucas replied that he wasn't worried about his own situation, knowing it could only end in death or exile for the Royal cause, but he was deeply concerned for his sister, who had no fortune and whose beauty put her at risk. He highlighted her charming qualities, which piqued the Marquis's interest in meeting her, leading to the Marquis's affection for this lady. They traveled from Paris to Rotterdam, where they lived for six months, then returned to Antwerp, where they settled during their exile because it was the quietest place, allowing them to enjoy their diminished fortune in peace. She proved to be a delightful companion to the Marquis during this gloomy time, brightening their retreat with her writing and conversation, as shown by the many compliments and expressions of admiration he made to her during that period.
[164] The lady undertook a voyage into England, in order to obtain some of the marquis's rents, to supply their pressing necessities, and pay the debts they had been there obliged to contract; and accordingly went with her brother to Goldsmith's Hall, where, it seems, the committee of sequestration sat, but could not obtain the smallest sum out of the marquis's vast inheritance, which, amounted to 20,000 l. per annum; and had it not been for the generosity and tenderness of Sir Charles Cavendish (who greatly reduced his own fortune, to support his brother in distress) they must have been exposed to extreme poverty.
[164] The lady traveled to England to collect some of the marquis's rents to meet their urgent needs and pay off the debts they had to incur while there. She went with her brother to Goldsmith's Hall, where the committee of sequestration was meeting, but they couldn't get even a small amount from the marquis's large fortune, which was 20,000 pounds a year. If it hadn't been for the kindness and compassion of Sir Charles Cavendish (who significantly reduced his own wealth to help his brother in trouble), they would have faced severe poverty.
Having raised a considerable sum, by the generosity of her own, and the marquis's, relations, she returned to Antwerp, where she continued with her lord, till the restoration of Charles II, upon which, the marquis, after six years banishment, made immediate preparation for his return to his native country, leaving his lady behind him to dispatch his affairs there, who, having conducted them to his lordship's satisfaction, she soon followed her consort into England. Being now restored to the sunshine of prosperity, she dedicated her time to writing poems, philosophical discourses, orations and plays. She was of a generous turn of mind, and kept a great many young ladies about her person, who occasionally wrote what she dictated. Some of them slept in a room, contiguous to that in which her Grace lay, and were ready, at the call of her bell, to rise any hour of the night, to write down her conceptions, lest they should escape her memory.
Having raised a significant amount, thanks to the generosity of her own family and the marquis's relatives, she returned to Antwerp, where she stayed with her husband until Charles II was restored. After six years of exile, the marquis quickly made plans to return to his homeland, leaving his wife behind to handle his affairs. Once she successfully took care of everything to his satisfaction, she soon followed him to England. Now back in the light of prosperity, she devoted her time to writing poems, philosophical essays, speeches, and plays. She had a generous spirit and had many young ladies around her who occasionally wrote down what she dictated. Some of them even slept in a room next to hers and were ready to get up at any hour of the night at the sound of her bell, to jot down her thoughts before they slipped her mind.
The young ladies, no doubt, often dreaded her Grace's conceptions, which were frequent, but all of the poetical or philosophical kind, for though she was very beautiful, she died without issue: she is said to have been very reserved and peevish, perhaps owing to the circumstance just mentioned, [165] of having never been honoured with the name of mother.
The young women probably often feared her ideas, which were frequent but always of the poetic or philosophical sort. Even though she was very beautiful, she died without any children. It's said that she was quite reserved and irritable, possibly because of the fact that she never had the honor of being called a mother. [165]
Mr. Jacob says, that she was the most voluminous writer of all the female poets; that she had a great deal of wit, and a more than ordinary propensity to dramatic poetry; and Mr. Langbaine tells us, that all the language and plots of her plays were her own, which, says he, is a commendation preferable to fame built on other people's foundation, and will very well atone for some faults in her numerous productions. As the Duchess is said to be negligent, in regard to chronology in her historical writings, so others have been equally remiss, in this respect, with regard to her Grace, for, among the many authors who have taken notice of her, not one has mentioned the year in which she died, and even her monumental inscription, where one might reasonably expect it, is silent, both in respect to her age, and the time of her death. But Mr. Fulman, in the 15th volume of his MS. collections in the Corpus Christi College Archives, observes, that she died in London Anno 1673, and was buried at Westminster, January 7, 1673-4, where an elegant monument is erected to her memory, of which, take the following account given by Dr. Crul in the Antiquities of that Church. 'Against the skreen of the chapel of St. Michael, is a most noble spacious tomb of white marble, adorned with two pillars of black marble, with entablatures of the Corinthian order, embellished with arms, and most curious trophy works; on the pedestal lye two images, in full proportion, of white marble in a cumbent posture, in their robes, representing William Cavendish, duke of Newcastle, and Margaret his duchess, his second and last wife, being the daughter of Sir Charles, and the sister of lord Lucas of Colchester; who as she had deservedly acquired the reputation of a lady [166] of uncommon wit, learning, and liberality; so the duke her husband had rendered himself famous for his loyalty, and constant fidelity to the royal family, during the civil wars in this kingdom and in Scotland. The duke having caused this stately monument to be erected here to the memory of his lady, died soon after in the year 1676, aged 84, and was interred here.'
Mr. Jacob says she was the most prolific female poet, known for her wit and strong inclination towards dramatic poetry. Mr. Langbaine mentions that all the language and plots in her plays were her own. He believes this is a better accolade than fame built on the works of others and more than makes up for some shortcomings in her many works. While the Duchess is said to have been careless about chronology in her historical writings, others have also overlooked this regarding her. Among the many authors who have noted her, none have mentioned the year of her death, and even her tombstone, where one might reasonably expect such information, does not indicate her age or the date of her passing. However, Mr. Fulman notes in volume 15 of his manuscript collections at the Corpus Christi College Archives that she died in London in 1673 and was buried at Westminster on January 7, 1673-74. An elegant monument was erected in her memory, and Dr. Crul provides the following description in the Antiquities of that Church: 'Against the screen of the chapel of St. Michael, there is a magnificent tomb of white marble, adorned with two black marble pillars, featuring Corinthian-style entablatures, embellished with coats of arms and intricate trophies. On the pedestal lie two life-sized images in white marble, reclining in their robes, representing William Cavendish, Duke of Newcastle, and his wife Margaret, his second and last wife, who was the daughter of Sir Charles and the sister of Lord Lucas of Colchester. She earned a well-deserved reputation as a lady of exceptional wit, knowledge, and generosity. The Duke, her husband, became famous for his loyalty and constant fidelity to the royal family during the civil wars in this kingdom and in Scotland. After commissioning this grand monument to honor his wife, he passed away soon after in 1676 at the age of 84 and was buried here.'
The Epitaph for the Duchess.
The Duchess's Epitaph.
"Here lies the loyal Duke of Newcastle and his Duchess, his second wife, by whom he had no issue. Her name was Margaret Lucas, youngest sister to the Lord Lucas of Colchester, a noble family, for all the brothers were valiant, and all the sisters virtuous. This Duchess was a wise, witty, and learned Lady, which her many books do well testify: She was a most virtuous, and loving, and careful wife, and was with her Lord all the time of his banishment and miseries; and when they came home never parted with him in his solitary retirements."
"Here lies the loyal Duke of Newcastle and his Duchess, his second wife, with whom he had no children. Her name was Margaret Lucas, the youngest sister of Lord Lucas of Colchester, a noble family, known for having brave brothers and virtuous sisters. This Duchess was a wise, witty, and educated woman, proven by her many books. She was a very virtuous, loving, and attentive wife, staying by her husband during all his banishment and hardships; and when they returned home, she never left his side in his quiet moments."
The following is a catalogue of her works, in which we have taken pains to be as accurate as possible, in order to do justice to the poetical character of this lady.
The following is a catalog of her works, where we have made an effort to be as accurate as possible to honor the poetic talent of this lady.
- The World's Olio.
- Nature's Picture drawn by Fancy's Pencil
to the Life.
In this volume there are several feigned stories of natural descriptions, as comical, tragical, and tragi-comical, poetical, romancical, philosophical, and historical, both in prose and verse, some all [167] verse, some all prose, some mixt; partly prose, and partly verse; also some morals, and some dialogues, Lond. 1656. folio.
In this book, you'll find a variety of fictional stories featuring natural descriptions that range from funny to tragic, as well as tragi-comedic, poetic, romantic, philosophical, and historical, presented in both prose and verse. Some are entirely in verse, some are entirely in prose, and others mix both; there are also some morals and dialogues, Lond. 1656. folio.
- Orations of different sorts, on different occasions, Lond. 1662.
- Philosophical and Physical Opinions, 1633, folio.
- Observations on Experimental Philosophy; to which is added, the Description of a New World. Mr. James Bristow began to translate some of these Philosophical Discourses into Latin.
- Philosophical Letters; or modest Reflections on some Opinions in Natural Philosophy, maintained by several famous and learned authors of this age, expressed by way of letters, Lond. 1664, fol.
- Poems and Fancies, Lond. 1664, folio.
- Sociable Letters, 1664, folio.
- The Life of the Duke of Newcastle her husband, which was translated into Latin, and is thought to be the best performance of this lady.
- Observations of the Duke's, with Remarks
of her own,
In the Library of the late Mr. Thomas Richardson was the Duchess of Newcastle's poems, 2 Vol. fol. MS. and in the library of the late bishop Willis was another MS. of her poems in folio.
In the library of the late Mr. Thomas Richardson, there were the Duchess of Newcastle's poems, 2 Vol. fol. MS., and in the library of the late Bishop Willis, there was another MS. of her poems in folio.
Her Dramatic Works are,
Her plays are,
- Apocryphal Ladies, a Comedy; it is not divided into acts.
- Bell in Campo, a Tragedy, in two parts.
- Blazing World, a Comedy.
- Bridals, a Comedy.
- Comical Hash, a Comedy.
- [168] Convent of Pleasure, a Comedy.
- Female Academy, a Comedy.
- Lady Contemplation, a Comedy, in two parts.
- Love's Adventure, in two parts, a Comedy.
- Matrimonial Troubles, in two parts; the second being a Tragedy, or as the authoress stiles it, a Tragi-comedy.
- Nature's three Daughters, Beauty, Love, and Wit, a Comedy, in two parts.
- Presence, a Comedy.
- Public Wooing, a Comedy, in which the Duke wrote several of the suitors speeches.
- Religious, a Tragi-Comedy.
- Several Wits, a Comedy.
- Sociable Companions, or the Female Wits, a Comedy.
- Unnatural Tragedy. Act II. Scene III. the Duchess inveighs against Mr. Camden's Britannia.
- Wit's Cabal, a Comedy, in two parts.
- Youth's Glory, and Death's Banquet, a Tragedy in two parts.
Mr. Langbaine has preserved part of the general prologue to her plays, which we shall insert as a specimen of her versification:
Mr. Langbaine has kept part of the general prologue to her plays, which we will include as an example of her writing style:
But noble readers, do not think my plays
Are such as have been writ in former days;
As Johnson, Shakespear, Beaumont, Fletcher writ,
Mine want their learning, reading, language, wit.
The Latin phrases, I could never tell,
But Johnson could, which made him write so well.
Greek, Latin poets, I could never read,
Nor their historians, but our English Speed:
[169]
I could not steal their wit, nor plots out-take;
All my plays plots, my own poor brain did make.
From Plutarch's story, I ne'er took a plot,
Nor from romances, nor from Don Quixote.
But dear readers, don’t think my plays
Are like those written in the past;
Like Johnson, Shakespeare, Beaumont, or Fletcher,
Mine lack their skill, education, language, and cleverness.
I could never grasp the Latin phrases,
But Johnson could, which is why he wrote so well.
I could never read Greek or Latin poets,
Nor their historians, just our English Speed:
[169]
I couldn’t borrow their wit or take their plots;
All the plots in my plays came from my own humble mind.
From Plutarch's stories, I never borrowed a plot,
Nor from romances, nor from Don Quixote.
William Cavendish,
Baron Ogle, viscount Mansfield, earl, marquis, and duke of Newcastle, justly reckoned one of the most finished gentlemen, as well as the most distinguished patriot, general, and statesman of his age. He was son of Sir Charles Cavendish, youngest son of Sir William Cavendish, and younger brother of the first earl of Devonshire, by Katherine daughter of Cuthbert lord Ogle[1].
Baron Ogle, Viscount Mansfield, Earl, Marquis, and Duke of Newcastle, is rightly considered one of the most refined gentlemen, as well as the most notable patriot, general, and statesman of his time. He was the son of Sir Charles Cavendish, the youngest son of Sir William Cavendish, and the younger brother of the first Earl of Devonshire, by Katherine, daughter of Cuthbert, Lord Ogle[1].
He was born in the year 1592, and discovered in his infancy a promptness of genius, and a love of literature. His father took care to have him instructed by the best masters in every science. He no sooner appeared at the court of King James I. than the reputation of his abilities drew the attention of that monarch upon him, who made him a knight of the Bath 1610, at the creation of Henry Prince of Wales[2].
He was born in 1592 and showed a talent for learning and a passion for literature from a young age. His father ensured he was educated by the best teachers in every subject. As soon as he arrived at the court of King James I, his reputation caught the attention of the king, who knighted him in 1610 during the creation of Henry, Prince of Wales. [2]
In 1617 his father died, who left him a great estate; and having interest at court, he was by letters patent, dated Nov. 3, 1620, raised to the dignity of a peer of the realm, by the stile and title of baron Ogle, and viscount Mansfield; and having no less credit with King Charles I. than he had with his father, in the third year of the [170] reign of that prince, he was advanced to the higher title of earl of Newcastle upon Tyne, and at the same time he was created baron Cavendish of Balsovor. Our author's attendance upon court, tho' it procured him honour, yet introduced him very early into difficulties; and it appears by Strafford's letters, that he did not stand well with the favourite duke of Buckingham, who was jealous of his growing interest, and was too penetrating not to discover, that the quickness of his lordship's parts would soon suggest some methods of rising, independent of the favourite, and perhaps shaking his influence. "But these difficulties, says Clarendon, (for he was deeply plunged in debt) tho' they put him on the thoughts of retirement, never in the least prevented him from demonstrating his loyalty when the King's cause demanded it."
In 1617, his father passed away, leaving him a large estate. With connections at court, he was granted letters patent on November 3, 1620, elevating him to the rank of a peer of the realm, with the titles of Baron Ogle and Viscount Mansfield. Having gained as much favor with King Charles I as he had with his father, in the third year of the reign of that prince, he was promoted to the higher title of Earl of Newcastle upon Tyne, and at the same time, he was made Baron Cavendish of Balsovor. Although our author's presence at court earned him prestige, it also led to early challenges. Letters from Strafford reveal that he was not in good standing with the favored Duke of Buckingham, who was wary of his increasing influence and could easily see that his lordship’s quick wit would eventually come up with ways to advance independently of the favorite, potentially undermining his power. "But these challenges," Clarendon notes, "despite plunging him deeply into debt, made him consider retirement, yet they never hindered him from showing his loyalty when the King’s cause called for it."
Notwithstanding the earl's interest was not high with the ministers, yet he found means so to gain and to preserve the affection of his Majesty, that in the year 1638, when it was thought necessary to take the Prince of Wales out of the hands of a woman, his Majesty appointed the earl his governor, and by entrusting to his tuition the heir apparent of his kingdoms, demonstrated the highest confidence in his abilities and honour[3].
Even though the earl wasn't very favored by the ministers, he managed to win and keep the king's affection. So in 1638, when it was considered essential to remove the Prince of Wales from the influence of a woman, the king appointed the earl as his governor. By entrusting the education of the heir to his kingdoms to him, the king showed his utmost trust in the earl’s abilities and honor.[3]
In the spring of the year 1639, the troubles of Scotland breaking out, induced the King to assemble an army in the North, soon after which he went to put himself at the head of it, and in his way was splendidly entertained by the earl at his seat at Welbeck, as he had been some years before when he went into Scotland to be crowned, which in itself, tho' a trivial circumstance, yet such was the magnificence of this noble [171] peer, that both these entertainments found a place in general histories, and are computed by the duchess of Newcastle, who wrote the life of her lord, to have amounted to upwards of ten thousand pounds. He invited all the neighbouring gentry to pay their compliments to his Majesty, and partake of the feast, and Ben Johnson was employed in fitting such scenes and speeches as he could best devise; and Clarendon after mentioning the sumptuousness of those entertainments, observes, that they had a tendency to corrupt the people, and inspire a wantonness, which never fails to prove detrimental to morals.
In the spring of 1639, when troubles erupted in Scotland, the King decided to gather an army in the North. Shortly after, he went to lead it and was warmly welcomed by the earl at his home in Welbeck, just as he had been a few years earlier when he went to Scotland to be crowned. Although this might seem like a minor detail, the grandeur of this noble peer made both of these events notable in general histories, and the Duchess of Newcastle, who wrote her husband's biography, estimated that the expenses for these occasions exceeded ten thousand pounds. He invited all the local gentry to pay their respects to His Majesty and join in the feast, with Ben Jonson tasked with crafting the best scenes and speeches he could come up with. Clarendon, after mentioning the opulence of these gatherings, noted that they had a tendency to corrupt the people and instill a debauchery that inevitably harms morals.
As such an expedition as the King's against the Scots required immense sums, and the King's treasury being very empty, his lordship contributed ten thousand pounds, and raised a troop of horse, consisting of about 200 knights and gentlemen, who served at their own charge, and was honoured with the title of the Prince's troop[4].
As such an expedition as the King's against the Scots needed a lot of money, and since the King's treasury was pretty empty, his lordship donated ten thousand pounds and raised a cavalry unit made up of about 200 knights and gentlemen, who paid for their own expenses, and was honored with the title of the Prince's troop[4].
Tho' these instances of loyalty advanced him in the esteem of the King, yet they rather heightened than diminished the resentment of the ministers, of which the earl of Holland having given a stronger instance, than his lordship's patience could bear, he took notice of it in such a way, as contributed equally to sink his rival's reputation, and raise his own; and as there is something curious in the particular manner in which the earl of Holland's character suffered in this quarrel, we shall upon the authority of the duchess of Newcastle present it to the reader.
Though these acts of loyalty improved his standing with the King, they actually intensified, rather than decreased, the anger of the ministers. When the Earl of Holland demonstrated a stronger case than his lordship could tolerate, he addressed it in a way that not only undermined his rival's reputation but also elevated his own. Since there's something interesting about how the Earl of Holland's character was affected in this conflict, we'll share it with the reader based on the accounts of the Duchess of Newcastle.
The troop which the earl of Newcastle raised was stiled the Prince's, but his lordship commanded it as captain. When the army drew near Berwick, he sent Sir William Carnaby to the earl [172] of Holland, then general of the horse, to know where his troop should march; his answer was, next after the troops of the general officers. The earl of Newcastle sent again to represent, that having the honour to march with the Prince's colours, he thought it not fit to march under any of the officers of the field; upon which the general of the horse repeated his orders, and the earl of Newcastle ordered the Prince's colours to be taken off the staff, and marched without any. When the service was over, his lordship sent Mr. Francis Palmer, with a challenge to the earl of Holland, who consented to a place, and hour of meeting; but when the earl of Newcastle came thither, he found not his antagonist, but his second. The business had been disclosed to the King, by whose authority (says Clarendon) the matter was composed; but before that time, the earl of Holland was never suspected to want courage; and indeed he was rather a cunning, penetrating, than a brave honest man, and was remarkably selfish in his temper.
The troop that the Earl of Newcastle raised was called the Prince's, but he led it as captain. When the army got close to Berwick, he sent Sir William Carnaby to the Earl of Holland, who was then the general of the cavalry, to find out where his troop should go. The reply was that they should march right after the general officers' troops. The Earl of Newcastle sent another message to explain that, since he had the honor of marching with the Prince's colors, it didn't seem right to march under any field officers. The general of the cavalry reiterated his orders, so the Earl of Newcastle commanded that the Prince's colors be taken off the staff and marched without any. Once the service was done, his lordship sent Mr. Francis Palmer with a challenge to the Earl of Holland, who agreed to a place and time to meet. But when the Earl of Newcastle arrived, he found not his opponent but his second instead. This issue had been brought to the King, and by his authority (as Clarendon states), the matter was settled; however, before this, the Earl of Holland was never thought to lack courage. In truth, he was more clever and perceptive than genuinely brave, and he had a notably selfish temperament.
The earl of Newcastle however found himself hard pressed by the ministerial faction, and being unwilling to give his Majesty any trouble about himself, he was generous enough to resign his place as governor to the Prince, and the marquis of Hertford was appointed in his room.
The Earl of Newcastle, however, found himself struggling against the ministerial faction, and not wanting to trouble His Majesty with his issues, he graciously decided to step down as governor to the Prince. The Marquis of Hertford was appointed in his place.
His lordship having no more business at court, and being unwilling to expose himself further to the machinations of his enemies, thought proper to retire to the country, where he remained quiet till he received his Majesty's orders to revisit Hull: Tho' this order came at twelve o'clock at night, yet such was his unshaken loyalty and affection, that he went directly, and tho' forty miles distant, he entered the place with only three or four servants early the next morning. He offered to his Majesty, says Clarendon, to have [173] secured for him that important fortress, and all the magazines that were in it; but instead of receiving such a command, he had instructions sent him to obey the orders of the Parliament, who suspecting his principles not to be favourable to the schemes of opposition then engaged in, called him to attend the service of the house; and some disaffected members formed a design to have attacked him, but his character being unexceptionable, their scheme proved abortive, and he had leave to retire again into the country. This he willingly did, as he saw the affairs of state hastening to confusion and his country ready to be steeped in blood, and sacrificed to the fury of party. But when the opposition rose high, and it would have been cowardice to have remained unactive, he embraced the royal cause, accepted a commission for raising men, to take care of the town of Newcastle, and the four adjoining counties, in which he was so expeditious and successful, that his Majesty constituted him general of all the forces raised North of Trent; and likewise general and commander in chief of such as might be raised in the counties of Lincoln, Nottingham, Chester, Leicester, Rutland, Cambridge, Huntingdon, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex, with power to confer the honour of knighthood, coin money, print, and set forth such declarations as should seem to him expedient: of all which extensive powers, tho freely conferred, and without reserve, his lordship made a very sparing use; but with respect to the more material point of raising men, his lordship prosecuted it with such diligence, that in three months he had an army of eight thousand horse, foot, and dragoons, with which he marched directly into Yorkshire; and his forces having defeated the enemy at Pierce Bridge, his lordship advanced to York, where Sir Thomas Glenham, the governor, [174] presented him with the keys, and the earl of Cumberland and many of the nobility resorted thither to compliment, and assist his lordship[5].
His lordship had finished his business at court and, not wanting to expose himself further to his enemies' schemes, decided to retreat to the countryside. He stayed there quietly until he received his Majesty's orders to return to Hull. Even though the order came at midnight, his unwavering loyalty and dedication made him go straightaway. Despite being forty miles away, he arrived in the area with just three or four servants early the next morning. He offered to his Majesty, as Clarendon notes, to secure that important fortress along with all the supplies in it. However, instead of receiving such an order, he was instructed to follow the Parliament's orders. They suspected his views weren't aligned with their opposition plans, so they summoned him to attend the House. Some disgruntled members plotted to attack him, but because his character was impeccable, their plan failed, and he was allowed to retreat back to the countryside. He gladly accepted this, recognizing that the state affairs were spiraling into chaos and the country was on the brink of bloodshed due to party conflicts. But when the opposition became stronger, and it would have been cowardly to remain inactive, he took up the royal cause. He accepted a commission to raise troops to protect the town of Newcastle and the four nearby counties. He was so efficient and successful at this that his Majesty appointed him general of all the forces in the North of Trent, as well as general and commander in chief of any forces that could be raised in the counties of Lincoln, Nottingham, Chester, Leicester, Rutland, Cambridge, Huntingdon, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex. He was granted the power to bestow knighthood, mint money, print, and issue declarations as he deemed appropriate. Although all these extensive powers were given freely and without limitations, his lordship used them sparingly. However, regarding the significant task of raising troops, he pursued it with such determination that within three months, he had an army of eight thousand horse, foot, and dragoons, which he led straight into Yorkshire. After his forces defeated the enemy at Pierce Bridge, his lordship moved on to York, where Sir Thomas Glenham, the governor, presented him with the keys, and the Earl of Cumberland along with many nobles came to pay their respects and support his lordship.
In the course of this civil war, we find the earl of Newcastle very successful in his master's service; he more than once defeated Sir Thomas Fairfax the general of the Parliament, and won several important forts and battles; for which his Majesty in gratitude for his services, by letters patent, dated the 27th of Oct. 1643, advanced him to the dignity of marquiss of Newcastle; and in the preamble of his patent, all his services (says Dugdale) are mentioned with suitable encomiums.
During this civil war, the Earl of Newcastle was quite successful in serving his king. He defeated Sir Thomas Fairfax, the Parliament's general, multiple times and captured several key forts and battles. In appreciation for his contributions, his Majesty awarded him the title of Marquess of Newcastle through letters patent dated October 27, 1643. The preamble of his patent, as Dugdale notes, highlights all his services with appropriate praise.
In the year 1644, after Prince Rupert had been successful in raising the siege of York, and flushed with the prosperity of his arms, against the consent of the marquis, he risked the battle of Marston Moor, in which the marquis's infantry were cut to pieces. Seeing the King's affairs in these counties totally undone, he made the best of his way to Scarborough, and from thence with a few of the principal officers of his army took shipping for Hamburgh, and left his estates, which were valued at upwards of twenty thousand pounds per ann. to be plundered by the Parliament's forces. After staying six months at Hamburgh, he went by sea to Amsterdam, and from thence made a journey to Paris, where he continued for some time, and where, notwithstanding the vast estate he had when the civil war broke out, his circumstances were now so bad, that himself and his young wife, were reduced to pawn their cloaths for sustenance[6]. He removed afterwards to Antwerp, that he might be nearer his own country; and there, tho' under very great difficulties, he resided for several years, while the [175] Parliament in the mean time levied vast sums upon his estate, insomuch that the computation of what he lost by the disorders of those times, tho' none of the particulars can be disproved, amount to an incredible sum; but notwithstanding all these severities of fortune, he never lost his spirit, and was often heard to say, that if he was not much mistaken, the clouds of adversity which then hung over his country, would be dispersed at last by the King's restoration; that rebellion would entangle itself in its own toils, and after an interval of havock and confusion, order would return once more by the restoration of an exiled Prince. Notwithstanding the hardships of an eighteen years banishment, in which he experienced variety of wretchedness, he retained his vigour to the last. He was honoured by persons of the highest distinction abroad, and Don John of Austria and several princes of Germany visited him[7]. But what comforted him most, was the company frequently of his young King, who in the midst of his sufferings bestowed upon him the most noble Order of the Garter. The gloomy period at last came to an end, and the marquis returned to his country with his sovereign; and by letters patent dated the 16th of March 1664, he was advanced to the dignity of earl of Ogle, and duke of Newcastle. He spent the evening of his days in a country retirement, and indulged himself in those studies, with which he was most affected.
In 1644, after Prince Rupert successfully lifted the siege of York and was riding high on his military success, he went against the marquis's wishes and engaged in the battle of Marston Moor, where the marquis's troops were badly defeated. Realizing that the King's situation in these counties was completely hopeless, he quickly made his way to Scarborough, and from there, along with a few key officers, set sail for Hamburg, leaving his estates, worth over twenty thousand pounds a year, to be ravaged by the Parliament's forces. After spending six months in Hamburg, he took a boat to Amsterdam, and from there traveled to Paris, where he stayed for a while. Despite having had a significant fortune when the civil war began, his situation had worsened to the point where he and his young wife had to pawn their clothes for food. He later moved to Antwerp to be closer to home and, despite facing severe hardships, he lived there for several years while Parliament imposed huge taxes on his estate. The total losses he suffered due to the chaos of that era, though details can’t be verified, amounted to an astonishing sum. Yet, through all these challenges, he never lost his resolve and often stated that he believed the dark clouds of hardship hovering over his country would eventually clear with the King’s restoration; that rebellion would ultimately be its own downfall, and after a time of destruction and disorder, stability would return with the reinstatement of an exiled monarch. Despite enduring eighteen years of exile filled with suffering, he kept his strength until the end. He was respected by high-ranking individuals abroad, and Don John of Austria, along with several princes from Germany, paid him visits. The thing that brought him the most comfort was the frequent company of his young King, who, despite his own struggles, honored him with the prestigious Order of the Garter. Finally, the dark times passed, and the marquis returned to his homeland with his sovereign. By letters patent dated March 16, 1664, he was elevated to the title of Earl of Ogle and Duke of Newcastle. He spent his later years in rural seclusion, indulging in the studies he was most passionate about.
This noble person from his earliest youth was celebrated for his love of the muses, and was the great patron of the poets, in the reign of King Charles I. This propension has drawn on him, tho' very unjustly, the censure of some grave [176] men. Lord Clarendon mentions it, with decency; but Sir Philip Warwick, in his history of the rebellion, loses all patience, and thinks it sufficient to ruin this great general's character, that he appointed Sir William Davenant, a poet, his lieutenant general of the ordnance, insinuating that it was impossible a man could have a turn for poetry, and a capacity for any thing else at the same time; in which observation, Sir Philip has given a convincing proof of his ignorance of poetry, and want of taste. The example of the glorious Sidney is sufficient to confute this historian; and did not Mr. Chillingworth combat with great success, though in other branches of literature, against the Papal church, by the dint of reason and argument, and at the same time served as engineer in the royal army with great ability[8]? The truth is, this worthy nobleman having himself a taste for the liberal arts, was always pleased to have men of genius about him, and had the pleasure to rescue necessitous merit from obscurity. Ben Johnson was one of his favourites, and he addressed to him some of his verses, which may be seen in his works.
This noble person, from his earliest youth, was known for his passion for the arts and was a great supporter of poets during the reign of King Charles I. This inclination has, though very unfairly, brought him criticism from some serious men. Lord Clarendon mentions it with respect; however, Sir Philip Warwick, in his history of the rebellion, loses all patience and thinks it’s enough to tarnish this great general's reputation that he appointed Sir William Davenant, a poet, as his lieutenant general of the ordnance, suggesting that it's impossible for someone to excel in poetry and be good at anything else simultaneously. In that comment, Sir Philip has simply shown his ignorance of poetry and lack of taste. The example of the glorious Sidney is enough to counter this historian; and didn't Mr. Chillingworth successfully engage against the Papal church in other areas of literature, using reason and argument, while also serving as an engineer in the royal army with great skill? The truth is, this worthy nobleman, who had an appreciation for the liberal arts, always enjoyed having talented individuals around him and took pleasure in bringing deserving talent out of obscurity. Ben Jonson was one of his favorites, and he dedicated some of his verses to him, which you can find in his works.
In the busy scenes of life it does not appear that this nobleman suffered his thoughts to stray so far from his employment, as to turn author; but in his exile, resuming his old taste of breaking and managing horses, (than which there cannot be a more manly exercise) he thought fit to publish his sentiments upon a subject of which he was perfectly master. The title is, The New Method for managing Horses, with cuts, Antwerp 1658. This book was first written in English, and afterwards translated into French, by his lordship's directions.
In the hustle and bustle of life, it doesn’t seem like this nobleman allowed himself to wander too far from his work to become an author. But during his exile, he returned to his passion for training and handling horses (which is probably the most manly activity there is) and decided to share his thoughts on a subject he knew inside and out. The title is "The New Method for Managing Horses," with illustrations, published in Antwerp in 1658. This book was initially written in English and later translated into French at his lordship's request.
[177] This great man died in the possession of the highest honours and fairest reputation the 25th of December 1676, in the 84th year of his age. His grace was twice married, but had issue only by his first lady. His titles descended to his son, Henry earl of Ogle, who was the last heir male of his family, and died 1691, with whom the title of Newcastle in the line of Cavendish became extinct.
[177] This great man passed away on December 25, 1676, at the age of 84, holding the highest honors and a stellar reputation. He was married twice but only had children with his first wife. His titles went to his son, Henry, Earl of Ogle, who was the last male heir of the family and died in 1691, marking the end of the title of Newcastle in the Cavendish line.
In his exile he wrote two comedies, viz.
In his exile, he wrote two comedies, namely.
The Country Captain, a Comedy, printed at Antwerp 1649, afterwards presented by his Majesty's servants at Black-Fryars, and very much commended by Mr. Leigh.
The Country Captain, a Comedy, printed at Antwerp in 1649, later performed by the King's servants at Blackfriars, and highly praised by Mr. Leigh.
Variety, a Comedy, presented by his Majesty's Servants at Black-Fryars, and first printed in 1649, and generally bound with the Country Captain; it was also highly commended in a copy of verses by Mr. Alexander Brome.
Variety, a Comedy, performed by the King’s Servants at Black-Fryars, first published in 1649, and usually bound with the Country Captain; it was also highly praised in a poem by Mr. Alexander Brome.
He likewise has written
He has also written
The Humourous Lovers, a Comedy, acted by his royal highness's servants, Lond. 1677, 4to. This was received with great applause, and esteemed one of the best plays of that time.
The Humorous Lovers, a Comedy, performed by his royal highness's servants, London, 1677, 4to. This was met with great applause and considered one of the best plays of that time.
The Triumphant Widow; or, the Medley of Humours, a Comedy, acted by his royal highness's servants, Lond. 1677, 4to. which pleased Mr. Shadwell so well, that he transcribed a part of it into his Bury Fair, one of the most taking plays of that poet.
The Triumphant Widow; or, the Medley of Humours, a comedy performed by the royal highness's actors, London, 1677, 4to. It impressed Mr. Shadwell so much that he copied part of it into his Bury Fair, one of the most popular plays by that poet.
Shadwell says of his grace, that he was the greatest master of wit, the most exact observer of mankind, and the most accurate judge of humour, that ever he knew.
Shadwell says of his grace that he was the greatest master of wit, the most precise observer of people, and the best judge of humor he ever knew.
Footnotes:
Footnotes:
Dude John Birkenhead.
Winstanley, in his short account of this gentleman, says, that they who are ignorant of his works, must plead ignorance of all wit and learning; but the truth is, though he made some figure in his time, yet it was not so considerable as to transmit his name with any lustre to posterity, and Winstanley has been too peremptory, in secluding those from wit, who should be ignorant of the fame of Birkenhead. This observation, however, excited us to a search after some particulars concerning him; for Winstanley himself has given very few, and closes his life in his usual way, with only informing the readers that he lived in such a reign. The best account we could find of him, is in the Athenæ Oxon. of Wood. Our author was son of Randal Birkenhead of Northwich in Cheshire, Sadler, and was born there; he became a servitor of Oriel College, under the tuition of Humphrey Lloyd, afterwards lord bishop of Bangor. He continued in the college till he was made bachelor of arts, and then becoming Amanuensis to Dr. Laud, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, who, taking a liking to him for his ingenuity, did, by his diploma make him master of arts, An. 1639, and by his letters commendatory thereupon, he was elected probationer fellow of All-Souls College, in the year following. After the rebellion broke out, and the King set up his court at Oxford, our author was appointed to write the Mercurii Aulici, which being very pleasing to the loyal party, his Majesty recommended [179] him to the electors, that they would chuse him moral philosophy reader; which being accordingly done, he continued in that office, with little profit from it, till 1648, at which time he was not only turned out thence, but from his fellowship, by the Presbyterian visitors. Afterwards, in this destitute situation, Wood observes, that he retired to London, and made shift to live upon his wits; having some reputation in poetry, he was often applied to by young people in love, to write epistles for them, and songs, and sonnets on their mistresses: he was also employed in translating and writing other little things, so as to procure a tolerable livelihood.
Winstanley, in his brief account of this gentleman, states that those who are unaware of his works must also be ignorant of all wit and knowledge; however, the truth is, while he had some recognition in his time, it wasn't significant enough to ensure that his name would shine in the future. Winstanley has been too certain in excluding those from wit who are unaware of Birkenhead's fame. This observation did motivate us to look for more details about him, as Winstanley himself provides very few and concludes his life story in his usual manner, simply noting that he lived during a certain reign. The most informative source we found about him is in Wood's Athenæ Oxon. Our subject was the son of Randal Birkenhead from Northwich in Cheshire, a Sadler, and he was born there. He became a servitor at Oriel College under the guidance of Humphrey Lloyd, who later became the bishop of Bangor. He stayed at the college until he earned his bachelor’s degree, after which he became the amanuensis to Dr. Laud, who later became the Archbishop of Canterbury. Impressed by his talent, Dr. Laud awarded him a master's degree in 1639, and with a commendatory letter, he was elected as a probationary fellow of All-Souls College the following year. After the rebellion began and the King established his court at Oxford, our author was tasked with writing the Mercurii Aulici, which was very well received by the loyalists. His Majesty then recommended him to the electors to choose him as the reader in moral philosophy, and they did, though he gained little from it until 1648, when he was not only removed from there but also from his fellowship by the Presbyterian visitors. After this unfortunate situation, Wood notes that he moved to London and managed to get by using his wits; having some reputation in poetry, he was frequently approached by young lovers to write letters, songs, and sonnets for their mistresses. He was also engaged in translating and writing various minor pieces to earn a decent living.
Having, in this manner, supported the gloomy period of confusion, he was, at his Majesty's restoration, by virtue of his letters, sent to the university, created doctor of the civil law, and in 1661 he was elected a Burgess for Wilton, to serve in that Parliament which began at Westminster the 8th of May, the same year. In 1662, November 14, he received the honour of knighthood, and January 1663 he was constituted one of the masters of requests, in the room of Sir Richard Fanshaw, when he went ambassador into Spain, he being then also master of the faculties, and a member of the Royal Society. An anonymous writer tells us, that Sir John Berkenhead was a poor alehouse-keeper's son, and that he rose by lying, or buffooning at court, to be one of the masters of requests, and faculty office, and also got by gifts at court 3000 l. This is a poor reflexion upon him, and indeed rather raises, than detracts from his reputation, for a man certainly must have merit, who can rise without the advantage of fortune or birth, whereas these often procure a fool preferment, and make him eminent, who might otherwise have lived and died in obscurity. [180] It is said of Birkenhead, that when an unmannerly Member of Parliament, in opposing him, took occasion to say, that he was surprized to hear an alehouse-keeper's son talk so confidently in the House, he coolly replied, I am an alehouse-keeper's son, I own it, and am not ashamed of it, but had the gentleman, who upbraided me with my birth, been thus descended, in all probability he would have been of the same profession himself; a reply at once, sensible and witty. Mr. Wood, however, seems to be of opinion, that he was too much given to bantering, and that if he had thrown less of the buffoon or mimic into his conversation, his wit would have been very agreeable. He is charged by Wood with a higher failing, which ought indeed rather to be construed one of the blackest crimes, that is, ingratitude to those who assisted him in distress, whom, says he, he afterwards slighted. This is a heavy charge, and, if true, not a little diminishes his reputation, but methinks some apology may even be made for his slighting those who assisted him in distress; we find they were such persons as could never challenge esteem, young men in love, for whom he wrote sonnets, and for whom he might have no friendship; it often happens, that men of parts are so unhappy as to be obliged to such people, with whom, were their situation otherwise, it would be beneath them to associate; and it is no wonder when prosperity returns, that they, in some measure, forget obligations they owed to those of a rank so much inferior: and something must be allowed to that pride, which a superior understanding naturally inspires.
Having supported the difficult and confusing times, he was, upon the restoration of the King, appointed by virtue of his letters to the university, became a doctor of civil law, and in 1661 was elected as a Burgess for Wilton to serve in the Parliament that began at Westminster on May 8 of that year. In 1662, on November 14, he received the honor of knighthood, and in January 1663, he was appointed one of the masters of requests, succeeding Sir Richard Fanshaw when he went to Spain as an ambassador. At that time, he was also a master of the faculties and a member of the Royal Society. An anonymous writer claims that Sir John Berkenhead was the son of a poor alehouse keeper and that he brought himself up by lying or entertaining at court to become a master of requests and a faculty officer, and also gained £3,000 through favors at court. This reflects poorly on him but actually enhances his reputation because a person truly must have merit to rise without the benefits of fortune or birth, while these advantages often elevate fools to positions of prominence who otherwise might have lived and died in obscurity. [180] It is said of Birkenhead that when a rude Member of Parliament, opposing him, remarked that he was surprised to hear an alehouse keeper's son speak so confidently in the House, he calmly replied, “I am an alehouse keeper's son, I own it and I’m not ashamed of it, but had the gentleman who criticized me for my birth been in my position, he would likely be in the same profession himself.” This was a reply that was both clever and humorous. However, Mr. Wood seems to think he was too inclined to joking around, and that if he had included less of the buffoon or mimic in his conversations, his wit would have been much more enjoyable. Wood also accuses him of a graver fault, which may be seen as one of the worst crimes: ingratitude towards those who helped him in times of need, whom he later turned his back on. This is a serious accusation, and if true, it does lessen his reputation somewhat, but I think some reasoning can be made for him ignoring those who helped him; it seems they were people who could never command respect—young men in love for whom he wrote sonnets and for whom he may not have had any real friendship. It often occurs that talented individuals find themselves indebted to people who, under different circumstances, they wouldn’t choose to associate with, and it's not surprising when prosperity returns that they might somewhat forget the debts they owe to those of a much lower status; some allowance must be made for that pride that naturally comes with superior intellect.
Our author's works are
Our author's creations are
Mercurius Aulicus. Communicating the Intelligence, and the Affairs of the Court at Oxford to [181] the rest of the Kingdom, the first of these was published on the 1st of January, 1642, and were carried on till about the end of 1645, after which time they were published but now and then. They were printed weekly in one sheet, and sometimes in more, in 4to, and contain, says Wood, a great deal of wit and buffoonery.
Mercurius Aulicus. Sharing updates and the happenings of the court in Oxford with [181] the rest of the kingdom, the first issue was published on January 1, 1642, and continued until about the end of 1645, after which they were published occasionally. They were printed weekly on one sheet, and sometimes more, in 4to, and contain, according to Wood, a lot of humor and silliness.
News from Pembroke and Montgomery, or Oxford Manchestered, &c. printed in 1648 in one sheet 4to. It is a feigned speech, as spoken by Philip, earl of Pembroke, in the Convocation House at Oxford, April 12, 1648, when he came to visit, and undo the University, as Edward, Earl of Manchester had done that of Cambridge, while he was Chancellor thereof. It is exceeding waggish, and much imitating his Lordship's way of speaking.
News from Pembroke and Montgomery, or Oxford Manchestered, &c. printed in 1648 in one sheet 4to. It is a fictional speech, as delivered by Philip, Earl of Pembroke, in the Convocation House at Oxford, on April 12, 1648, when he came to visit and undermine the University, just as Edward, Earl of Manchester had done to that of Cambridge, while he was Chancellor there. It is very humorous and closely mimics his Lordship's style of speaking.
Paul's Church-yard; Libri Theologici, Politici, Historici, mundinis Paulinis (una cum Templo) prostant venales, &c. printed in three several sheets in 4to. Anno 1649. These Pamphlets contain feigned Titles of Books, and Acts of Parliaments, and several Questions, all reflecting on the Reformers, and Men in those times.
Paul's Church-yard; Theological, Political, Historical Books, and Pauline World (along with the Temple) are for sale, etc., printed in three separate sheets in quarto. Year 1649. These pamphlets contain fictional book titles, acts of Parliament, and various questions, all critical of the Reformers and people of that era.
The Four Legg'd Quaker, a Ballad, to the Tune of the Dog and Elders Maid, London 1659, in three columns in one side of a sheet of paper.
The Four-Legged Quaker, a Ballad, to the Tune of the Dog and Elder's Maid, London 1659, in three columns on one side of a sheet of paper.
A New Ballad of a famous German Prince, without date.
A New Ballad about a famous German Prince, without a date.
The Assembly Man, written 1647, London 1663, in three sheets in 4to. The copy of it was taken from the author by those that said they could not rob, because all was theirs; at length after it had slept several years, the author published it to avoid false copies; it is also printed in a Book entitled Wit and Loyalty Revived, in a Collection of some smart Satires in Verse and Prose, on the late times, London 1682, said to be written by Cowley, our Author, and the famous Butler; he hath also scattered [182] Copies of Verses and Translations extant, to which are vocal Compositions, set by Henry Lawes, such as Anacreon's Ode, called The Lute.
The Assembly Man, written in 1647, published in London in 1663, in three sheets in 4to. The copy of it was taken from the author by those who claimed they could not steal, since everything belonged to them; after sitting for several years, the author decided to publish it to prevent false copies. It is also included in a book titled Wit and Loyalty Revived, which is a collection of some sharp satires in verse and prose about recent times, published in London in 1682, attributed to Cowley, our author, and the famous Butler. He has also distributed [182] Copies of verses and translations, along with vocal compositions set to music by Henry Lawes, like Anacreon's Ode called The Lute.
An Anniversary on the Nuptial of John, Earl of Bridgwater. He has also wrote a Poem on his staying in London, after the Act of Banishment for Cavaliers, and another called the Jolt, made upon Cromwel's being thrown off the Coach-box of his own Coach, which he would drive through Hyde Park, drawn by six German Horses, sent him as a present by the Count of Oldenburgh, while his Secretary John Thurloe sat in the Coach, July 1654. Our author died within the Precincts of Whitehall, in the year 1679, and was buried in the Church-yard of St. Martin's in the Fields, leaving behind him a collection of Pamphlets, which came into the hands of his executors, Sir Richard Mason, and Sir Muddeford Bramston.
An Anniversary on the Wedding of John, Earl of Bridgwater. He also wrote a poem about his time in London after the ban on Cavaliers, and another called the Jolt, which was inspired by Cromwel being thrown off the coach box of his own coach as he drove through Hyde Park, pulled by six German horses sent to him as a gift by the Count of Oldenburgh, while his secretary John Thurloe sat in the coach, July 1654. Our author died within the grounds of Whitehall in 1679 and was buried in the churchyard of St. Martin's in the Fields, leaving behind a collection of pamphlets that were given to his executors, Sir Richard Mason and Sir Muddeford Bramston.
Roger Boyle, Earl of Orrery,
Was younger brother of Richard earl of Burlington and Cork, and fifth son of Richard, stiled the great earl of Cork. He was born April 25, 1621, and independent of the advantage of his birth and titles, was certainly one of the ablest politicians, as well as most accomplished noblemen of his age. By the influence of his father with lord deputy Faulkland, he was raised to the dignity of baron Broghill, in the kingdom of Ireland in 1628, when only seven years old[1]. He received his education at the college of Dublin, [183] where he studied with so much diligence as gave great hopes of his future atchievements, and the rapid progress he made in erudition, induced his father to send him about 1636 to make the tour of France and Italy, under the care of one Mr. Marcomes, and in the company of lord Kynalmeaky, his elder brother; and this method the earl took to perfect all his sons, after they had gone through the course of a domestic education; and it is remarkable, that all his children travelled under the same gentleman's protection, who has no small honour reflected on him from his illustrious pupils. Upon his return from his travels, he found a war ready to break out against the Scots, and was pressed by the earl of Northumberland, the commander in chief of the expedition, to share in reducing them; but this commotion subsiding, his lordship employed himself another way. By his father's desire, who loved to settle his children early in the world, he married lady Margaret Howard, daughter to the earl of Suffolk, and setting out for Ireland, landed there the very day the rebellion broke out, viz. Oct. 23, 1641. The post assigned him in this time of danger, was the defence of his father's castle of Lismore; in which he gave proofs of the most gallant spirit, as well as political conduct: The first of which he shewed in the vigorous sally he made to the relief of Sir Richard Osborn, who was besieged in his own house by the rebels, till relieved by lord Broghill, who raised the siege, and saved him and all his family[2]; and a strong proof of the latter, by advising Sir William St. Leger, then president of Munster, to act vigorously against the Irish, [184] notwithstanding they produced the King's commission, which he was penetrating enough to discern to be a forgery.
He was the younger brother of Richard, the Earl of Burlington and Cork, and the fifth son of Richard, known as the Great Earl of Cork. He was born on April 25, 1621, and aside from his noble birth and titles, he was undoubtedly one of the most skilled politicians and accomplished nobles of his time. Thanks to his father's influence with Lord Deputy Faulkland, he was elevated to the title of Baron Broghill in Ireland in 1628, when he was just seven years old. He received his education at Trinity College in Dublin, where he studied so diligently that there were great expectations for his future achievements. His rapid progress in learning led his father to send him on a tour of France and Italy around 1636, under the supervision of Mr. Marcomes and accompanied by his older brother, Lord Kynalmeaky. This was a method favored by the Earl for refining the education of all his sons after they completed their domestic studies. It’s noteworthy that all his children traveled under the protection of the same gentleman, who earned a significant reputation for his esteemed students. Upon returning from his travels, he found that a war with the Scots was imminent. He was urged by the Earl of Northumberland, the commander of the expedition, to participate in suppressing them; however, as this conflict settled down, he found other ways to engage. At his father's request, who preferred to see his children established early in life, he married Lady Margaret Howard, the daughter of the Earl of Suffolk, and arrived in Ireland on the very day the rebellion broke out, namely October 23, 1641. During this dangerous time, he was assigned to defend his father's castle at Lismore, where he demonstrated both valor and political skill. He showed his bravery in a bold rescue mission to save Sir Richard Osborn, who was besieged in his home by rebels until Lord Broghill intervened, lifted the siege, and saved him and his entire family. He also proved his political acumen by advising Sir William St. Leger, then President of Munster, to take decisive action against the Irish, despite the rebels presenting a forged King's commission.
After the cessation in Ireland, lord Broghill came to Oxford, then the residence of King Charles I. and paid his duty to that monarch, and was honoured with many private audiences, when he represented to his Majesty, the temper and disposition of the Irish Papists, and the falshood of the pretended Committee they had sent over to mislead his Majesty, that the King was convinced the Irish never meant to keep the cessation, and that therefore it was not the interest of the English subjects to depend upon it.
After the ceasefire in Ireland, Lord Broghill came to Oxford, which was then the residence of King Charles I. He showed his respect to the king and was honored with several private meetings, where he informed His Majesty about the mindset and attitudes of the Irish Catholics, as well as the deception of the so-called Committee they had sent over to mislead him. As a result, the King became convinced that the Irish never intended to uphold the ceasefire, and therefore it was not in the best interest of the English subjects to rely on it.
Now that we have mentioned the Irish Papists, one thing must not be omitted, as it is both curious in itself, and reflects honour on lord Broghill. Many years after the reduction of these rebels, his lordship, who was then earl of Orrery, happened to pay a visit to the duke of Ormond at Kilkenny, where he met with lord Muskerry, who headed the insurrection, and produced a false commission for what he did. Finding Muskerry in an open good humour, he took occasion to retire with him, and to ask him in a pleasant manner, how he came by that commission which had so much the appearance of being genuine: 'Lord Muskerry answered, I'll be free, and unreserved with you, my lord; it was a forged commission drawn up by one Walsh, a lawyer, and others; who having a writing to which the Great Seal was affixed, one of the company very dextrously took off the sealed wax from the label of that writing, and fixed it to the label of the forged commission. Whilst this was doing another accident happened, which startled all present; and almost disconcerted the scheme. The forged commision being finished, [185] while the parchment was handling and turning, in order to put on the seal, a tame wolf which lay asleep by the fire, awakened at the crackling of the parchment, and running to it, seized it, and tore it to pieces, notwithstanding their haste and struggle to prevent him; so that after all their pains, they were obliged to begin a new, and write it all over again.'[3] Lord Orrery struck with the daring wickedness of this action, could not help expressing himself to that effect, while Muskerry replied merrily, it would have been impossible to have kept the people together without this device.
Now that we've mentioned the Irish Papists, there's one thing that shouldn't be left out, as it's both interesting in itself and brings honor to Lord Broghill. Many years after these rebels were subdued, his lordship, who was then the Earl of Orrery, happened to visit the Duke of Ormond in Kilkenny. There, he met Lord Muskerry, who led the uprising, and presented a fake commission for his actions. Noticing Muskerry in a good mood, Orrery took the opportunity to pull him aside and jokingly asked how he came about a commission that seemed so authentic. Lord Muskerry replied, “I’ll be honest and straightforward with you, my lord; it was a forged commission made by a lawyer named Walsh and others, who, having a document with the Great Seal attached, had one of the group skillfully remove the wax seal from that document and attach it to the fake commission. While this was happening, another incident occurred that startled everyone present and almost messed up the whole plan. Once the forged commission was finished, [185] while they were handling the parchment to put on the seal, a tame wolf that had been sleeping by the fire woke up at the sound of the crackling parchment, ran over, grabbed it, and tore it to shreds, despite their efforts to stop him. So after all their hard work, they had to start over and write it all out again." Lord Orrery, taken aback by the audacity of this act, couldn't help but express his thoughts on it, while Muskerry replied playfully that it would have been impossible to keep the people together without this trick.
'Till the death of King Charles I. we find lord Broghill warm in the royal interest, and that he abhorred those measures which he foresaw would distract his country; and as soon as that melancholy event happened, he quitted his estate[4] as ruined past all hopes, and hid himself in the privacy of a close retirement. How he came, afterwards to alter his conduct, and join with a party he before so much abhorred, we shall endeavour to shew.
'Till the death of King Charles I, we see Lord Broghill supportive of the royal interest, and he despised the actions that he anticipated would divide his country. As soon as that tragic event occurred, he left his estate[4] as it was beyond repair and secluded himself in a private retreat. We will try to explain how he later changed his stance and allied himself with a group he had previously condemned.
Upon his lordship's coming from Ireland, he withdrew to Marston in Somersetshire, where he had leisure to reflect on the ruined state of the Kingdom[5]; and when he revolved in his mind its altered and desperate situation, he was ashamed to think that he should remain an idle spectator of his country's miseries, being of a different opinion from Mr. Addison: 'That when vice prevails, and wicked men bear sway, the post of honour is a private station.' These reflexions roused him to action, and produced a scheme worthy of himself. He resolved to attempt something [186] in favour of the King; and accordingly under the pretence of going to the Spa for his health, he determined to cross the seas, and apply to Charles II. for a commission to raise forces in Ireland, in order to restore his Majesty, and recover his own estate. Having formed this resolution, he desired the earl of Warwick, who had an interest with the prevailing party, to procure a licence for him to go to the Spa. He communicated his scheme to some confirmed royalists, in whom he thought he could confide, and having rais'd a considerable sum of money, he came up to London to prosecute his voyage. Lord Broghill, however, was betrayed, and the committee, who then took upon them the government of the realm, threatened him with destruction. Cromwell interceeded, and being sensible of his lordship's great abilities, obtained a permission to talk privately with him before they proceeded to extremities. Cromwell waited upon Broghill, and reproached him gently for his intention, which his lordship denied; but Cromwell producing letters of his writing to several Royalists, in whom he confided, he found it was in vain to dissemble any longer. The General then told him, that he was no stranger to his merit, tho' he had never before seen him; and that as the reduction of Ireland was intrusted to him, he had authority from the Committee to offer his lordship a command in that war, and insisted upon his answer immediately, as the Committee were then sitting, and waiting his return. Lord Broghill was infinitely surprized at so generous and unexpected an offer from Cromwell: He thought himself at liberty, by all the rules of honour to serve against the Irish, whose cruelty and rebellion were equally detested by the royal party, as by the Parliament; and his life and freedom [187] being in danger if he refused, he accepted the commission, and immediately repaired to Bristol to wait there till forces should be sent him. This story we have from Mr. Morrice, who heard it from lord Orrery himself; and he adds, that it is very probable his lordship's design was betrayed out of pure love and affection by his sister Ranelagh, but how this love and affection enabled her to foresee that Cromwell would interpose to remove the danger which she exposed him to, is left by the reverend author unaccounted for. Ever after this interposition and friendly offer of Cromwell, we find gratitude binding lord Broghill to a faithfull service in his interest; and in the course of his ministry to Cromwell, he prevented many shameful acts of cruelty, which would have been otherwise perpetrated.
When his lordship returned from Ireland, he withdrew to Marston in Somersetshire, where he had time to think about the ruined state of the kingdom[5]; and as he considered its changed and desperate situation, he felt ashamed to think he would remain a passive observer of his country’s suffering, holding a different view from Mr. Addison: 'When vice prevails, and wicked people are in charge, the position of honor is a private one.' These thoughts motivated him to take action and come up with a plan worthy of himself. He decided to do something in favor of the King; and under the pretense of going to the Spa for his health, he planned to cross the seas and seek a commission from Charles II to raise forces in Ireland to restore his Majesty and reclaim his own estate. Once he made this decision, he asked the Earl of Warwick, who had connections with the ruling party, to obtain a license for him to go to the Spa. He shared his plan with a few trusted royalists, raised a substantial amount of money, and went to London to pursue his journey. However, Lord Broghill was betrayed, and the committee that had taken over the government threatened him with destruction. Cromwell intervened, recognizing his lordship's great abilities, and obtained permission to speak privately with him before they took drastic measures. Cromwell met with Broghill and gently reproached him for his intentions, which his lordship denied; but when Cromwell showed him letters he had written to several Royalists, he realized it was pointless to keep pretending. The General told him that he was well aware of his merit even though he had never met him before, and since the task of reducing Ireland was entrusted to him, he had authority from the Committee to offer him a command in that war, insisting on an immediate response, as the Committee was sitting and waiting for his answer. Lord Broghill was incredibly surprised by such a generous and unexpected offer from Cromwell: He felt he had every right, by the rules of honor, to fight against the Irish, whose cruelty and rebellion were equally disliked by both the royalists and the Parliament; and since his life and freedom were at risk if he refused, he accepted the commission and immediately went to Bristol to wait for forces to be sent to him. We have this story from Mr. Morrice, who heard it from Lord Orrery himself; he adds that it is very likely that his lordship's plan was betrayed purely out of love and affection by his sister Ranelagh, but how this love and affection allowed her to predict that Cromwell would step in to remove the danger she exposed him to remains unexplained by the reverend author. After this intervention and Cromwell's kind offer, we see gratitude binding Lord Broghill to loyal service in Cromwell's interest; during his ministry to Cromwell, he prevented many disgraceful acts of cruelty that would have otherwise occurred.
No sooner had Broghill arrived in Ireland, but his old friends flocked round him, and demonstrated the great heighth of popularity to which he had risen in that kingdom; nor did his accepting this new commission make him negligent of their interest, for he did all he could for the safety of their persons and estates. An opportunity soon presented in which he very remarkably distinguished himself. He engaged at Macroom (with two thousand horse and dragoons) a party of Irish, consisting of upwards of five thousand, whom he totally defeated, and took their general the titular bishop of Ross prisoner[6]. This battle was fought May 10, 1650. Lord Broghill offered the bishop his life, if he would order those who were in the castle of Carigdrog-hid to surrender, which he promised; but when he was conducted to the place, he persuaded the garrison to defend it to the last extremity. Upon [188] this lord Broghill caused him to be hanged; (tho' Mr. Morrice says, the soldiers hanged him without orders) and then commanded his heavy artillery to be brought up, which astonished his own army exceedingly, they knowing he had not so much as a single piece of battering cannon. He caused, however, several large trees to be cut, and drawn at a distance by his baggage horses; the besieged judging by the slowness of their motion, they were a vast size, capitulated before they came up, as his lordship advised, threatening otherwise to give them no quarter. He relieved Cromwell at Clonmell, and assisted both him and his father-in-law Ireton in their expedition; but because he could not moderate the fury of one, and mitigate the cruelty of the other, he incurred the displeasure of both; and Ireton was heard to say, that neither he nor Cromwell could be safe while Broghill had any command. Notwithstanding the aversion of Ireton to his lordship, yet he took care not to remit any of his diligence in prosecuting the war, he marched to that general's assistance at the siege of Limerick, and by his conduct and courage was the means of that town's falling into the hands of the Commonwealth; and till Ireland was entirely reduced, he continued active in his commission.
No sooner had Broghill arrived in Ireland than his old friends gathered around him, showing him just how popular he had become in that kingdom. Accepting this new role didn’t make him neglect their interests; he did everything he could for their safety and security. Soon, he had a chance to really stand out. He engaged a group of over five thousand Irish troops in Macroom with two thousand horse and dragoons, completely defeating them and capturing their leader, the titular bishop of Ross. This battle took place on May 10, 1650. Lord Broghill offered the bishop his life if he would get those inside the castle of Carigdrog-hid to surrender, which the bishop promised to do. But when he was taken to the castle, he convinced the garrison to fight to the last. As a result, Lord Broghill ordered him to be hanged, though Mr. Morrice claims the soldiers did it without any orders. Then, he commanded his heavy artillery to be brought up, which bewildered his own troops since they knew he didn’t have a single piece of battering cannon. However, he had several large trees cut down and pulled at a distance by his baggage horses. The besieged, thinking the trees were enormous due to their slow movement, surrendered before they reached them, as he had advised, threatening otherwise to give them no mercy. He helped Cromwell at Clonmell and assisted both him and his father-in-law Ireton in their mission. However, because he couldn’t calm one’s rage or soften the other’s cruelty, he fell out of favor with both. Ireton was heard to say that neither he nor Cromwell could feel safe while Broghill was in charge. Despite Ireton’s dislike for him, Broghill didn’t slacken in his efforts to continue the war—he marched to help Ireton during the siege of Limerick, and through his leadership and bravery, he played a key role in the town falling to the Commonwealth. He remained active in his commission until Ireland was completely subdued.
When Oliver rose to the dignity of Lord Protector, he sent for lord Broghill, merely to have his advice; and we are told by Oldmixon in his history of the Stewarts, that he then proposed to Cromwell to marry his daughter to King Charles II. and that as the Prince was then in distress abroad, he doubted not but his necessity would make him comply with the offer; he represented to the Protector the great danger to which he was exposed by the fickle humour of the English, [189] who never doat long upon a favourite, but pull that man from eminence to day, whom they had but yesterday raised out of the dust; that this match would rivet his interest, by having the lawful prince so nearly allied to him; and perhaps his grandchild the indisputed heir of the crown. That he might then rule with more safety, nor dread either the violence of the Royalists, or the insidious enemies of his own government. Upon hearing this, Cromwell made a pause, and looking stedfastly in my lord's face, he asked him if he was of opinion, that the exiled prince could ever forgive his father's murderer; he answered as before, that his necessity was great, and in order to be restored to his crown, would even sacrifice his natural resentment to his own ease and grandeur; but Cromwell could not be induced to believe that ever Charles could pardon him.
When Oliver became Lord Protector, he called in Lord Broghill just to get his advice. Oldmixon mentions in his history of the Stewarts that he suggested to Cromwell that he marry his daughter to King Charles II. He thought that since the prince was struggling abroad, he would have no choice but to accept the offer. He pointed out to the Protector the significant risk he faced from the unpredictable mood of the English, who never stay loyal to a favorite for long. They easily pull down someone they just elevated the day before. He argued that this marriage would secure Cromwell's position by having the rightful prince closely tied to him, potentially making his grandchild the undisputed heir to the throne. With this alliance, he could rule more securely, without fearing either the wrath of the Royalists or the deceitful foes of his government. After hearing this, Cromwell paused, looked intently at Lord Broghill, and asked if he believed the exiled prince could ever forgive his father's murderer. Broghill replied again that the prince's need was great and, in order to reclaim his crown, he would even put aside his natural resentment for his own comfort and greatness. However, Cromwell couldn’t be convinced that Charles would ever forgive him.
Whether lord Broghill was serious in this proposal cannot be determined; but if he was, it is certain, he had a mean opinion of Charles; to have capitulated upon any terms with Cromwell, would have been betraying the dignity of his birth, and his right to reign; but to have stooped so low, as to take to his arms a child of his, who had murdered his father, and driven him to his exile, would have been an instance of the most infamous meanness that ever was recorded in history; and all the blemishes of that luxurious Prince's character, and the errors of his reign collected, do not amount to any thing so base, as would have been those nuptials.
Whether Lord Broghill was serious about this proposal is unclear; however, if he was, it’s obvious he had a low opinion of Charles. To have agreed to any terms with Cromwell would’ve meant betraying his noble status and his right to rule. But to have stooped so low as to take back a child of his who had murdered his father and forced him into exile would have been the most disgraceful act recorded in history. All the flaws of that extravagant prince’s character and the mistakes of his reign combined do not amount to anything as shameful as those marriages.
In the year 1656 it was proposed to his lordship by the Protector to go down to Scotland, with an absolute authority, either because he suspected Monk, or was willing to give the people of that country some satisfaction, who complained [190] of his severity; but he was very unwilling to receive the charge, and took it at last upon these conditions[7]: The first was: that he should be left to himself, and receive no orders; and the second, that no complaints should find credit, or procure directions in his absence; and the third, that he should be recalled in a year. He was very acceptable to the Scotch, and gained a great influence over them by speaking and acting with moderation. After his return, he was with Whitlock and Thurloe admitted into all the confidence that could be expected from a person in the Protector's circumstances; who if he had any chearful moments, spent them in their company, where he appeared quite another person than in the ordinary course of his conduct, which was built on a policy suited to his condition, the people he had to deal with, and the critical juncture of the times. Our author stood high in Cromwell's favour to the last; and it was, no doubt, in some measure owing to his gratitude, that he attached himself so firmly to his son and successor Richard. It perhaps will appear strange, but it is supported by evidence, that Cromwell did not love his own family so well as lord Broghill did. Being asked upon his death-bed whom he appointed his successor, he answered, "That in such a closet his will would be found," in which he named Fleetwood, but one of the Protector's daughters getting first to the drawer, she took the will and destroyed it[8].
In 1656, the Protector suggested to his lordship that he go to Scotland with full authority, possibly because he suspected Monk or wanted to appease the locals who were complaining about his harshness. However, he was hesitant to take on the responsibility and eventually accepted it only under certain conditions: First, he would operate independently without receiving orders; second, no complaints would be taken seriously or lead to instructions in his absence; and third, he would be recalled in a year. He was well-received by the Scots and gained significant influence by being moderate in both speech and actions. After returning, he entered into the trust of Whitlock and Thurloe, enjoying all the confidence one could expect given the Protector's situation. Whenever he had cheerful moments, he spent those with them, appearing quite different from his usual self, which was aligned with a strategy suited to his circumstances, the people he was dealing with, and the critical times. Our author remained in favor with Cromwell until the end; it was likely his gratitude that caused him to stay close to Cromwell’s son and successor, Richard. It may seem odd, but it's backed by evidence that Cromwell did not care for his own family as much as Lord Broghill did. When asked on his deathbed whom he appointed as his successor, he said, "That in such a closet, his will would be found," naming Fleetwood. But one of the Protector's daughters got to the drawer first, took the will, and destroyed it.
Thus Richard against his father's intention obtained the government, which, however, it is very plain he was not fit to hold; for all the art [191] and industry of Broghill could never so govern his proceedings, but that some steps either too violent or too remiss were taken, by which his administration fell into contempt; and doubtless the reason why Cromwell excluded his son, was, that he discovered his weakness, and found him without a capacity of reigning. When the oppression of committees, the general distraction amongst the people, and the anarchy into which the English affairs had fallen, began to point towards a restoration, we find lord Broghill declaring early for the King, going over into Ireland, there sounding the minds of the officers, and preparing that kingdom for the reception of his Majesty with open arms.
Thus, Richard took control against his father's wishes, which was clearly a position he wasn't suited for; despite all the talent and effort from Broghill, he could never manage things so that there weren’t either overly aggressive or too passive steps, leading to his administration being looked down upon. It’s clear that Cromwell kept his son out of power because he saw his weaknesses and recognized he wasn't capable of ruling. When the heavy-handedness of committees, the widespread unrest among the people, and the chaos in English affairs started to hint at a restoration, we see Lord Broghill declaring support for the King, traveling to Ireland, gauging the opinions of the officers, and getting that kingdom ready to welcome His Majesty with open arms.
Thus we have seen him discharge with honour the debt of gratitude he owed to Cromwell; but notwithstanding the figure he made in the service, it is by no means clear that ever he was warmly attached to the republic; he was detected in having drank the King's health in company with the Protector's children, which Oliver very prudently thought proper to pass over. After the restoration, Broghill wanted not enemies, who insinuated things against him to King Charles, and blamed his tardiness in procuring his Majesty's return; but his lordship made it clear, that he was the first who declared for him in Ireland, and the most zealous, as well as the most powerful promoter of his interest. His Majesty was so well satisfied with his lordship's proceedings, that he wrote to him with his own hand, and thanked him for his loyalty[9]. On September 5, 1660, as an incontested proof of his Majesty's affection for his lordship, he by letters patent advanced him to the honour of earl of Orrery in the county of [192] Cork[10]; and Sir Maurice Eustace, a friend of the duke of Ormond's, being appointed chancellor, Roger earl of Orrery, and Charles Coote, earl of Montrath, were with him made lords justices, about the close of that memorable year.
Thus, we've seen him honorably repay the debt of gratitude he owed to Cromwell; however, despite his notable service, it's not entirely clear that he was ever truly loyal to the republic. He was caught toasting the King’s health with the Protector’s children, which Oliver wisely chose to overlook. After the restoration, Broghill had his share of enemies, who whispered accusations against him to King Charles and criticized his delay in securing the King’s return. Still, he made it evident that he was the first to support the King in Ireland and was the most passionate and influential advocate for his cause. His Majesty was so pleased with his actions that he personally wrote to him, thanking him for his loyalty [9]. On September 5, 1660, as undeniable proof of his Majesty's affection for him, letters patent elevated him to the title of Earl of Orrery in the county of [192] Cork [10]; and with Sir Maurice Eustace, a friend of the Duke of Ormond, named Chancellor, Roger Earl of Orrery and Charles Coote, Earl of Montrath, were appointed Lords Justices alongside him toward the end of that significant year.
From that time till his death we find lord Orrery in the highest esteem in the three nations: He was employed by his Majesty to confer with the earl of Clarendon, whose imperious steps, it seems, had highly disobliged his master, and when that great man fell, the King made an offer of the seals to the earl of Orrery, who on account of his want of bodily vigour, declined it. At the same time he accepted a most arduous and unpleasing office from the King, and that was, to expostulate with the duke of York, and bring him to ask pardon for the haughty and insolent measures he took in supporting the chancellor.
From that time until his death, Lord Orrery was held in high regard across all three nations. He was tasked by the King to discuss matters with the Earl of Clarendon, whose overbearing actions had upset the King. When that influential man fell from favor, the King offered the seals to the Earl of Orrery, who declined due to his lack of physical strength. At the same time, he accepted a challenging and undesirable role from the King, which involved confronting the Duke of York and persuading him to apologize for his arrogant and disrespectful actions in backing the Chancellor.
His Majesty warmly pressed him to become a favourer of the French alliance, and for the reduction of the Dutch; neither of which were at all agreeable to his notions, and therefore that he might more concisely express the mischievous consequences he apprehended from these measures, he reduced his thoughts into a poem; and this was very well received by the King, who thought to have made some impression on him, in his turn, in a long audience he gave him for that purpose; but the earl's duty would not permit him to coincide in his opinion with the King, when he was sensible that the King's scheme was contrary to the interest of the nation; and this led him in plain terms to declare, that he never would concur in counsels to aggrandize France, which was already too great; or to break the power of the Dutch, which was barely sufficient for their own defence[11].
His Majesty encouraged him to support the French alliance and to work against the Dutch, both of which he strongly disagreed with. To express the negative consequences he feared from these plans more clearly, he decided to put his thoughts into a poem. The King received it well, hoping to influence him during a lengthy meeting he arranged for that purpose. However, the earl's sense of duty prevented him from agreeing with the King, as he realized that the King's plan was against the nation's best interests. This prompted him to clearly state that he would never support efforts to strengthen France, which was already too powerful, or to weaken the Dutch, whose power was just enough for their own defense.
[193] There is a particular circumstance in relation to this affair, which must not be omitted. When lord Orrery came from the audience of his Majesty, he was met by the earl of Danby, who asked him, whether he had closed with the King's proposals; to which lord Orrery answered, no. Then replied the other statesman, "Your lordship may be the honester man, but you will never be worth a groat." This passage is the more remarkable, because Danby was of the same opinion with Orrery, and temporized purely for the sake of power, which cost him afterwards a long imprisonment, and had very near lost him his life: So dear do such men often pay for sacrificing honour to interest. In the year 1679, Oct. 16, this great statesman died in the full possession of honours and fame: he had lived in the most tumultuous times; he had embarked in a dangerous ocean, and he had the address to steer at last to a safe haven. As a man, his character was very amiable; he was patient, compassionate, and generous; as a soldier, he was of undaunted courage; as a statesman, of deep penetration, and invincible industry; and as a poet, of no mean rank.
[193] There's a specific situation regarding this matter that shouldn't be overlooked. When Lord Orrery finished his meeting with the King, he was approached by the Earl of Danby, who asked if he had accepted the King's proposals. Lord Orrery replied no. Then the other politician responded, "You may be the more honest man, but you won't ever be worth a penny." This exchange is especially notable because Danby agreed with Orrery but was biding his time purely for the sake of power, which later resulted in a long imprisonment and nearly cost him his life. Such individuals often pay dearly for sacrificing honor for self-interest. On October 16, 1679, this prominent statesman passed away, holding onto his honors and reputation. He had lived through the most chaotic times, navigated a perilous situation, and managed to find a safe haven in the end. As a person, his character was very admirable; he was patient, compassionate, and generous. As a soldier, he showed unwavering bravery; as a statesman, he was perceptive and tireless; and as a poet, he held a respectable position.
Before we give an account of his works, it will not be amiss, in order to illustrate the amiable character of lord Orrery, to shew, that tho' he espoused the Protector's interest, yet he was of singular service to the nation, in restraining the violence of his cruelty, and checking the domineering spirit of those slaves in authority, who then called themselves the legislature.
Before we discuss his works, it’s important to highlight the admirable character of Lord Orrery. Although he supported the Protector's interests, he was invaluable to the nation by moderating the cruelty and countering the authoritarian attitude of those in power who referred to themselves as the legislature.
The authors of the Biographia Britannica, say, 'that our author opposed in Parliament, and defeated, the blackest measure Cromwell ever entered into, which was the passing a law for decimating the royal party, and his lordship's conduct in this, was by far the greatest [194] action of his whole life. He made a long and an elaborate speech, in which he shewed the injustice, cruelty, and folly, of that truly infamous and Nero-like proposition. Finding that he was likely to lose the question upon the division, which probably would have issued in losing his life also; he stood up and boldly observed, "That he did not think so many Englishmen could be fond of slavery." 'Upon which so many members rose and followed him, that the Speaker without telling, declared from the chair the Noes have it, and the bill was accordingly thrown out. Upon this, he went immediately up to Cromwell, and said, "I have done you this day as great a service as ever I did in my life. How? returned Cromwell; by hindring your government, replied my lord, from becoming hateful, which already begins to be disliked; for if this bill had passed, three kingdoms would have risen up against you; and they were your enemies, and not your friends who brought it in." 'This Cromwell so firmly believed, that he never forgave nor trusted them afterwards.'
The authors of the Biographia Britannica say, 'that our author opposed in Parliament and defeated the most heinous measure Cromwell ever introduced, which was the passing of a law to decimate the royal party, and his lordship's actions in this were by far the greatest [194] of his entire life. He gave a long and detailed speech, in which he showed the injustice, cruelty, and foolishness of that truly infamous and Nero-like proposition. Realizing he was likely to lose the vote, which might have cost him his life too, he stood up and boldly said, "I don't believe that so many Englishmen could be in favor of slavery." After that, so many members stood and joined him that the Speaker, without needing to say a word, announced from the chair that the Noes had it, and the bill was subsequently thrown out. Following this, he immediately approached Cromwell and said, "I've done you one of the greatest services of my life today. How?" Cromwell replied; "by preventing your government from becoming despised, which it already starts to be; because if this bill had passed, three kingdoms would have risen against you, and it was your enemies, not your friends, who introduced it." Cromwell believed this so firmly that he never forgave or trusted them again.'
King Charles II. put my lord upon writing plays, which he did, upon the occasion of a dispute that arose in the Royal presence, about writing plays in rhime. Some affirmed, that it was to be done, others that it would spoil the fancy to be so confined; but lord Orrery was of another opinion, and his Majesty being willing, that a trial should be made, laid his commands on his lordship, to employ some of his leisure time that way, which his lordship readily complied with, and soon after composed the Black Prince.
King Charles II encouraged my lord to write plays, which he did, because of a disagreement that came up in the Royal presence regarding writing plays in rhyme. Some people insisted it was necessary, while others believed it would limit creativity. However, Lord Orrery had a different viewpoint, and since his Majesty wanted to see a trial on the matter, he instructed his lordship to spend some of his free time on it. His lordship agreed and soon after wrote the Black Prince.
It is difficult to give a full and accurate account of this nobleman's compositions; for it must be owned, he was a better statesman than a poet, [195] and fitter to act upon the wide theatre of life, than to write representations for the circumscribed theatre of the stage. In the light of an author he is less eminent, and lived a life of too much hurry to become proficient in poetry, a grace which not only demands the most extensive abilities, but much leisure and contemplation. But if he was not extremely eminent as a poet, he was far removed above contempt, and deserves to have full mention made of all his writings; and we can easily forgive want of elegance and correctness in one who was of so much service to his country, and who was born rather to live than to write a great part.
It’s tough to provide a complete and accurate picture of this nobleman's work; it's clear that he was a better statesman than a poet, [195] and more suited to act on the grand stage of life than to create pieces for the limited stage of theater. As an author, he’s less distinguished and led a life that was too fast-paced to excel in poetry, which requires not only vast talent but also plenty of time and reflection. However, while he might not have been exceptional as a poet, he was certainly someone worth respecting, and all his writings deserve full acknowledgment; we can easily overlook the lack of polish and precision in someone who contributed so much to his country and was more meant to live than to write extensively.
According to the least exceptionable account, his works are as follow:
According to the most reliable account, his works are as follows:
- The Irish Colours displayed, in a reply of an English Protestant, to an Irish Roman Catholic, Lond. 1662, 4to.
- An Answer to a scandalous Letter lately printed and subscribed be a Peter Walsh, procurator for the Secular and Romish priests of Ireland: This was the same infamous Walsh who forged the commisssion to act against the Protestants. In this letter his lordship makes a full discovery of the treachery of the Irish rebels, Dublin 1662, 4to. Lond. 1662, 4to.
- A Poem on his Majesty's Restoration, presented by the earl himself to the King.
- A Poem on the Death of the celebrated Mr. Abraham Cowley, Lond. 1667, fol. reprinted by Dr. Sprat, before his edition of Cowley's works; also reprinted and much commended by Mr. Budgel.
- History of Henry V. a tragedy. Lond. 1668, fol. In this play Mr. Harris who played Henry, wore the Duke of York's coronation suit; and Betterton, who played Owen Tudor, by which he got reputation, wore the King's; and Mr. Liliston, [196] to whom the part of the Duke of Burgundy was given, wore the Earl of Oxford's.
- Mustapha the Son of Solyman the Magnificent, a Tragedy, Lond. 1667, fol. This play succeeded tollerably well.
- The Black Prince, a Tragedy, Lond. 1672, fol. When this play was begun his lordship lay ill of the gout, and after he had finished two acts of it, he sent it to the King for his perusal, and at the same time told his Majesty, that while he laboured under that disorder, he had done these two acts; and perhaps would do no more till he was taken ill again; upon which his Majesty pleasantly said, that if it was not to be compleated till the return of the gout, he wished him a lusty fit of it[12].
- Tryphon, a Tragedy, Lond. 1672, fol. These four plays were collected, and printed in fol. 1690, and make the entire first volume of the new edition of the earl's Dramatic Works.
- Parthenissa, a Romance, in three volumes, Lond. 1665, 4to. 1677, fol. This romance is divided into six parts, the last written at the desire of, and therefore dedicated to, her royal highness the Princess Henrietta Maria, Duchess of Orleans, sister to King Charles II.
- A Dream. This poem has been before mentioned. In it, the genius of France is introduced, saying every thing the French ministers could insinuate to inveigle King Charles II. to endeavour at making himself arbitrary, or to deceive him into a mean and scandalous dependence on Lewis XIV. to all which the ghost of Charles I. is next brought in, giving reasons why the sole foundation of a Monarch's power, is the love and confidence of his people.
- [197] The Art of War, Lond. 1677, fol. This work he addresses to the King, in a large dedication, which was but the first part of what he intended upon the subject; and was so strangely received, that the second never appeared.
- Poems on most of the festivals of the church. This work, tho' printed and published, was never finished by our author. It was written in the last year of his life, under much weakness of body; and Budgel observes, very justly, that his poetry in this composition runs low; and indeed his characteristical fault as a poet, is want of elevation.
His posthumous works are these;
His posthumous works include these:
- Mr. Anthony, a Comedy, 4to. Lond. 1692.
- Guzman, a Comedy. 1693, 4to. upon a Spanish plot, and written in the Spanish manner.
- Herod the Great, a Tragedy, Lond. 1694, 4to.
- Altemira a Tragedy, brought upon the stage by Mr. Francis Manning 1702, dedicated to Lionel earl of Orrery, grandson to the author, with a prologue by lord viscount Bolingbroke. We may add to them his state letters, which have been lately published in one volume fol. The rest of his lordship's political papers perished in the flames, when his house at Charleville was burnt in the year 1690, by a party of King James's soldiers, with the duke of Berwick at their head.
We shall give a specimen of his lordship's poetry from a speech in Altemira, in a scene between Altemira and her lover.
We will provide an example of his lordship's poetry from a speech in Altemira, in a scene between Altemira and her lover.
[198]
Altem. I can forgive you all my Lycidor,
But leaving me, and leaving me for war,
For that, so little argument I find,
My reason makes the fault look more unkind.
[198]
Altem. I can forgive you everything, my Lycidor,
But leaving me, and leaving me for battle,
For that, I find so little to say,
My logic makes the mistake seem even worse.
Lycidor. You see my griefs such deep impressions give,
I'd better die than thus afflicted live.
Yet to those sorrows under which I groan,
Can you still think it fit to add your own?
Lycidor. You can see how deeply my sorrows affect me,
I'd be better off dead than live like this.
Yet in the face of the pain I endure,
Do you really think it's right to add to it?
Altem. 'Tis only you, have your own troubles wrought,
For they alas! are not impos'd but sought;
Did you but credit what you still profess,
That I alone can make your happiness:
You would not your obedience now decline,
But end by paying it, your griefs and mine.
Altem. It's only you who have created your own problems,
Because sadly, they aren't forced upon you but chosen;
If you truly believed what you still claim,
That I alone can bring you joy:
You wouldn't refuse to follow now,
But would end up fulfilling it, your sorrows and mine.
Footnotes:
Footnotes:
- Earl of Cork's True Remembrance.
- Morrice's Memoirs of E. Orrery, chap. 6.
- Memoirs of the Earl of Orrery, p. 36.
- Carte's Life of the Duke of Ormond.
- Memoirs of the Interregnum, p. 133.
- Cox's History of Ireland, vol. 2. part 2d. p. 16.
- Thurloe's State Papers.
- Morrice's Memoirs chap. 5.
- Budgel's Memoirs of the family of the Boyles.
- Collin's peerage, vol. iv. p. 26.
- Love's Memoirs of the Earl of Orrery.
- Memoirs of the Earl of Orrery.
Richard Head
Was the son of a minister in Ireland, who being killed in the rebellion there in 1641, amongst the many thousands who suffered in that deplorable massacre, our author's mother came with her son into England, and he having, says Winstanley, been trained up in learning, was by the help of some friends educated at Oxford, in the same college where his father formerly had been a student; but as his circumstances were mean, he was taken away from thence, and bound apprentice to a bookseller in London, but his genius being addicted to poetry, before his time was expired, he wrote a piece called Venus Cabinet unlocked; and afterwards he married and set up for himself, in which condition, he did not long continue, for being addicted to gaming, he ruined his affairs. In this distress he went over to Ireland, and composed his Hic & Ubique, a noted comedy; and which gained him some reputation. He then returned to England, reprinted his comedy, and dedicated it to the duke of Monmouth, from whom he received no great encouragement. This circumstance induced him to reflect, that the life of an author was at once the most dissipated and unpleasing in the world; that it is in every man's power to injure him, and that few are disposed to promote him. Animated by these reflexions, he again took a house, and from author resumed his old trade of a bookseller, in which, no doubt he judged right; for while an author (be his genius and parts ever [200] so bright) is employed in the composition of one book, a bookseller may publish twenty; so that in the very nature of things, a bookseller without oppression, a crime which by unsuccessful writers is generally imputed to them, may grow rich, while the most industrious and able author can arrive at no more than a decent competence: and even to that, many a great genius has never attained.
He was the son of a minister in Ireland, who was killed during the rebellion there in 1641. Among the many thousands who suffered in that terrible massacre, our author's mother moved to England with her son. According to Winstanley, he was educated with the help of some friends at Oxford, in the same college where his father had studied. However, since their situation was modest, he was taken out of there and apprenticed to a bookseller in London. But since he had a talent for poetry, before his apprenticeship ended, he wrote a piece called "Venus Cabinet Unlocked." Afterward, he got married and tried to set up his own shop, but he didn't last long in that situation because he was into gaming, which ruined his finances. In this tough spot, he went back to Ireland and wrote "Hic & Ubique," a well-known comedy that earned him some recognition. He then returned to England, reprinted his comedy, and dedicated it to the Duke of Monmouth, from whom he didn't receive much encouragement. This made him think that the life of an author was both wasted and unfulfilling; that anyone could hurt him, and that few were willing to help him. Motivated by these thoughts, he rented a new place and went back to being a bookseller. He likely made the right choice because while an author (no matter how brilliant) focuses on writing one book, a bookseller can publish twenty. In the nature of things, a bookseller, without exploiting anyone—which unsuccessful writers often accuse them of—can get rich, while even the most hardworking and talented author may only achieve a modest living. Many great talents have never even reached that point.
No sooner had Mr. Head a little recovered himself, than we find him cheated again by the syren alurements of pleasure and poetry, in the latter of which, however, it does not appear he made any proficiency. He failed a second time, in the world, and having recourse to his pen, wrote the first part of the English Rogue, which being too libertine, could not be licensed till he had expunged some of the most luscious descriptions out of it.
No sooner had Mr. Head somewhat composed himself than we find him tempted once again by the charming attractions of pleasure and poetry, in which, however, it seems he did not make any progress. He failed for the second time in life, and turning to his writing, he produced the first part of the English Rogue, which was deemed too risqué and could not be published until he removed some of the most decadent descriptions from it.
Mr. Winstanley, p. 208, has informed us, that at the coming out of this first part, he was with him at the Three Cup tavern in Holborn drinking a glass of Rhenish, and made these verses upon him,
Mr. Winstanley, p. 208, has told us that when this first part was released, he was with him at the Three Cup tavern in Holborn having a glass of Rhenish, and wrote these verses about him,
What Gusman, Buscan, Francion, Rablais writ,
I once applauded for most excellent wit;
But reading thee, and thy rich fancy's store,
I now condemn what I admir'd before.
Henceforth translations pack away, be gone,
No Rogue so well writ, as the English one.
What Gusman, Buscan, Francion, and Rablais wrote,
I once praised for being clever and great;
But after reading you and your wealth of imagination,
I now reject what I admired before.
From now on, translations can go away, be gone,
No rogue is written as well as the English one.
We cannot help observing, that Winstanley has a little ridiculously shewn his vanity, by informing the world, that he could afford to drink a glass of Rhenish; and has added nothing to his reputation by the verses, which have neither poetry nor wit in them.
We can't help but notice that Winstanley has somewhat absurdly shown his vanity by telling everyone that he can afford to drink a glass of Rhenish; and he hasn't added anything to his reputation with the verses, which lack both poetry and wit.
[201] This English Rogue, described in the life of Meriton Latroon, a witty extravagant, was published anno 1666, in a very large 8vo. There were three more parts added to it by Francis Kirkman and Mr. Head in conjunction.
[201] This English Rogue, depicted in the life of Meriton Latroon, a clever adventurer, was published in 1666 in a large 8vo format. Three additional parts were later added by Francis Kirkman and Mr. Head together.
He also wrote
He also authored
Jackson's Recantation; or the Life and Death of a notorious highwayman, then hanging in chains at Hamstead, 1674.
Jackson's Recantation; or the Life and Death of a famous highwayman, who was then hanging in chains at Hampstead, 1674.
Proteus Redivivus; or, the Art of wheedling, Lond. 1675.
Proteus Redivivus; or, the Art of Persuasion, Lond. 1675.
The Floating Island; or a voyage from Lambethanio to Ramalia.
The Floating Island; or a trip from Lambethanio to Ramalia.
A Discovery of Old Brazil.
A Discovery of Ancient Brazil.
The Red Sea.
The Red Sea.
He wrote a Pamphlet against Dr. Wild, in answer to Wild's letter directed to his friend, upon occasion of his Majesty's declaration for liberty of conscience: This he concludes in the following manner, by which it will be seen that he was but a poor versifier.
He wrote a pamphlet against Dr. Wild in response to Wild's letter sent to his friend, regarding the King's declaration for freedom of conscience. He ends it in the following way, which shows that he wasn't a very skilled poet.
Thus, Sir, you have my story, but am sorry
(Taunton excuse) it is no better for ye,
However read it, as your pease are shelling;
For you will find, it is not worth the telling.
Excuse this boldness, for I can't avoid
Thinking sometimes you are but ill employ'd.
Fishing for souls more fit, than frying fish;
That makes me throw pease-shellings in your dish.
You have a study, books wherein to look,
How comes it then the Doctor turn'd a cook?
Well Doctor Cook, pray be advised hereafter,
Don't make your wife the subject of our laughter.
[202]
I find she's careless, and your maid a slut,
To let you grease your Cassock for your gut.
You are all three in fault, by all that's blest;
Mend you your manners first, then teach the rest.
So, sir, that's my story, but I'm sorry
(Taunton excuse) it’s not any better for you,
Still, read it, like your peas are being shelled;
Because you’ll see, it’s not worth telling.
Forgive my boldness, but I can’t help
Thinking sometimes you’re wasting your time.
Fishing for souls is more worthy than frying fish;
That’s why I’m tossing pea shells into your dish.
You have a study, books for you to check,
So how did the Doctor end up as a cook?
Well, Doctor Cook, please take this advice going forward,
Don’t make your wife the joke of our laughter.
[202]
I see she’s careless, and your maid’s a mess,
Allowing you to grease your Cassock for your belly.
You’re all three at fault, by all that’s blessed;
Fix your manners first, then teach the rest.
Mr. Winstanley says, that our author met with a great many afflictions and crosses in his time, and was cast away at sea, as he was going to the Isle of Wight 1678.
Mr. Winstanley says that our author faced many hardships and challenges in his life and was shipwrecked while sailing to the Isle of Wight in 1678.
Thomas Hobbs.
This celebrated philosopher was son of Thomas Hobbs, vicar of Westport, within the Liberty of Malmesbury, and of Charlton in Wilts, and was born at Westport on the 5th of April 1588[1]. It is related by Bayle, that his mother being frighted at the rumours of the report of the Spanish Armada, was brought to bed of him before her time, which makes it somewhat surprizing that he should live to so great an age. He had made an extraordinary progress in the languages before he arrived at his 14th year, when he was sent to Oxford, where he studied for five years Aristotle's philosophy. In the year 1607 he took the degree of batchelor of arts, and upon the recommendation of the principal of the college, he entered into the service of William Cavendish, baron Hardwicke, soon afterwards earl of Devonshire[2], by whom being much esteemed for his pleasantry and humour, he was appointed tutor to his son lord William Cavendish, several years younger than Hobbs. Soon after our author travelled with this young nobleman thro' France and Italy, where he made himself master [203] of the different languages of the countries thro' which he travelled; but finding that he had in a great measure forgot his Greek and Latin, he dedicated his leisure hours to the revival of them, and in order to fix the Greek language more firmly in his mind, upon his return to England, he set about and accomplished a translation of Thucydides, who appeared to him preferable to all other Greek historians, and by rendering him into English he meant to shew his countrymen from the Athenian history, the disorders and confusions of a democratical government.
This well-known philosopher was the son of Thomas Hobbs, vicar of Westport, in the Liberty of Malmesbury, and of Charlton in Wilts, and he was born at Westport on April 5, 1588[1]. According to Bayle, his mother was so frightened by the rumors of the Spanish Armada that she gave birth to him prematurely, which makes it somewhat surprising that he lived to such an old age. He made remarkable progress in languages before he turned 14, when he was sent to Oxford, where he studied Aristotle's philosophy for five years. In 1607, he earned his Bachelor of Arts degree, and based on the recommendation of the college principal, he entered the service of William Cavendish, Baron Hardwicke, who later became the Earl of Devonshire[2]. Cavendish valued him for his wit and humor, so he appointed Hobbs as tutor to his son, Lord William Cavendish, who was several years younger than Hobbs. Soon after, our author traveled with this young nobleman through France and Italy, where he became fluent in the various languages of the countries they visited. However, realizing that he had largely forgotten his Greek and Latin, he dedicated his free time to revitalizing them, and to strengthen his grasp of Greek, after returning to England, he worked on and completed a translation of Thucydides, whom he considered superior to all other Greek historians. By translating him into English, he intended to show his fellow countrymen the turmoil and chaos of a democratic government through Athenian history.
In the year 1628, the earl of Devonshire dying, after our author had served him 20 years, he travelled again into France with a son of Sir Gervas Clifton; at which time, and during which preregrination (says Wood) 'he began to make an inspection into the elements of Euclid, and be delighted with his method, not only for the theorems contained in it, but for his art of reasoning. In these studies he continued till 1631, when his late pupil the earl of Devonshire called him home in order to undertake the education of his son, then only thirteen years of age, in all the parts of juvenile literature; and as soon as it was proper for him to see the world, Hobbs again set out for France and Italy, and directed his young pupil to the necessary steps for accomplishing his education.
In 1628, the Earl of Devonshire passed away after our author had served him for 20 years. He then traveled back to France with a son of Sir Gervas Clifton. During this trip (as Wood notes), he started looking into Euclid's elements and was impressed by his method, not just because of the theorems, but also for his reasoning skills. He continued these studies until 1631 when his former student, the Earl of Devonshire, brought him back to take on the education of his thirteen-year-old son in various subjects. Once it was suitable for the boy to explore the world, Hobbes set off for France and Italy again, guiding his young pupil on the necessary steps for completing his education.
When our author was at Paris, he began to search into the fundamentals of natural science, and contracted an intimacy with Marius Marsennus a Minim, conversant in that kind of philosophy, and a man of excellent moral qualities.
When our author was in Paris, he started to explore the basics of natural science and became close friends with Marius Marsennus, a Minim who was knowledgeable in that type of philosophy and was a man of great moral character.
In 1637 he was recalled to England, but finding the civil war ready to break out, and the Scots in arms against the King, instigated by a mean cowardice, he deferred his country in distress, and returned to Paris, that he might without interruption pursue his studies there, and converse with men of [204] eminence in the sciences. The Parliament prevailing, several of the Royalists were driven from their own country, and were obliged to take shelter in France. The Prince of Wales was reduced likewise to quit the kingdom and live at Paris: Hobbs was employed to teach the young Prince mathematics, in which he made great proficiency; and our author used to observe, that if the Prince's application was equal to the quickness of his parts, he would be the foremost man in his time in every species of science. All the leisure hours that Hobbs enjoyed in Paris, he dedicated to the composition of a book called, The Leviathan, a work by which he acquired a great name in Europe; and which was printed at London while he remained at Paris. Under this strange name he means the body politic. The divines of the church of England who attended King Charles II. in France, exclaimed vehemently against this performance, and said that it contained a great many impious assertions, and that the author was not of the royal party. Their complaints were regarded, and Hobbs was discharged the court; and as he had extremely provoked the Papists, he thought it not safe for him to continue longer in France, especially as he was deprived of the protection of the King of England. He translated his Leviathan into Latin, and printed it with an appendix in 1668.
In 1637, he was called back to England, but with the civil war about to start and the Scots rising against the King, driven by a petty cowardice, he abandoned his troubled country and returned to Paris. There, he could freely continue his studies and engage with prominent figures in the sciences. With the Parliament gaining ground, many Royalists were forced to flee their homeland and seek refuge in France. The Prince of Wales also had to leave the kingdom and live in Paris. Hobbes was brought in to teach the young Prince mathematics, in which he excelled; our author would remark that if the Prince's dedication matched his natural ability, he would be the leading figure of his time across all scientific fields. During his free time in Paris, Hobbes dedicated himself to writing a book called The Leviathan, a work that earned him significant recognition in Europe and was published in London while he remained in Paris. By this unusual title, he referred to the political body. The clergy of the Church of England who accompanied King Charles II in France vehemently criticized this work, claiming it contained many impious statements and that the author was not part of the royal faction. Their complaints were taken seriously, and Hobbes was expelled from court. Having already angered the Papists, he felt it was unsafe to stay in France, especially since he no longer had the protection of the King of England. He translated his Leviathan into Latin and published it with an appendix in 1668.
About ten years afterwards, the Leviathan was printed in Low Dutch. The character of this work is drawn as under, by bishop Burnet.
About ten years later, the Leviathan was printed in Low Dutch. The nature of this work is described below by Bishop Burnet.
'His [Hobbs's] main principles were, that all men acted under an absolute necessity, in which he seemed protected by the then received doctrine of absolute decrees. He seemed to think that the universe was god, and that souls were material, Thought being only subtle and imperceptible motion. He thought interest and fear were the chief principles of society; and he put all morality in the following that which was our own private will [205] or advantage. He thought religion had no other foundation than the laws of the land; and he put all the law in the will of the Prince, or of the people: For he writ his book at first in favour of absolute monarchy, but turned it afterwards to gratify the Republican party.'
'His main principles were that all people acted out of absolute necessity, which he believed was supported by the widely accepted idea of absolute decrees at the time. He seemed to think of the universe as god, viewing souls as material, with thought being merely subtle and imperceptible motion. He believed that self-interest and fear were the primary driving forces in society, and he defined morality as following our own private will or advantage. He thought that religion was based solely on the laws of the land, placing all legal authority in the will of the prince or the people. He originally wrote his book to support absolute monarchy but later revised it to appeal to the Republican party.'
Upon his return to England, he lived retired at the seat of the earl of Devonshire, and applied himself to the study of philosophy; and as almost all men who have written any thing successfully would be thought poets, so Hobbs laid claim to that character, tho' his poetry is too contemptible for criticism. Dr. White Kennet in his memoirs of the family of Cavendish informs us, 'That while Mr. Hobbs lived in the earl of Devonshire's family, his professed rule was to dedicate the morning to his health, and the afternoon to his studies; and therefore at his first rising he walked out, and climbed any hill within his reach; or if the weather was not dry, he fatigued himself within doors, by some exercise or other till he was in a sweat, recommending that practice upon his opinion, that an old man had more moisture than heat; and therefore by such motion heat was to be acquired, and moisture expelled; after this he took a breakfast, and then went round the lodgings to wait upon the earl, the countess, and the children, and any considerable strangers, paying some short addresses to them all. He kept these rounds till about 12 o'clock, when he had a little dinner provided for him, which he eat always by himself without ceremony. Soon after dinner he retired into his study, and had his candle, with ten or twelve pipes of tobacco laid by him, then shutting the door he fell to smoaking and thinking, and writing for several hours.'
When he returned to England, he lived a quiet life at the estate of the Earl of Devonshire and focused on studying philosophy. Just like most people who have successfully written anything are often thought of as poets, Hobbs claimed that title as well, even though his poetry is not worthy of any serious critique. Dr. White Kennet, in his memoirs of the Cavendish family, tells us, "While Mr. Hobbs lived with the Earl of Devonshire's family, his self-imposed rule was to dedicate the mornings to his health and the afternoons to his studies. So, upon waking, he would take walks and climb any nearby hill, or if the weather was bad, he would tire himself out indoors with some form of exercise until he worked up a sweat. He believed that older men have more moisture than heat, so through exercise, one could gain heat and expel moisture. After this, he would have breakfast and then go around the house to visit the earl, the countess, the children, and any important guests, making brief conversation with each of them. He followed this routine until about noon when a simple lunch would be prepared for him, which he ate alone, without any fuss. Soon after lunch, he would retire to his study, where he had a candle and ten or twelve pipes of tobacco set aside. After shutting the door, he would smoke, think, and write for several hours."
He retained a friend or two at court to protect him if occasion should require; and used to say, it was lawful to make use of evil instruments to do ourselves good. 'If I were cast (said he) into [206] a deep pit, and the Devil should put down his cloven foot, I should take hold of it to be drawn out by it.'
He kept a friend or two at court to help him out if he needed it, and he would say that it was okay to use bad methods to achieve good outcomes. 'If I were thrown into a deep pit (he said), and the Devil offered his cloven foot, I would grab it to be pulled out.'
Towards the end of his life he read very few books, and the earl of Clarendon says, that he had never read much but thought a great deal; and Hobbs himself used to observe, that if he had read as much as other philosophers, he should have been as ignorant as they. If any company came to visit him, he would be free of his discourse, and behave with pleasantry, till he was pressed, or contradicted, and then he had the infirmities of being short and peevish, and referring them to his writings, for better satisfaction. His friends who had the liberty of introducing strangers to him, made these terms with them before admission, that they should not dispute with the old man, or contradict him.
Towards the end of his life, he read very few books. The Earl of Clarendon mentioned that he hadn't read much but had thought a lot. Hobbes himself remarked that if he had read as much as other philosophers, he would have been just as ignorant as they were. When company visited him, he spoke freely and joked around until he was challenged or contradicted. Then, he would show his weaknesses by being short-tempered and irritable, often referring them to his writings for clearer understanding. His friends who had the privilege of bringing strangers to see him made it clear beforehand that they shouldn't argue with the old man or contradict him.
In October 1666, when proceedings against him were depending, with a bill against atheism and profaneness, he was at Chatsworth, and appeared extremely disturbed at the news of it, fearing the messengers would come for him, and the earl of Devonshire would deliver him up, the two houses of Parliament commit him to the bishops, and they decree him a heretic. This terror upon his spirits greatly disturbed him. He often confessed to those about him, that he meant no harm, was no obstinate man, and was ready to make any satisfaction; for his prevailing principle and resolution was, to suffer for no cause whatever.
In October 1666, while proceedings were ongoing against him regarding a bill about atheism and irreverence, he was at Chatsworth and seemed very troubled by the news. He feared the messengers would come for him, and that the Earl of Devonshire would hand him over, leading the two houses of Parliament to commit him to the bishops, who would then declare him a heretic. This fear weighed heavily on him. He frequently told those around him that he meant no harm, wasn’t hard-headed, and was willing to make amends; his main principle and determination was to avoid suffering for any reason.
Under these apprehensions of danger, he drew up, in 1680, an historical naration of heresy, and the punishments thereof, endeavouring to prove that there was no authority to determine heresy, or to punish it, when he wrote the Leviathan.
Under these fears of danger, he wrote, in 1680, a historical account of heresy and its punishments, trying to show that there was no authority to define heresy or to punish it when he wrote the Leviathan.
Under the same fears he framed an apology for himself and his writings; observing, that the exceptionable things in his Leviathan were not his opinions, so much as his suppositions, humbly submited [207] to those who had the ecclesiastical power, and never since dogmatically maintained by him either in writing or discourse; and it is much to be suspected, as Dr. Kennet observes, that upon this occasion, he began to make a more open shew of religion and church communion. He now frequented the chapel, joined in the service, and was generally a partaker of the sacrament; and when any strangers used to call in question his belief, he always appealed to his conformity in divine service, and referred them to the chaplain for a testimony of it. Others thought it a meer compliance with the orders of the family; and observed, he never went to any parish church, and even in the chapel upon Sundays he went out after prayers, and would not condescend to hear the sermon, and when any friend asked the reason of it, he gave no other answer but this, that preachers could tell him nothing but what he knew. He did not conceal his hatred to the clergy; but it was visible his aversion proceeded from the dread of their civil power and interest. He had often a jealousy that the bishops would burn him; and of all the bench he was most afraid of Dr. Seth Ward, bishop of Sarum, because he had most offended him. Dr. Kennet further observes, that his whole life was governed by his fears.
Under the same fears, he apologized for himself and his writings, noting that the questionable things in his Leviathan were more about his assumptions than his beliefs, which he humbly submitted [207] to those in ecclesiastical authority, and he never claimed them dogmatically in his writing or conversations. It is heavily suspected, as Dr. Kennet points out, that during this time, he began to be more open about his faith and church involvement. He started attending chapel regularly, participated in the service, and generally took part in the sacrament. When strangers questioned his beliefs, he always pointed to his participation in divine service and referred them to the chaplain for confirmation. Others believed it was merely a way to comply with family expectations, noting that he never attended any parish church, and even at chapel on Sundays, he would leave after prayers and wouldn't stay for the sermon. When a friend asked why, he simply replied that preachers had nothing to tell him that he didn't already know. He didn’t hide his dislike for the clergy, but it was clear his aversion stemmed from a fear of their political power and influence. He often worried that the bishops would condemn him, and of all of them, he feared Dr. Seth Ward, the bishop of Sarum, the most, as he felt he had offended him the most. Dr. Kennet also mentions that his entire life was ruled by his fears.
In the first Parliament of 1640, while it seemed to favour the measures of the court, he wrote a little tract in English wherein he demonstrated as himself tells us, that all the power and rights necessary for the peace of the kingdom, were inseparably annexed to the sovereignty of the King's person. But in the second parliament of that year, when they proceeded fiercely against those who had written or preached in defence of the regal power; he was the first that fled, went over into France, and there continued eleven years. Whether from [208] the dread of assassination, or as some have thought from the notion of ghosts and spirits, is uncertain, but he could not endure to be left in an empty house; whenever the earl of Devonshire removed, he would accompany him; even in his last stage from Chatsworth to Hardwick, when in a weak condition, he dared not be left behind, but made his way upon a feather bed in a coach, tho' he survived the journey but a few days. He could not bear any discourse of death, and seemed to cast off all thoughts of it; he delighted to reckon upon longer life. The winter before he died he had a warm coat made him, which he said must last him three years, and then he would have such another. A few days after his removal to Hardwick, Wood says that he was struck with a dead palsy, which stupified his right side from head to foot, depriving him of his speech and reason at the same time; but this circumstance is not so probable, since Dr. Kennet has told us, that in his last sickness he frequently enquired, whether his disease was curable; and when it was told him that he might have ease but no remedy, he used these expressions. 'I shall be glad then to find a hole to creep out of the world at;' which are reported to be his last sensible words, and his lying some days following in a state of stupefaction, seemed to be owing to his mind, more than to his body. The only thought of death which he appeared to entertain in time of health, was to take care of some inscription on his grave; he would suffer some friends to dictate an epitaph, amongst which he was best pleased with these words:
In the first Parliament of 1640, even though it seemed to support the court's agenda, he wrote a short paper in English where he showed, as he himself stated, that all the power and rights needed for the peace of the kingdom were inseparably linked to the King's authority. But in the second parliament of that year, when they aggressively targeted those who had written or preached in defense of royal power, he was the first to flee, going to France, where he stayed for eleven years. It's unclear whether this was due to fear of assassination or, as some believed, because of the fear of ghosts and spirits, but he couldn't stand being left alone in an empty house; whenever the Earl of Devonshire moved, he would go with him. Even during the final trip from Chatsworth to Hardwick, when he was weak, he didn't want to be left behind and made his way in a coach on a feather bed, though he only survived the journey for a few days. He couldn't handle any conversation about death and seemed to push all thoughts of it away; he loved to plan for a longer life. The winter before he died, he had a warm coat made for himself, claiming it should last three years, and then he would get another one just like it. A few days after he moved to Hardwick, Wood says he was struck by a dead paralysis, which left his right side completely numb, taking away his speech and reason at the same time; but this detail seems less likely since Dr. Kennet told us that in his last illness, he often asked if his condition was treatable. When he was told that he could find relief but not a cure, he expressed, 'I shall be glad then to find a hole to creep out of the world at;' which are reported to be his last coherent words, and his lying for several days afterward in a stupor seemed more related to his state of mind than his body. The only thought of death he appeared to have during his healthy days was about arranging an inscription for his grave; he allowed some friends to suggest an epitaph, among which he liked these words the most:
"This is the true Philosopher's Stone."
"This is the real Philosopher's Stone."
He died at Hardwick, as above-mentioned, on the 4th of Dec. 1679. Notwithstanding his great age, [209] for he exceeded 90 at his death, he retained his judgment in great vigour till his last sickness.
He passed away at Hardwick, as mentioned earlier, on December 4, 1679. Despite his advanced age, [209] since he was over 90 at the time of his death, he kept his judgment sharp right up until his final illness.
Some writers of his life maintain, that he had very orthodox notions concerning the nature of God and of all the moral virtues; notwithstanding the general notion of his being a downright atheist; that he was affable, kind, communicative of what he knew, a good friend, a good relation, charitable to the poor, a lover of justice, and a despiser of money. This last quality is a favourable circumstance in his life, for there is no vice at once more despicable and the source of more base designs than avarice. His warmest votaries allow, that when he was young he was addicted to the fashionable libertinism of wine and women, and that he kept himself unmarried lest wedlock should interrupt him in the study of philosophy.
Some writers about his life believe that he held very traditional views about the nature of God and all moral virtues; despite the common belief that he was a complete atheist, he was friendly, kind, open about what he knew, a good friend, a good family member, charitable to the poor, a lover of justice, and someone who looked down on money. This last trait is a positive aspect of his life because there's no vice more contemptible or the cause of more dishonorable schemes than greed. His strongest supporters agree that when he was young, he indulged in the typical extravagance of drinking and womanizing, and that he remained unmarried to avoid letting marriage get in the way of his study of philosophy.
In the catalogue of his faults, meanness of spirit and cowardice may be justly imputed to him. Whether he was convinced of the truth of his philosophy, no man can determine; but it is certain, that he had no resolution to support and maintain his notions: had his doctrines been of ever so much consequence to the world, Hobbs would have abjured them all, rather than have suffered a moment's pain on their account. Such a man may be admired for his invention, and the planning of new systems, but the world would never have been much illuminated, if all the discoverers of truth, like the philosopher of Malmsbury, had had no spirit to assert it against opposition. In a piece called the Creed of Mr. Hobbs examined, in a feigned Conference between him and a Student of Divinity, London 1670, written by Dr. Tenison, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, the Dr. charges Mr. Hobbs with affirming, 'that God is a bodily substance, though most refined, and forceth evil upon the very wills of men; framed a model of government pernicious in its consequences [210] to all nations; subjected the canon of scripture to the civil powers, and taught them the way of turning the Alcoran into the Gospel; declared it lawful, not only to dissemble, but firmly to renounce faith in Christ, in order to avoid persecution, and even managed a quarrel against the very elements of Euclid.' Hobbs's Leviathan met with many answers, immediately after the restoration, especially one by the earl of Clarendon, in a piece called a Brief View and Survey of the dangerous and pernicious Errors to Church and State, in Mr. Hobbs's Book entitled Leviathan, Oxon. 1676. The university of Oxford condemned his Leviathan, and his Book de Cive, by a decree passed on the 21st of July 1638, and ordered them to be publickly burnt, with several other treatises excepted against.
In his list of faults, he can justly be accused of being petty and cowardly. Whether he truly believed in his philosophy is something no one can decide; however, it’s clear that he lacked the courage to stand by his beliefs. Even if his ideas had been incredibly important to the world, Hobbs would have rejected them all rather than endure a moment of pain because of them. Such a person might be admired for their creativity and for developing new systems, but the world wouldn’t have gained much insight if all truth-seekers, like the philosopher from Malmsbury, had no backbone to defend their views against challenge. In a piece titled *The Creed of Mr. Hobbs Examined*, set in a fictional conversation between him and a theology student, published in London in 1670 and written by Dr. Tenison, later archbishop of Canterbury, the doctor accuses Mr. Hobbs of claiming that "God is a physical substance, albeit a refined one, and imposes evil upon the very wills of men; has created a model of government harmful to all nations; subjected the canon of scripture to civil authorities, and taught them how to turn the Quran into the Gospel; declared it acceptable not only to pretend but also to outright deny faith in Christ to escape persecution, and even picked a fight over the very principles of Euclid." Hobbs's *Leviathan* faced numerous responses right after the restoration, particularly one from the Earl of Clarendon in a work called *A Brief View and Survey of the Dangerous and Pernicious Errors to Church and State in Mr. Hobbs's Book entitled Leviathan*, published in Oxford in 1676. The University of Oxford condemned *Leviathan* and his *Book de Cive* through a decree issued on July 21, 1638, and ordered them to be publicly burned along with several other criticized works.
The following is a catalogue of his works, with as full an account of them as consists with our plan.
The following is a list of his works, including as much detail as fits with our plan.
He translated into English the History of the Grecian War by Thucydides, London 1628, and 1676 in fol. and since reprinted in two volumes in octavo.
He translated Thucydides' History of the Grecian War into English, published in London in 1628 and 1676 in folio, and it has since been reprinted in two volumes in octavo.
De Mirabilibus Pecci, a Latin Poem, printed at London 1636; it was translated into English by a person of quality, and the translation was published with the original at London 1678.
De Mirabilibus Pecci, a Latin poem, was printed in London in 1636; it was translated into English by a person of high status, and the translation was published alongside the original in London in 1678.
Elementa Philosophica, seu Politica de Cive, id est, de Vita civili & politicâ prudenter instituendâ, Paris 1642 in 4to. Mr. Hobbs printed but a few copies of this book, and revised it afterwards, and made several additions to it, with which improvements it was printed at Amsterdam, under the direction of Monsieur Forbier, who published a French translation of it. Dr. John Bramhall, bishop of Derry in Ireland, in the Preface to his Book entitled a Defence of true Liberty, [211] from an antecedent and extrinsical Necessity, tells us, 'that ten years before he had given Mr. Hobbs about sixty exceptions, one half political, and the other half theological to that book, and every exception justified by a number of reasons, to which he never yet vouchsafed any answer.' Gassendus, in a letter to Sorbiere, tells us, that our author's Book de Cive, deserves to be read by all who would have a deep insight into the subject. Puffendorf observes, that he had been much obliged to Mr. Hobbs, whose hypothesis in this book, though it favours a little of irreligion, is in other respects sufficiently ingenious and sound.
Elementa Philosophica, or Political Treatise on the Citizen, that is, on the civil and political life wisely established, Paris 1642 in 4to. Mr. Hobbes printed only a few copies of this book and later revised it, adding several improvements, which were then printed in Amsterdam under the direction of Monsieur Forbier, who also published a French translation of it. Dr. John Bramhall, bishop of Derry in Ireland, in the Preface to his book titled A Defence of True Liberty, tells us that ten years prior, he had given Mr. Hobbes around sixty critiques, half of which were political and the other half theological, each backed by a variety of reasons, to which Mr. Hobbes never provided a response. Gassendus, in a letter to Sorbiere, states that our author's book de Cive deserves to be read by anyone seeking a deep understanding of the topic. Puffendorf remarks that he was much indebted to Mr. Hobbes, whose ideas in this book, although somewhat irreligious, are clever and fundamentally sound in other aspects.
An Answer to Sir William Davenant's Epistle or Preface to Gondibert, Paris 1650, 12mo. and afterwards printed with Gondibert. See Davenant.
An Answer to Sir William Davenant's Epistle or Preface to Gondibert, Paris 1650, 12mo. and afterwards printed with Gondibert. See Davenant.
Human Nature, or the Fundamental Elements of Policy, being a Discovery of the Faculties, Acts, and Passions of the Soul of Man, from their original Causes, according to such philosophical Principles as are not commonly known or asserted.
Human Nature, or the Essential Elements of Policy, is a study of the abilities, actions, and emotions of the human soul, exploring their original causes based on philosophical principles that aren’t widely recognized or claimed.
De Corpore Politico, or the Elements of Law, London 1650.
De Corpore Politico, or the Elements of Law, London 1650.
Leviathan, or the Matter, Power, and Form of a Commonwealth, London 1651 in fol. reprinted again in fol. 1680; a Latin Version was published at Amsterdam 1666 in 4to; it was likewise translated into Low Dutch, and printed at Amsterdam 1678 in 4to. To the English editions is subjoined a Review of the Leviathan.
Leviathan, or the Matter, Power, and Form of a Commonwealth, London 1651 in folio, reprinted again in folio 1680; a Latin version was published in Amsterdam 1666 in quarto; it was also translated into Low Dutch and printed in Amsterdam 1678 in quarto. The English editions include a Review of the Leviathan.
A Compendium of Aristotle's Rhetoric and Rhamus's Logic.
A Collection of Aristotle's Rhetoric and Ramus's Logic.
A Letter about Liberty and Necessity, London 1654 in 12mo. to this piece several answers were given, especially by Dr. Bernard Laney, and Dr. Bramhall, bishop of Derry, London 1656 in 4to.
A Letter about Liberty and Necessity, London 1654 in 12mo. This piece received several responses, particularly from Dr. Bernard Laney and Dr. Bramhall, bishop of Derry, London 1656 in 4to.
[212] Elementorum Philosophiæ sectio prima de Corpore, London 1655 in 8vo; in English, London 1656 in 4to. sectio secunda, London 1657 in 4to. Amsterdam 1680 in 4to.
[212] First section of the Philosophy of Elements about the Body, London 1655 in 8vo; in English, London 1656 in 4to. Second section, London 1657 in 4to. Amsterdam 1680 in 4to.
Six Lessons to the Professors of Mathematics of the Institution of Sir Henry Saville, London 1656 in 4to; this is written against Dr. Seth Ward, and Dr. John Wallis.
Six Lessons for the Mathematics Professors at the Institution of Sir Henry Saville, London 1656 in 4to; this is written in opposition to Dr. Seth Ward and Dr. John Wallis.
The Remarks of the Absurd Geometry, Rural Language, &c. of Dr. John Wallis, London 1657 in 8vo. Dr. Wallis having published in 1655 his Elenchus Geometriæ Hobbianæ. It occasioned a notable controversy between these two great men.
The Remarks on the Absurd Geometry, Rural Language, & etc. of Dr. John Wallis, London 1657 in 8vo. Dr. Wallis published his Elenchus Geometriæ Hobbianæ in 1655. This sparked a significant controversy between these two prominent figures.
Examinatio et Emendatio Mathematicæ hodiernæ, &c. in sex Dialogis, London 1660, in 4to. Amsterdam 1668 in 4to.
Examination and Revision of Modern Mathematics, &c. in six Dialogues, London 1660, in 4to. Amsterdam 1668 in 4to.
Dialogus Physicus, sive de Natura Aeris, London 1661 in 4to.
Dialogus Physicus, or On the Nature of Air, London 1661 in 4to.
De Duplicatione Cubi, London 1661, 4to. Amsterdam 1668 in 4to.
De Duplicatione Cubi, London 1661, 4to. Amsterdam 1668 in 4to.
Problemata Physica, una cum magnitudine Circuli, London 1662, 4to.
Problemata Physica, along with the size of the Circle, London 1662, 4to.
De Principiis et Ratiocinatione Geometrarum, contra sastuosum Professorem Geometræ, Amsterdam 1668 in 4to.
De Principiis et Ratiocinatione Geometrarum, against the extravagant Professor of Geometry, Amsterdam 1668 in 4to.
Quadratura Circuli, Cubatio sphæræ, Duplicatio Cubi; una cum Responsione ad Objectiones Geometriæ Professoris Saviliani Oxoniæ editas Anno 1669, London in 4to. 1669.
Quadrature of the Circle, Cubation of the Sphere, Doubling of the Cube; along with a Response to the Objections of the Geometry Professor Savilian published in Oxford in the year 1669, London in 4to. 1669.
Rosetum Geometricum, sive Propositiones aliquot frustra antehac tentatæ, cum censura brevi Doctrinæ Wallisianæ de Motu, London 1671 in 4to. There is an account of this book in the Philosophical Transactions, Numb. 72, for the year 1671.
Rosetum Geometricum, or Some Propositions Previously Attempted in Vain, with a Brief Review of Wallis's Teachings on Motion, London 1671 in 4to. There's a summary of this book in the Philosophical Transactions, Number 72, for the year 1671.
Three Papers presented to the Royal Society against Dr. Wallis, with Considerations on Dr. Wallis's Answer to them, London 1671, 4to.
Three papers presented to the Royal Society against Dr. Wallis, along with considerations on Dr. Wallis's response to them, London 1671, 4to.
[213] Lux Mathematica &c.
Lux Math &c.
Censura Doctrinæ Wallisianæ de Libra.
Censorship of Wallisian Doctrine on the Book.
Rosetura Hobbesii, London 1672 in quarto.
Rosetura Hobbesii, London 1672 in quarto.
Principia et Problemata aliquot Geometrica ante desperata, nunc breviter explicata & demonstrata, London 1674, 4to.
Principles and some geometric problems that were once hopeless, now briefly explained and demonstrated, London 1674, 4to.
Epistola ad Dom. Ant. Wood Authorem Historiæ & Antiquitat Universit. Oxon. dated April 20, 1674; the substance of this letter is to complain of the figure which Mr. Wood makes him appear in, in that work; Hobbs, who had an infinite deal of vanity, thought he was entitled to higher encomiums, and more a minute relation of his life than that gentleman gave. An Answer was written to it by Dr. Fell, in which Hobbs is treated with no great ceremony.
Epistle to Mr. Ant. Wood, Author of the History and Antiquities of the University of Oxford, dated April 20, 1674; the main point of this letter is to express dissatisfaction with the way Mr. Wood portrays him in that work. Hobbes, who was quite vain, felt he deserved more praise and a more detailed account of his life than what that gentleman provided. Dr. Fell wrote a response to it, in which Hobbes is treated without much respect.
A Letter to William, Duke of Newcastle, concerning the Controversy he had with Dr. Laney, Bishop of Ely, about Liberty and Necessity, London 1670 in 12mo.
A Letter to William, Duke of Newcastle, regarding the debate he had with Dr. Laney, Bishop of Ely, about Freedom and Determinism, London 1670 in 12mo.
Decameron Phisiologicum, or Ten Dialogues on Natural Philosophy, London 1678, 8vo. To this is added the Proportion of a Straight Line to hold the Arch of a Quadrant; an account of this book is published in the Philosophical Transactions, Numb. 138.
Decameron Phisiologicum, or Ten Dialogues on Natural Philosophy, London 1678, 8vo. To this, the Proportion of a Straight Line to hold the Arch of a Quadrant is added; an account of this book is published in the Philosophical Transactions, Numb. 138.
His Last Words, and Dying Legacy, printed December 1679, and published by Charles Blunt, Esq; from the Leviathan, in order to expose Mr. Hobbs's Doctrine.
His Last Words and Dying Legacy, printed December 1679 and published by Charles Blunt, Esq.; from the Leviathan to expose Mr. Hobbs's doctrine.
His Memorable Sayings in his Books, and at the Table, printed with his picture before it.
His memorable quotes from his books and at the table, printed with his picture in front of it.
Behemoth, the History of the Civil Wars of England, from 1640 to 1660, printed London, 1679.
Behemoth, The History of the Civil Wars of England, from 1640 to 1660, printed in London, 1679.
Vita Thomæ Hobbs; this is a Latin Poem, written by himself, and printed in 4to, 1679.
Vita Thomæ Hobbs; this is a poem in Latin, written by him, and published in 4to, 1679.
[214] Historical Narration of Heresy, and the Punishment thereof, London 1680, in four sheets and a half in folio, and in 1682 in 8vo. of this we have already made some mention.
[214] Historical Account of Heresy and Its Punishment, London 1680, in four and a half sheets in folio, and in 1682 in 8vo. We've already mentioned this.
Vita Thomæ Hobbs, written by himself in prose, and printed at Caropolis, i.e. London, and prefixed to Vitæ Hobbianæ Auctarium 1681 in 8vo. and 1682 in 4to.
Vita Thomæ Hobbs, written by him in prose, and printed in Caropolis, meaning London, and included in Vitæ Hobbianæ Auctarium 1681 in 8vo. and 1682 in 4to.
A Brief of the Art of Rhetoric, containing the Substance of all that Aristotle hath written in his three Books on that Subject, printed in 12mo. but without a date.
A Brief of the Art of Rhetoric, summarizing everything Aristotle wrote in his three books on the topic, printed in 12mo., but without a date.
A Dialogue between a Philosopher and a Student of the Common Law of England.
A Conversation between a Philosopher and a Student of the Common Law of England.
An Answer to Archbishop Bramhall's Book called the Catching of the Leviathan, London 1682 in 8vo.
An Answer to Archbishop Bramhall's Book called the Catching of the Leviathan, London 1682 in 8vo.
Seven Philosophical Problems, and two Positions of Geometry, London 1682 in 8vo. dedicated to the King 1662.
Seven Philosophical Problems, and Two Positions of Geometry, London 1682 in 8vo. Dedicated to the King 1662.
An Apology for himself and his Writings, of which we have already taken notice.
An Apology for himself and his writings, which we have already noted.
Historia Ecclesiastica carmine elegiaco concinnata, London 1688 in 8vo.
Historia Ecclesiastica in elegiac verse, London 1688 in 8vo.
Tractatus Opticus, inserted in Mersennus's Cogitata Physico-Mathematica, Paris 1644 in 4to.
Tractatus Opticus, included in Mersenne's Cogitata Physico-Mathematica, Paris 1644 in 4to.
He translated into English Verse the Voyages of Ulysses, or Homer's Odysseys. B. ix, x, xi, xii. London 1674 in 8vo.
He translated the Voyages of Ulysses, or Homer's Odysseys, into English verse. B. ix, x, xi, xii. London 1674 in 8vo.
Homer's Iliads and Odysseys, London 1675, and 1677 in 12mo; to which is prefixed a Preface concerning Heroic Poetry. Mr. Pope in his Preface to his Translation of Homer's Iliad, says, 'that Mr. Hobbs, in his Version, has given a correct explanation of the sense in general, but for particulars and circumstances, lops them, and often omits the most beautiful. As for its being a close translation, I doubt not, many have been led into that error by the shortness of it, which proceeds [215] not from the following the original line by line, but from the contractions above mentioned. He sometimes omits whole similes and sentences, and is now and then guilty of mistakes, into which no writer of his learning could have fallen but through carelessness. His poetry, like Ogilby's, is too mean for criticism.' He left behind likewise several MSS. Mr. Francis Peck has published two original Letters of our author; the first is dated at Paris October 21, 1634, in which he resolves the following question. Why a man remembers less his own face, which he sees often in a glass, than the face of a friend he has not seen a great time? The other Letter is dated at Florence, addressed to his friend Mr. Glen 1636, and relates to Dr. Heylin's History of the Sabbath.
Homer's Iliads and Odysseys, London 1675, and 1677 in 12mo; preceded by a Preface about Heroic Poetry. Mr. Pope, in his Preface to his Translation of Homer's Iliad, says that Mr. Hobbs, in his Version, provides a generally correct explanation of the meaning, but he cuts out specifics and often leaves out the most beautiful parts. Regarding whether it’s a close translation, I believe many have been misled by its brevity, which comes not from translating it line by line, but from the aforementioned omissions. He sometimes leaves out entire similes and sentences and occasionally makes mistakes that someone of his knowledge shouldn’t have made, except for carelessness. His poetry, like Ogilby's, is too inferior for serious critique. He also left behind several manuscripts. Mr. Francis Peck published two original Letters from our author; the first is dated in Paris on October 21, 1634, where he answers the question of why a man remembers his own face, often seen in a mirror, less than the face of a friend he hasn’t seen in a long time. The other Letter is from Florence, addressed to his friend Mr. Glen in 1636, and discusses Dr. Heylin's History of the Sabbath.
Thus have we given some account of the life and writings of the famous Philosopher of Malmsbury, who made so great a figure in the age in which he lived, but who, in the opinion of some of the best writers of that time, was more distinguished for his knowledge than his morals, and there have not been wanting those who have declared, that the lessons of voluptuousness and libertinism, with which he poisoned the mind of the young King Charles II. had so great an effect upon the morals of that Prince, that our nation dearly suffered by this tutorage, in having its wealth and treasure squandered by that luxurious Monarch. Hobbs seems not to have been very amiable in his life; he was certainly incapable of true friendship, for the same cowardice, or false principle, which could instigate him to abandon truth, would likewise teach him to sacrifice his friend to his own safety. When young, he was voluptuous, when old, peevish, destitute alike of resolution and honour. However high his powers, his character is mean, he flattered the prevailing follies, he gave up virtue to [216] fashion, and if he can be produced as a miracle of learning, he can never be ranked with those venerable names, who have added virtue to erudition, and honour to genius; who have illuminated the world by their knowledge, and reformed it by example.
Thus, we’ve provided an overview of the life and writings of the famous philosopher from Malmsbury, who made a significant impact during his time. However, some of the most respected writers of that era believed he was more notable for his intellect than his morals. There are those who have claimed that the lessons of indulgence and libertinism he taught influenced the young King Charles II so much that our nation suffered greatly from it, as it led to the extravagant spending of that luxurious monarch's wealth and resources. Hobbes doesn’t seem to have been a likable person; he was certainly incapable of true friendship, as the same cowardice or false principle that drove him to abandon truth would also lead him to betray a friend for his own safety. In his youth, he was indulgent, and in his old age, irritable, lacking both resolve and honor. No matter how great his abilities were, his character is petty; he flattered the popular fads of the time, sacrificed virtue for fashion, and while he may be seen as a remarkable scholar, he can never be compared to those esteemed individuals who combined virtue with knowledge and honor with talent—who have enlightened the world with their understanding and improved it by their example.
Mr. Aston Cokaine,
A gentleman who lived in the reign of Charles I. He was son of Thomas Cokaine, esq; and descended from a very ancient family at Ambourne in the Peak of Derbyshire; born in the year 1608, and educated at both the universities[1]. Mr. Langbaine observes, that Sir Aston's predecessors had some evidence to prove themselves allied to William the Conqueror, and in those days lived at Hemmingham Castle in Essex. He was a fellow-commoner at Trinity College in Cambridge, as he himself confesseth in one of his books. After he had left the university, he went to the Inns of Court, where continuing awhile for fashion's sake, he travelled afterwards with Sir Kenelm Digby into France, Italy, Germany, &c. and was absent the space of twelve years, an account of which he has written to his son[2], but it does not appear to have been printed. He lived the greatest part of his time in a lordship belonging to him called Pooley, in the parish of Polesworth in Warwickshire, and addicted himself much to [217] books and the study of poetry. During the civil wars he suffered much for his religion, which was that of Rome, and the King's cause; he pretended then to be a baronet, created by King Charles I. after by violence he had been drawn from the Parliament, about June 10, 1641; yet he was not deemed so by the officers of the army, because no patent was enrolled to justify it, nor any mention of it made in the docquet books belonging to the clerk of the crown in Chancery, where all Patents are taken notice of which pass the Great Seal. Sir Aston was esteemed by some a good poet, and was acknowledged by all a great lover of the polite arts; he was addicted to extravagance; for he wasted all he had, which, though he suffered in the civil wars, he was under no necessity of doing from any other motive but profusion.
A gentleman who lived during the reign of Charles I. He was the son of Thomas Cokaine, Esq., and came from a very old family in Ambourne in the Peak District of Derbyshire; born in 1608, and educated at both universities[1]. Mr. Langbaine notes that Sir Aston's ancestors had some evidence to prove their connection to William the Conqueror, and at that time lived at Hemmingham Castle in Essex. He was a fellow-commoner at Trinity College in Cambridge, as he himself admits in one of his books. After leaving the university, he went to the Inns of Court, where he stayed for a while just for appearances, and later traveled with Sir Kenelm Digby to France, Italy, Germany, etc., and was away for twelve years, an account of which he wrote to his son[2], but it doesn’t seem to have been published. He spent most of his time in a manor he owned called Pooley, in the parish of Polesworth in Warwickshire, and was very dedicated to books and the study of poetry. During the civil wars, he suffered a lot for his religion, which was Roman Catholic, and for the King's cause; he claimed to be a baronet, created by King Charles I. after he had been forcefully removed from Parliament around June 10, 1641; however, he was not recognized as such by the army officers because no patent was recorded to validate it, nor was there any mention of it in the docquet books maintained by the clerk of the crown in Chancery, where all patents that pass the Great Seal are noted. Sir Aston was considered a good poet by some and was widely recognized as a great admirer of the fine arts; he had a tendency towards extravagance, as he squandered all of his wealth, which, despite his hardships during the civil wars, he didn’t need to do for any reason other than sheer wastefulness.
Amongst our author's other poetical productions, he has written three plays and a masque, which are in print, which we shall give in the same order with Mr. Langbaine.
Among our author's other poetry, he has written three plays and a masque that are published, which we will present in the same order as Mr. Langbaine.
- A Masque, presented at Bretbie in Derbyshire, on Twelfth-Night 1639. This Entertainment was presented before the Right Honourable Philip, first Earl of Chesterfield, and his Countess, two of their sons acting in it.
- The Obstinate Lady, a Comedy, printed in 8vo. London 1650. Langbaine observes, that Sir Aston's Obstinate Lady, seems to be a cousin Jerman to Massinger's Very Woman, as appears by comparing the characters.
- The Tragedy of Ovid, printed in 8vo. 1669. 'I know not (says Mr. Langbaine) why the author calls this Ovid's Tragedy, except that he lays the scene in Tomos, and makes him fall down dead with grief, at the news he received from Rome, [218] in sight of the audience, otherwise he has not much business on the stage, and the play ought rather to have taken the name of Bassane's Jealousy, and the dismal Effects thereof, the Murder of his new Bride Clorina, and his Friend Pyrontus.'
- Trapolin creduto Principe, or Trapolin supposed a Prince, an Italian Tragi-Comedy, printed in 8vo. London 1658. The design of this play is taken from one he saw acted at Venice, during his abode in that city; it has been since altered by Mr. Tate, and acted at the Theatre in Dorset-Garden; it is now acted under the title of Duke and No Duke.
He has written besides his plays,
He has written in addition to his plays,
What he calls a Chain of Golden Poems, embellished with Mirth, Wit, and Eloquence. Another title put to these runs thus: Choice Poems of several sorts; Epigrams in three Books. He translated into English an Italian Romance, called Dianea, printed at London 1654.
What he refers to as a Chain of Golden Poems, decorated with Joy, Humor, and Elegance. Another title given to these is: Selected Poems of various kinds; Epigrams in three Books. He translated an Italian Romance into English, called Dianea, published in London in 1654.
Sir Aston died at Derby, upon the breaking of the great Frost in February 1683, and his body being conveyed to Polesworth in Warwickshire beforementioned, was privately buried there in the chancel of the church. His lordship of Pooley, which had belonged to the name of Cokaine from the time of King Richard II. was sold several years before he died, to one Humphrey Jennings, esq; at which time our author reserved an annuity from it during life. The lordship of Ambourne also was sold to Sir William Boothby, baronet. There is an epigram of his, directed to his honoured friend Major William Warner, which we shall here transcribe as a specimen of his poetry, which the reader will perceive is not very admirable.
Sir Aston died in Derby when the big frost ended in February 1683, and his body was taken to Polesworth in Warwickshire, where it was privately buried in the church chancel. His lordship of Pooley, which had been in the Cokaine family since the time of King Richard II, was sold several years before his death to Humphrey Jennings, Esq.; at that time, our author reserved an annuity from it for the rest of his life. The lordship of Ambourne was also sold to Sir William Boothby, Baronet. There is an epigram of his directed to his respected friend Major William Warner, which we will transcribe here as an example of his poetry, which the reader will notice isn’t very impressive.
[219]
Plays, eclogues, songs, a satyr I have writ,
A remedy for those i' th' amorous fit:
Love elegies, and funeral elegies,
Letters of things of diverse qualities,
Encomiastic lines to works of some,
A masque, and an epithalamium,
Two books of epigrams; all which I mean
Shall in this volume come upon the scene;
Some divine poems, which when first I came
To Cambridge, I writ there, I need not name.
Of Dianea, neither my translation,
Omitted here, as of another fashion.
For Heaven's sake name no more, you say I cloy you;
I do obey you; therefore friend God b'wy you.
[219]
I've written plays, eclogues, songs, and a satyr,
A remedy for those in love's embrace:
Love poems and funeral elegies,
Letters about a variety of topics,
Praise-filled lines about certain works,
A masque and a wedding poem,
Two books of epigrams; all of these I plan
To include in this collection;
Some divine poems that I wrote when I first arrived
At Cambridge, I won’t need to mention.
About Dianea, neither will my translation,
Be included here, it's of a different style.
For heaven's sake, don’t ask for more, you say I overwhelm you;
I hear you; so, friend, goodbye.
Man George Wharton
Was descended of an ancient family in Westmoreland, and born at Kirby-Kendal in that county, the 4th of April 1617, spent some time at Oxford, and had so strong a propensity to the study of astronomy and mathematics, that little or no knowledge of logic and philosophy was acquired by him[1]. After this, being possesed of some patrimony, he retired from the university, and indulged his genius, till the breaking out of the civil wars, when he grew impatient of sollitude, and being of very loyal principles turned all his inheritance into money, and raised for his Majesty a gallant troop of horse, of which he himself was captain.
Was from an old family in Westmoreland and born in Kirby-Kendal in that county on April 4, 1617. He spent some time at Oxford and had such a strong interest in astronomy and mathematics that he hardly gained any knowledge of logic and philosophy. After that, having some inheritance, he left the university and nurtured his talents until the civil wars broke out. He became restless in solitude and, being very loyal, turned all his inheritance into cash and raised a brave troop of horse for his Majesty, of which he was the captain.
[220] After several generous hazards of his person, he was routed, about the 21st of March 1645, near Stow on the Would in Gloucestershire, where Sir Jacob Astley was taken prisoner, and Sir George himself received several scars of honour, which he carried to his grave[2]. After this he retired to Oxford the then residence of the King, and had in recompence of his losses an employment conferred upon him, under Sir John Heydon, then lieutenant-general of the ordnance, which was to receive and pay off money, for the service of the magazine, and artillery; at which time Sir Edward Sherborne was commissary-general of it. It was then, that at leisure hours he followed his studies, was deemed a member of Queen's-College, being entered among the students there, and might with other officers have had the degree of master of arts conferred on him by the members of the venerable convocation, but neglected it. After the surrender of the garrison of Oxford, from which time, the royal cause daily declined, our author was reduced to live upon expedients; he came to London, and in order to gain a livelihood, he wrote several little things, which giving offence to those in power, he was seized on, and imprisoned, first in the Gatehouse, then in Newgate, and at length in Windsor Castle, at which time, when he expected the fevered stroke of an incensed party to fall upon him, he found William Lilly, who had formerly been his antagonist, now his friend, whose humanity and tenderness, he amply repaid after the restoration, when he was made treasurer and paymaster of his Majesty's ordnance, and Lilly stood proscribed as a rebel. Sir George who had formerly experienced the calamity of want, and having now an opportunity of retrieving [221] his fortune, did not let it slip, but so improved it, that he was able to purchase an estate, and in recompence of his stedfast suffering and firm adherence to the cause of Charles I. and the services he rendered Charles II. he was created a baronet by patent, dated 31st of December 1677.
[220] After several dangerous situations, he was defeated around March 21, 1645, near Stow on the Would in Gloucestershire. Sir Jacob Astley was captured, and Sir George himself ended up with several honorable scars that he carried to his grave[2]. Following this, he retreated to Oxford, which was the King’s residence at the time, and as compensation for his losses, he was given a job under Sir John Heydon, who was then the lieutenant-general of the ordnance. His role involved handling the financial aspects of the magazine and artillery, while Sir Edward Sherborne served as the commissary-general. During his free time, he pursued his studies and was considered a member of Queen's College, having enrolled as one of the students there. He could have received a Master of Arts degree from the members of the respected convocation along with other officers, but he chose not to. After the garrison of Oxford surrendered, which marked the decline of the royal cause, our author had to resort to various means to survive. He moved to London, and in an effort to earn a living, he wrote several small pieces, which upset those in power, leading to his arrest and imprisonment—first in the Gatehouse, then in Newgate, and finally in Windsor Castle. At that time, fearing retaliation from an agitated faction, he encountered William Lilly, who had been his opponent previously but was now his ally. Lilly's compassion and kindness were generously repaid after the restoration when Sir George was appointed treasurer and paymaster of the King’s ordnance, while Lilly was declared a rebel. Sir George, having suffered from poverty before, didn't miss his chance to improve his situation, and he made the most of it, eventually purchasing an estate. In recognition of his unwavering loyalty and the services he provided to Charles I and Charles II, he was created a baronet by patent on December 31, 1677. [221]
Sir George was esteemed, what in those days was called, a good astrologer, and Wood calls him, in his usual quaint manner, a thorough paced loyalist, a boon companion, and a waggish poet. He died in the year 1681, at his house at Enfield in Middlesex, and left behind him the name of a loyal subject, and an honest man, a generous friend, and a lively wit.
Sir George was valued, what people back then referred to as a good astrologer, and Wood describes him, in his typical quirky way, as a true loyalist, a great friend, and a humorous poet. He passed away in 1681 at his home in Enfield, Middlesex, leaving behind a reputation as a loyal subject, an honest man, a generous friend, and a lively wit.
We shall now enumerate his works, and are sorry we have not been able to recover any of his poems in order to present the reader with a specimen. Such is commonly the fate of temporary wit, levelled at some prevailing enormity, which is not of a general nature, but only subsists for a while. The curiosity of posterity is not excited, and there is little pains taken in the preservation of what could only please at the time it was written.
We will now list his works and regret that we couldn't find any of his poems to share with the reader as an example. This often happens to clever writing aimed at some current issue that isn't universal and only lasts for a short time. Future generations aren't interested, and not much effort is made to keep what was only enjoyable when it was created.
His works are
His work is
Hemeroscopions; or Almanacks from 1640 to 1666, printed all in octavo, in which, besides the Gesta Britannorum of that period, there is a great deal of satirical poetry, reflecting on the times.
Hemeroscopions; or Almanacks from 1640 to 1666, printed all in octavo, which include not only the Gesta Britannorum from that time but also a lot of satirical poetry that critiques the era.
Mercurio-cælico Mastix; or an Anti caveat to all such as have had the misfortune to be cheated and deluded by that great and traiterous impostor, John Booker, in answer to his frivolous pamphlet, entitled, Mercurius Cælicus; or, a Caveat to the People [222] of England, Oxon. 1644, in twelve sheets in 4to.
Mercurio-cælico Mastix; or an Anti caution to everyone who has been unfortunate enough to be fooled and misled by that great and treacherous fraud, John Booker, in response to his silly pamphlet called, Mercurius Cælicus; or, a Caution to the People of England, Oxon. 1644, in twelve sheets in 4to.
England's Iliads in a Nutshell; or a Brief Chronology of the Battles, Sieges, Conflicts, &c. from December 1641, to the 25th of March 1645, printed Oxon. 1645.
England's Iliads in a Nutshell; or a Brief Chronology of the Battles, Sieges, Conflicts, etc. from December 1641 to March 25, 1645, printed in Oxford, 1645.
An Astrological Judgment upon his Majesty's present March, begun from Oxon. 7th of May 1645 printed in 4to.
An Astrological Reading of His Majesty's Current Situation March, started from Oxford. May 7, 1645 printed in 4to.
Bellum Hybernicale; or Ireland's War, Astrologically demonstrated from the late Celestial Congress of two Malevolent Planets, Saturn and Mars, in Taurus, the ascendant of that kingdom, &c. printed 1647, 40.
Bellum Hybernicale; or Ireland's War, Astrologically demonstrated from the recent Celestial Congress of two Malicious Planets, Saturn and Mars, in Taurus, the rising sign of that kingdom, &c. printed 1647, 40.
Merlini Anglici Errata; or the Errors, Mistakes, &c. of Mr. William Lilly's new Ephemeris for 1647, printed 1647.
Merlini Anglici Errata; or the Errors, Mistakes, &c. of Mr. William Lilly's new Ephemeris for 1647, printed 1647.
Mercurius Elenictus; communicating the unparallelled Proceedings at Westminster, the head quarters, and other places, printed by stealth in London.
Mercurius Elenictus; sharing the unmatched Events at Westminster, the headquarters, and other locations, secretly printed in London.
This Mercury which began the 29th of October came out sheet by sheet every week in 4to. and continuing interruptedly till the 4th of April 1649, it came out again with No. 1, and continued till towards the end of that year. Mr. Wood says, he has seen several things that were published under the name of Mercurius Elenictus; particularly the Anatomy of Westminster Juncto; or a summary of their Designs against the King and City, printed 1648 in one sheet and a half, 4to. and also the first and second part of the Last Will and Testament of Philip Earl of Pembroke, &c. printed 1649; but Mr. Wood is not quite positive whether Wharton is the author of them or no.
This Mercury, which started on October 29th, came out weekly in 4to format. It continued intermittently until April 4th, 1649, then resumed with No. 1 and kept going until near the end of that year. Mr. Wood mentions he has seen various things published under the name Mercurius Elenictus, including the Anatomy of Westminster Juncto or a summary of their schemes against the King and City, printed in 1648 on one and a half sheets, 4to. He also refers to the first and second parts of the Last Will and Testament of Philip Earl of Pembroke, etc., printed in 1649; however, Mr. Wood is not entirely sure if Wharton is the author of these.
A Short Account of the Fasts and Festivals, as well of the Jews as Christians, &c.
A Brief Overview of the Fasts and Festivals, both of Jews and Christians, etc.
[223] The Cabal of the Twelve Houses astrological, from Morinus, written 1659; and approved by William Oughtred.
[223] The Cabal of the Twelve Houses astrology, from Morinus, written in 1659; and approved by William Oughtred.
A learned and useful Discourse teaching the right observation, and keeping of the holy feast of Easter, &c. written 1665.
A knowledgeable and practical discussion on how to properly observe and celebrate the holy feast of Easter, etc., written in 1665.
Apotelesma; or the Nativity of the World, and revolution thereof.
Apotelesma; or the Birth of the World, and its changes.
A Short Discourse of Years, Months, and Days of Years.
A Short Discussion of Years, Months, and Days of Years.
Something touching the Nature of Eclipses, and also of their Effects.
Something about the nature of eclipses and their effects.
Of the Crises in Diseases, &c.
Of the Crises in Diseases, etc.
Of the Mutations, Inclinations, and Eversions, &c.
Of the Mutations, Inclinations, and Eversions, &c.
Discourse of the Names, Genius, Species, &c. of all Comets.
Discourse of the Names, Genius, Species, &c. of all Comets.
Tracts teaching how Astrology may be restored from Marinus.
Tracts on how to restore Astrology from Marinus.
Secret Multiplication of the Effects of the Stars, from Cardan.
Secret Multiplication of the Effects of the Stars, from Cardan.
Sundry Rules, shewing by what laws the Weather is governed, and how to discover the Various Alterations of the same.
Sundry Rules, showing by what laws the weather is governed, and how to recognize the various changes of it.
He also translated from Latin into English the Art of divining by Lines and Signatures, engraven in the Hand of Man, written by John Rockman, M.D. Lond. 1652, 8vo.
He also translated from Latin into English the Art of divining by Lines and Signatures, engraved in the Hand of Man, written by John Rockman, M.D. Lond. 1652, 8vo.
This is sometimes called Wharton's Chiromancy.
This is sometimes called Wharton's palm reading.
Most of these foregoing treatises were collected and published together, anno 1683, in 8vo, by John Gadbury; together with select poems, written and published during the civil wars.
Most of these previous writings were gathered and published together in 1683 in 8vo format by John Gadbury, along with selected poems that were written and published during the civil wars.
Anne Killegrew.
This amiable young lady, who has been happy in the praises of Dryden, was daughter of Dr. Henry Killegrew, master of the Savoy, and one of the prebendaries of Westminster. She was born in St. Martin's-Lane in London, a little before the restoration of King Charles II. and was christened in a private chamber, the offices of the Common prayer not being then publickly allowed. She gave the earliest discoveries of a great genius, which being improved by the advantage of a polite education, she became eminent in the arts of poetry and painting, and had her life been prolonged, she might probably have excelled most of the prosession in both[1]. Mr. Dryden is quite lavish in her praise; and we are assured by other cotemporary writers of good probity, that he has done no violence to truth in the most heightened strains of his panegyric: let him be voucher for her skill in poetry.
This friendly young woman, who received much praise from Dryden, was the daughter of Dr. Henry Killegrew, the master of the Savoy and a prebendary at Westminster. She was born on St. Martin's Lane in London just before the restoration of King Charles II and was baptized in a private room, as the public use of the Book of Common Prayer wasn't allowed at that time. She showed early signs of a remarkable talent, which, with the benefits of a refined education, led her to excel in both poetry and painting. If her life had been longer, she likely would have surpassed most in both fields. Mr. Dryden praises her highly, and other contemporary writers of good standing assure us that he has not strayed from the truth in his most enthusiastic praises: he can vouch for her poetic talent.
Art she had none, yet wanted none,
For nature did that art supply,
So rich in treasures of her own,
She might our boasted stores defy;
Such noble vigour did her verse adorn,
That it seem'd borrow'd, where 'twas only born.
Art she had none, yet wanted none,
For nature provided that art,
So rich in treasures of her own,
She could challenge our prized collections;
Such noble energy did her verse enhance,
That it seemed borrowed, where it was only created.
That great poet is pleased to attribute to her every poetical excellence. Speaking of the purity and chastity of her compositions, he bestows on them this commendation,
That great poet happily gives her credit for every poetic quality. Talking about the purity and innocence of her work, he praises them with this admiration,
[225]
Her Arethusian stream remains unsoil'd, Unmix'd with foreign filth and undefil'd; Her wit was more than man, her innocence a child. |
} } } |
She was a great proficient in the art of painting, and drew King James II, and his Queen; which pieces are also highly applauded by Mr. Dryden. She drew several history pieces, also some portraits for her diversion, exceeding well, and likewise some pieces of still life.
She was very skilled at painting and created portraits of King James II and his Queen, which were also praised by Mr. Dryden. She produced several historical pieces, along with some portraits for fun, and did exceptionally well, as well as some still life paintings.
Those engaging and polite accomplishments were the least of her perfections; for she crowned all with an exemplary piety, and unblemished virtue. She was one of the maids of honour to the Duchess of York, and died of the small-pox in the very flower of her age, to the unspeakable grief of her relations and acquaintance, on the 16th day of June 1685, in her 25th year.
Those charming and polite achievements were just the beginning of her perfection; she topped it all off with outstanding piety and flawless virtue. She was one of the maids of honor to the Duchess of York and died from smallpox at the peak of her youth, causing immense sorrow for her family and friends on June 16, 1685, at the age of 25.
On this occasion, Mr. Dryden's muse put on a mournful habit, and in one of the most melting elegiac odes that ever was written, has consigned her to immortality.
On this occasion, Mr. Dryden's muse took on a sad tone, and in one of the most heartfelt elegiac odes ever written, has ensured her place in immortality.
In the eighth stanza he does honour to another female character, whom he joins with this sweet poetess.
In the eighth stanza, he pays tribute to another female character, joining her with this sweet poetess.
Now all those charms, that blooming grace,
The well-proportion'd shape, and beauteous face,
Shall never more be seen by mortal eyes;
In earth, the much lamented virgin lies!
Not wit, nor piety could fate prevent;
Nor was the cruel destiny content
To finish all the murder at a blow,
To sweep at once her life, and beauty too;
But like a hardened felon took a pride
To work more mischievously flow,
And plundered first, and then destroy'd.
[226]
O! double sacrilege, on things divine,
To rob the relique, and deface the shrine!
But thus Orinda died;
Heav'n by the same disease did both translate,
As equal was their souls, so equal was their fate.
Now all those charms, that blooming grace,
The well-proportioned shape, and beautiful face,
Will never again be seen by human eyes;
In the ground, the much-mourned virgin lies!
Neither cleverness nor devotion could change fate;
Nor was cruel fate satisfied
To finish everything in one go,
To take both her life and beauty at the same time;
But like a tough criminal took pride
In causing more harm over time,
First looted, then destroyed.
[226]
Oh! Double sacrilege, on sacred matters,
To take the relic and vandalize the shrine!
But this is how Orinda passed away;
Heaven took both of them due to the same illness,
As their souls were equal, so was their fate.
Miss Killegrew was buried in the chancel of St. Baptist's chapel in the Savoy hospital, on the North side of which is a very neat monument of marble and free-stone fixed in the wall, with a Latin inscription, a translation of which into English is printed before her poems.
Miss Killegrew was buried in the chancel of St. Baptist's chapel in the Savoy hospital, where there is a neat marble and freestone monument mounted on the wall, featuring a Latin inscription. An English translation of it is printed before her poems.
The following verses of Miss Killegrew's were addressed to Mrs. Philips.
The following lines by Miss Killegrew were directed to Mrs. Philips.
Orinda (Albion, and her sex's grace)
Ow'd not her glory to a beauteous face.
It was her radiant soul that shone within,
Which struck a lustre thro' her outward skin;
That did her lips and cheeks with roses dye,
Advanc'd her heighth, and sparkled in her eye.
Nor did her sex at all obstruct her fame.
But high'r 'mongst the stars it fixt her name;
What she did write, not only all allow'd,
But evr'y laurel, to her laurel bow'd!
Orinda (Albion, and the grace of her gender)
Didn't owe her beauty to a pretty face.
It was her shining soul that lit her up inside,
Which cast a glow through her outer skin;
That colored her lips and cheeks with roses,
Enhanced her height, and sparkled in her eyes.
Nor did her gender at all hold back her renown.
But it raised her name higher among the stars;
What she wrote, everyone praised,
And every laurel bowed to her achievements!
Soon after her death, her Poems were published in a large thin quarto, to which Dryden's ode in praise of the author is prefixed.
Soon after her death, her poems were published in a large, thin quarto, with Dryden's ode praising the author included at the beginning.
Nat. Lee.
This eminent dramatic poet was the son of a clergyman of the church of England, and was educated at Westminster school under Dr. Busby. After he left this school, he was some time at Trinity College, Cambridge; whence returning to London, he went upon the stage as an actor.
This famous playwright was the son of an Anglican priest and was educated at Westminster School under Dr. Busby. After leaving this school, he spent some time at Trinity College, Cambridge; then, upon returning to London, he became an actor on stage.
Very few particulars are preserved concerning Mr. Lee. He died before he was 34 years of age, and wrote eleven tragedies, all of which contain the divine enthusiasm of a poet, a noble fire and elevation, and the tender breathings of love, beyond many of his cotemporaries. He seems to have been born to write for the Ladies; none ever felt the passion of love more intimately, none ever knew to describe it more gracefully, and no poet ever moved the breasts of his audience with stronger palpitations, than Lee. The excellent Mr. Addison, whose opinion in a matter of this sort, is of the greatest weight, speaking of the genius of Lee, thus proceeds[1]. "Among our modern English poets, there is none who was better turned for tragedy than our author; if instead of favouring the impetuosity of his genius, he had restrained it, and kept it within proper bounds. His thoughts are wonderfully suited for tragedy; but frequently lost in such a cloud of words, that it is hard to see the beauty of them. There is an infinite fire in his works, but so involved in smoke, that it does not appear in half its lustre. He [228] frequently succeeds in the passionate part of the tragedy; but more particularly where he slackens his efforts, and eases the stile of those epithets and metaphors in which he so much abounds."
Very few details are known about Mr. Lee. He died before turning 34 and wrote eleven tragedies, all of which showcase the divine passion of a poet, a noble fire and elevation, and the tender expressions of love, surpassing many of his contemporaries. He seems to have been destined to write for women; no one ever felt the passion of love more deeply, no one ever described it more elegantly, and no poet ever stirred the hearts of his audience with stronger emotions than Lee. The esteemed Mr. Addison, whose opinion on this matter carries significant weight, spoke about Lee's talent like this:
It is certain that our author for some time was deprived of his senses, and was confined in Bedlam; and as Langbaine observes, it is to be regretted, that his madness exceeded that divine fury which Ovid mentions, and which usually accompany the best poets.
It’s clear that our author was out of his mind for a while and was locked up in Bedlam; and as Langbaine notes, it’s unfortunate that his madness went beyond that divine inspiration that Ovid talks about, which usually comes with the best poets.
Est Deus in nobus agitante calescimus illo.
Est Deus in nobus agitante calescimus illo.
His condition in Bedlam was far worse; in a Satire on the Poets it is thus described,
His situation in Bedlam was much worse; in a Satire on the Poets, it is described this way,
There in a den remov'd from human eyes, Possest with muse, the brain-sick poet lies, Too miserably wretched to be nam'd; For plays, for heroes, and for passion fam'd: Thoughtless he raves his sleepless hours away In chains all night, in darkness all the day. And if he gets some intervals from pain, The fit returns; he foams and bites his chain, His eye-balls roll, and he grows mad again. |
} } } |
The reader may please to observe, the two last lines are taken from Lee himself in his description of madness in Cæsar Borgia, which is inimitable. Dryden has observed, that there is a pleasure in being mad, which madmen only know, and indeed Lee has described the condition in such lively terms, that a man can almost imagine himself in the situation,
The reader might notice that the last two lines are taken directly from Lee's portrayal of madness in Cæsar Borgia, which is unmatched. Dryden noted that there's a certain pleasure in being mad that only those who are mad can understand, and Lee has depicted that state so vividly that one can almost envision themselves in that situation,
To my charm'd ears no more of woman tell, Name not a woman, and I shall be well: Like a poor lunatic that makes his moan, And for a while beguiles his lookers on; [229] He reasons well.—His eyes their wildness lose He vows the keepers his wrong'd sense abuse. But if you hit the cause that hurt his brain, Then his teeth gnash, he foams, he shakes his chain, His eye-balls roll, and he is mad again. |
} } } |
If we may credit the earl of Rochester, Mr. Lee was addicted to drinking; for in a satire of his, in imitation of Sir John Suckling's Session of the Poets, which, like the original, is destitute of wit, poetry, and good manners, he charges him with it.
If we can believe the Earl of Rochester, Mr. Lee had a drinking problem; in a satire of his, modeled after Sir John Suckling's Session of the Poets, which, like the original, lacks wit, poetry, and good manners, he accuses him of this.
The lines, miserable as they are, we shall insert;
The lines, as miserable as they may be, we will include;
Nat. Lee stept in next, in hopes of a prize;
Apollo remembring he had hit once in thrice:
By the rubies in's face, he could not deny,
But he had as much wit as wine could supply;
Confess'd that indeed he had a musical note,
But sometimes strain'd so hard that it rattled in the throat;
Yet own'd he had sense, and t' encourage him for't
He made him his Ovid in Augustus's court.
Nat. Lee stepped in next, hoping for a reward;
Apollo remembering he had succeeded once out of three tries:
By the rubies on his face, he couldn't deny,
That he had as much wit as wine could provide;
He admitted that he indeed had a musical tone,
But sometimes pushed so hard that it rattled in his throat;
Yet he acknowledged he had talent, and to encourage him for it
He made him his Ovid in Augustus's court.
The testimony of Rochester indeed is of no great value, for he was governed by no principles of honour, and as his ruling passion was malice, he was ready on all occasions to indulge it, at the expence of truth and sincerity. We cannot ascertain whether our author wrote any of his plays in Bedlam, tho' it is not improbable he might have attempted something that way in his intervals.
The testimony of Rochester really isn’t worth much, as he lacked any sense of honor, and since his main drive was malice, he was always ready to indulge it, regardless of truth and sincerity. We can't tell if our author actually wrote any of his plays in Bedlam, though it's not unlikely that he might have tried to do something like that during his free time.
Mad people have often been observed to do very ingenious things. I have seen a ship of [230] straw, finely fabricated by a mad ship-builder; and the most lovely attitudes have been represented by a mad statuary in his cell.
Mad people have often been seen doing very clever things. I've seen a ship made of [230] straw, skillfully crafted by a crazy shipbuilder; and the most beautiful poses have been created by a mad sculptor in his cell.
Lee, for aught we know, might have some noble flights of fancy, even in Bedlam; and it is reported of him, that while he was writing one of his scenes by moon-light, a cloud intervening, he cried out in ecstasy, "Jove snuff the Moon;" but as this is only related upon common report, we desire no more credit may be given to it, than its own nature demands. We do not pretend notwithstanding our high opinion of Lee, to defend all his rants and extravagancies; some of them are ridiculous, some bombast, and others unintelligible; but this observation by no means holds true in general; for tho' some passages are too extravagant, yet others are nobly sublime, we had almost said, unequalled by any other poet.
Lee, for all we know, could have some noble flights of fancy, even in a mental institution; and it’s said that while he was writing one of his scenes by moonlight, a cloud passed by, and he exclaimed in ecstasy, "Jove, snuff the Moon;" but since this is only based on hearsay, we ask that no more credit be given to it than it deserves. We don’t intend, despite our high opinion of Lee, to defend all his outbursts and oddities; some of them are ridiculous, some are overblown, and others are hard to understand; but this observation doesn’t generally apply; because while some passages are excessively extravagant, others are nobly sublime; we might almost say, unmatched by any other poet.
As there are not many particulars preserved of Lee's life, we think ourselves warranted to enlarge a little upon his works; and therefore we beg leave to introduce to our reader's acquaintance a tragedy which perhaps he has not for some time heard of, written by this great man, viz. Lucius Junius Brutus, the Father of his country.
As there aren't many details available about Lee's life, we believe it's appropriate to elaborate a bit on his works; so, we’d like to introduce our readers to a tragedy that they may not have heard of in a while, written by this great man, namely, Lucius Junius Brutus, the Father of his country.
We mention this tragedy because it is certainly the finest of Lee's, and perhaps one of the most moving plays in our language. Junius Brutus engages in the just defence of the injured rights of his country, against Tarquin the Proud; he succeeds in driving him out of Rome. His son Titus falls in love, and interchanges vows with the tyrant's daughter; his father commands him not to touch her, nor to correspond with her; he faithfully promises; but his resolutions are baffled by the insinuating and irresistible charms of Teraminta; he is won by her beauties; he joins in the attempt to restore Tarquin; the enterprize [231] miscarries, and his own father sits in judgment upon him, and condemns him to suffer.
We talk about this tragedy because it’s definitely Lee's best work and possibly one of the most powerful plays in our language. Junius Brutus takes a stand to defend his country's rights against Tarquin the Proud, and he manages to drive him out of Rome. His son Titus falls in love and makes vows with the tyrant's daughter; his father orders him not to have anything to do with her or communicate with her; he promises to obey, but his resolve is overcome by the alluring and undeniable charms of Teraminta; he is captivated by her beauty; he joins the effort to bring Tarquin back, but the plan [231] fails, and his own father judges him and condemns him to punishment.
The interview between the father and son is inexpressibly moving, and is only exceeded by that between the son and his Teraminta. Titus is a young hero, struggling between love and duty. Teraminta an amiable Roman lady, fond of her husband, and dutiful to her father.
The conversation between the father and son is incredibly touching, only surpassed by the one between the son and his Teraminta. Titus is a young hero, torn between love and duty. Teraminta is a charming Roman woman, loving toward her husband and loyal to her father.
There are throughout this play, we dare be bold to affirm, as affecting scenes as ever melted the hearts of an audience. Why it is not revived, may be difficult to account for. Shall we charge it to want of taste in the town, or want of discernment in the managers? or are our present actors conscious that they may be unequal to some of the parts in it? yet were Mr. Quin engaged, at either theatre, to do the author justice in the character of Brutus, we are not wanting in a Garrick or a Barry, to perform the part of Titus; nor is either stage destitute of a Teraminta. This is one of those plays that Mr. Booth proposed to revive (with some few alterations) had he lived to return to the stage: And the part of Brutus was what he purposed to have appeared in.
There are throughout this play, we boldly affirm, some incredibly touching scenes that have melted the hearts of audiences. It's hard to say why it isn’t brought back to the stage. Should we blame it on a lack of taste in the town, or a lack of insight from the managers? Or do our current actors feel they might not be up to some of the roles? Yet if Mr. Quin were to take on the role of Brutus at either theater, we certainly have a Garrick or a Barry to play Titus; and neither stage lacks a Teraminta. This is one of those plays that Mr. Booth planned to revive (with some minor changes) had he lived to return to the stage: and the role of Brutus was one he intended to perform.
As to Lee's works, they are in every body's hands, so that we need not trouble the reader with a list of them.
As for Lee's works, they're in everyone's hands, so we don't need to bother the reader with a list of them.
In his tragedy of the Rival Queens, our author has shewn what he could do on the subject of Love; he has there almost exhausted the passion, painted it in its various forms, and delineated the workings of the human soul, when influenced by it.
In his tragedy of the Rival Queens, our author has shown what he can do on the topic of Love; he has nearly explored the passion, depicted it in its various forms, and illustrated the workings of the human soul when affected by it.
He makes Statira thus speak of Alexander.
He has Statira talk about Alexander like this.
Not the spring's mouth, nor breath of Jessamin,
Nor Vi'lets infant sweets, nor op'ning buds
[232]
Are half so sweet as Alexander's breast!
From every pore of him a perfume falls,
He kisses softer than a Southern wind
Curls like a Vine, and touches like a God!
Then he will talk! good Gods! how he will talk!
Even when the joy he sigh'd for is possess'd,
He speaks the kindest words, and looks such things,
Vows with such passion, swears with so much grace
That 'tis a kind of Heaven to be deluded by him.
If I but mention him the tears will fall,
Sure there is not a letter in his name,
But is a charm to melt a woman's eyes.
Not the spring's mouth, nor the scent of jasmine,
Nor the sweet smell of violets, nor blooming buds
[232]
Are half as sweet as Alexander's embrace!
From every pore of him a fragrance drifts,
He kisses softer than a Southern breeze,
Wraps like a vine, and touches like a god!
Then he will talk! Oh gods! how he will talk!
Even when the joy he longed for is his,
He says the kindest things and has such a look,
Makes vows with such passion, swears with so much grace
That it’s a kind of heaven to be tricked by him.
If I just mention him, the tears will fall,
Surely there isn’t a letter in his name,
But is a charm to melt a woman's heart.
His Tragedy of Theodosius, or the Force of Love, is the only play of Lee's that at present keeps possession of the stage, an argument, in my opinion, not much in favour of our taste, that a Genius should be so neglected.
His Tragedy of Theodosius, or the Force of Love, is the only play by Lee that still holds a place on the stage today. In my view, this suggests that our taste is lacking if a genius can be so overlooked.
It is said, that Lee died in the night, in the streets, upon a frolic, and that his father never assisted him in his frequent and pressing necessity, which he was able to do. It appears that tho' Lee was a player, yet, for want of execution, he did not much succeed, though Mr. Cibber says, that he read excellently, and that the players used to tell him, unless they could act the part as he read it, they could not hope success, which, it seems, was not the case with Dryden, who could hardly read to be understood. Lee was certainly a man of great genius; when it is considered how young he died, he performed miracles, and had he lived 'till his fervour cooled, and his judgment strengthened, which might have been the consequence of years, he would have made a greater figure in poetry than some of his contemporaries, who are now placed in superior rank.
It's said that Lee died during the night, in the streets, while having a good time, and that his father never helped him in his frequent and urgent needs, even though he could have. It seems that although Lee was an actor, he didn’t succeed much due to a lack of execution, even though Mr. Cibber claims he read exceptionally well, and the actors would tell him that unless they could perform the part as he read it, they couldn’t expect to succeed. This wasn’t the case with Dryden, who could hardly read in a way that was understandable. Lee was certainly a man of great talent; considering how young he died, he accomplished remarkable things. Had he lived until his passion cooled and his judgment matured, which could have come with age, he would have made a bigger impact in poetry than some of his contemporaries who are now regarded as superior.
Samuel Butler,
The celebrated author of Hudibras, was born at Strensham in Worcestershire, 1612; His father, a reputable country farmer, perceiving in his son an early inclination to learning, sent him for education to the free-school of Worcester, under the care of Mr. Henry Bright, where having laid the foundation of grammar learning, he was sent for some time to Cambridge, but was never matriculated in that university[1]. After he had resided there six or seven years, he returned to his native county, and became clerk to Mr. Jefferys of Earl's-Croom, an eminent justice of the peace for that county, with whom he lived for some years, in an easy, though, for such a genius, no very reputable service; during which time, through the indulgence of a kind master, he had sufficient leisure to apply himself to his favourite studies, history and poetry, to which, for his diversion, he added music and painting.
The famous author of Hudibras was born in Strensham, Worcestershire, in 1612. His father, a respected local farmer, noticed his son's early interest in education and sent him to the free school in Worcester, where he was taught by Mr. Henry Bright. After learning the basics of grammar, he spent some time at Cambridge but was never officially enrolled there[1]. After living in Cambridge for six or seven years, he returned to his home county and became the clerk for Mr. Jefferys of Earl's-Croom, a well-known justice of the peace. He worked for Jefferys for a few years in a role that was easy but not very prestigious for someone of his talent. During this time, thanks to the leniency of his kind employer, he had plenty of free time to focus on his favorite subjects: history and poetry. For fun, he also took up music and painting.
The anonymous author of Butler's Life tells us, that he had seen some pictures of his drawing, which were preserved in Mr. Jefferys's family, which I mention not (says he) 'for the excellency of them, but to satisfy the reader of his early inclination to that noble art; for which also he was afterwards entirely loved by Mr. Samuel [234] Cooper, one of the most eminent Painters of his time.' Wood places our poet's improvement in music and painting, to the time of his service under the countess of Kent, by whose patronage he had not only the opportunity of consulting all kinds of books, but conversing also with the great Mr. Selden, who has justly gained the epithet of a living library of learning, and was then conversant in that lady's family, and who often employed our poet to write letters beyond sea, and translate for him. He lived some time also with Sir Samuel Luke, a gentleman of a good family in Bedfordshire, and a famous commander under Oliver Cromwel.
The anonymous author of Butler's Life tells us that he had seen some drawings of his that were kept in Mr. Jefferys's family. He mentions this not because of their quality, but to show the reader Butler's early interest in this noble art, for which he was later greatly valued by Mr. Samuel Cooper, one of the most distinguished painters of his time. Wood attributes our poet's growth in music and painting to his time serving under the Countess of Kent, whose patronage gave him the chance to access all sorts of books and to engage with the great Mr. Selden, who rightly earned the nickname of a living library of knowledge and was connected to that lady's household. Mr. Selden often asked our poet to write letters abroad and to translate for him. He also spent some time with Sir Samuel Luke, a well-respected gentleman from Bedfordshire and a renowned commander under Oliver Cromwell.
Much about this time he wrote (says the author of his Life) 'the renowned Hudibras; as he then had opportunities of conversing with the leaders of that party, whose religion he calls hypocrisy, whose politics rebellion, and whose speeches nonsense;' he was of an unshaken loyalty, though he was placed in the house of a rebel, and it is generally thought, that under the character of Hudibras, he intended to ridicule Sir Samuel Luke. After the restoration of Charles II. he was made secretary to the earl of Carbury, lord president of the principality of Wales, who appointed him steward of Ludlow Castle, when the court was revived there; and about this time he married one Mrs. Herbert, a gentlewoman of very good family. Anthony Wood says, she was a widow, and that Butler supported himself by her jointure; for though in his early years he had studied the common law, yet he had made no advantage by the practice of it; but others assert, that she was not a widow, and that though she had a competent fortune, it proved of little or no advantage to Butler, as most of it was unfortunately lost by being put out on bad security. Mr. Wood likewise says, that he was secretary to the [235] duke of Buckingham, when that lord was chancellor of the university of Cambridge, and the life writer assures us he had a great kindness for him: but the late ingenious major Richardson Pack tells a story, which, if true, overthrows both their assertions, and as it is somewhat particular, we shall give it a place here. Mr. Wycherley had taken every opportunity to represent to his grace the duke of Buckingham, how well Mr. Butler had deserved of the Royal Family, by writing his inimitable Hudibras, and that it was a reproach to the court, that a person of his loyalty and wit should languish in obscurity, under so many wants. The duke seemed always to hearken to him with attention, and, after some time, undertook to recommend his pretentions to his Majesty. Mr. Wycherly, in hopes to keep him steady to his word, obtained of his Grace to name a day, when he might introduce that modest, unfortunate poet to his new patron; at last an appointment was made, Mr. Butler and his friend attended accordingly, the duke joined them. But, as the devil would have it (says the major) 'the door of the room, where he sat, was open, and his Grace, who had seated himself near it, observing a pimp of his acquaintance (the creature too was a knight) trip by with a brace of ladies, immediately quitted his engagement to follow another kind of business, at which he was more ready, than at doing good offices to men of desert, though no one was better qualified than he, both in regard to his fortune, and understanding to protect them, and from that hour to the day of his death, poor Butler never found the least effect of his promise, and descended to the grave oppressed with want and poverty.'
Much around this time he wrote (says the author of his Life) 'the famous Hudibras; as he then had chances to talk with the leaders of that group, whose religion he calls hypocrisy, whose politics rebellion, and whose speeches nonsense;' he was unwaveringly loyal, even though he found himself in the home of a rebel, and it is generally believed that under the character of Hudibras, he intended to mock Sir Samuel Luke. After Charles II was restored to the throne, he became secretary to the Earl of Carbury, the lord president of the principality of Wales, who appointed him steward of Ludlow Castle when the court was revived there; and around this time, he married Mrs. Herbert, a woman from a very good family. Anthony Wood claims she was a widow, and that Butler supported himself on her jointure; for although in his early years he had studied common law, he had not benefited from practicing it; but others argue that she was not a widow, and that despite having a decent fortune, it offered little advantage to Butler, as most of it was unfortunately lost due to bad investments. Mr. Wood also states that he was secretary to the [235] duke of Buckingham when that lord was chancellor of the University of Cambridge, and the biographer assures us he had a great affection for him: but the recently clever Major Richardson Pack tells a story which, if true, contradicts both their claims, and as it is somewhat particular, we will present it here. Mr. Wycherley took every chance to express to his grace the duke of Buckingham how well Mr. Butler had served the Royal Family by writing his unparalleled Hudibras, and that it was a shame for the court that a person of his loyalty and wit should languish in obscurity, suffering from many needs. The duke appeared to listen to him with interest, and after some time, agreed to recommend his case to his Majesty. Mr. Wycherley, hoping to keep him true to his word, got the duke to set a date when he could introduce that modest, unfortunate poet to his new patron; finally, an appointment was made, Mr. Butler and his friend showed up as planned, and the duke joined them. But, as fate would have it (says the major) 'the door of the room where he sat was open, and his Grace, who had seated himself near it, noticing a pimp he knew (who was also a knight) passing by with a couple of ladies, immediately abandoned his commitment to pursue another line of business, which he was more inclined toward than helping deserving men, even though no one was better suited to protect them, both in terms of his wealth and intelligence, and from that hour until his death, poor Butler never saw the slightest result from that promise, and he passed away burdened by want and poverty.'
The excellent lord Buckhurst, the late earl of Dorset and Middlesex, was a friend to our poet, who, as he was a man of wit and parts himself, [236] knew how to set a just value on those who excelled. He had also promises of places and employment from lord chancellor Clarendon, but, as if poor Butler had been doomed to misfortunes, these proved[2] meer court promises. Mr. Butler in short, affords a remarkable instance of that coldness and neglect, which great genius's often experience from the court and age in which they live; we are told indeed by a gentleman, whose father was intimate with Butler, Charles Longueville, Esq; that Charles II. once gave him a gratuity of three hundred pounds, which had this compliment attending it, that it passed all the offices without any fee, lord Danby being at that time high treasurer, which seems to be the only court favour he ever received; a strange instance of neglect! when we consider King Charles was so excessive fond of this poem of Hudibras; that he carried it always in his pocket, he quoted it almost on every occasion, and never mentioned it, but with raptures.
The esteemed Lord Buckhurst, the late Earl of Dorset and Middlesex, was a friend of our poet, who, being a clever and talented man himself, knew how to appreciate those who excelled. He also had promises of positions and jobs from Lord Chancellor Clarendon, but, as if poor Butler was destined for misfortune, these turned out to be just empty court promises. Mr. Butler, in short, serves as a striking example of the indifference and neglect that great talents often face from the court and the era they live in. We are told by a gentleman whose father was close to Butler, Charles Longueville, Esq., that Charles II once granted him a payment of three hundred pounds, with the note that it went through all the offices without any fee, as Lord Danby was the High Treasurer at the time. This seems to be the only royal favor he ever received; it’s a strange instance of neglect! When we consider that King Charles was so incredibly fond of the poem Hudibras that he always kept it in his pocket, quoted it almost every chance he got, and never mentioned it without enthusiasm.
This is movingly represented in a poem of our author's, published in his remains called Hudibras at Court. He takes occasion to justify his poem, by hinting its excellences in general, and paying a few modest compliments to himself, of which we shall transcribe the following lines.
This is powerfully shown in a poem by our author, published in his collection called Hudibras at Court. He uses this opportunity to defend his poem by mentioning its strengths and giving a few humble compliments to himself, of which we will quote the following lines.
Now you must know, sir Hudibras,
With such perfections gifted was,
And so peculiar in his manner,
That all that saw him did him honour;
Amongst the rest, this prince was one,
Admired his conversation:
This prince, whose ready wit, and parts
Conquer'd both men and women's hearts;
[237]
Was so o'ercome with knight and Ralph,
That he could never claw it off.
He never eat, nor drank, nor slept,
But Hudibras still near him kept;
Nor would he go to church or so,
But Hudibras must with him go;
Nor yet to visit concubine,
Or at a city feast to dine,
But Hudibras must still be there,
Or all the fat was in the fire.
Now after all was it not hard,
That he should meet with no reward,
That fitted out the knight and squire,
This monarch did so much admire?
That he should never reimburse
The man for th' equipage and horse,
Is sure a strange ungrateful thing
In any body, but a King.
But, this good King, it seems was told
By some, that were with him too bold,
If e'er you hope to gain your ends,
Caress your foes, and trust your friends.
Such were the doctrines that were taught,
'Till this unthinking King was brought
To leave his friends to starve and die;
A poor reward for loyalty.
Now you need to know, Sir Hudibras, He was gifted with such perfections, And so unique in his manner, That everyone who saw him honored him; Among others, this prince was one, Who admired his conversations: This prince, whose quick wit and talent Won over both men's and women's hearts; [237] Was so overwhelmed by the knight and Ralph, That he could never shake it off. He never ate, drank, or slept, But Hudibras was always near him; He wouldn't go to church or anything, Unless Hudibras went with him; And not even to visit a girlfriend, Or to have a meal at a city feast, But Hudibras had to be there, Or everything would fall apart. Now, after all this, wasn’t it unjust, That he should receive no reward, For outfitting the knight and squire, This monarch admired so much? That he never reimbursed The man for the gear and horse, Is certainly a strange, ungrateful thing In anyone, but a king. But it seems this good king was told By some who were too bold with him, "If you ever hope to achieve your goals, Flatter your enemies and trust your friends." Such were the lessons that were taught, Until this thoughtless king was led To abandon his friends to starve and die; A poor reward for loyalty.
After having lived to a good old age, admired by all, though personally known but to few, he died September 25, 1680, and was buried at the expence of his good friend Mr. Longueville of the Temple, in the church-yard of St. Paul's Covent-Garden. Mr. Longueville had a strong inclination to have him buried in Westminster Abbey, and spoke with that view to several persons who had been his admirers, offering to pay his part, but none of them would contribute; upon which he was interred privately, Mr. Longueville, and seven or eight more, following him to the grave. [238] Mr. Alderman Barber erected a monument to Butler in Westminster-Abbey.
After living to a ripe old age, admired by many but personally known to few, he died on September 25, 1680, and was buried at the expense of his good friend Mr. Longueville of the Temple, in the churchyard of St. Paul's Covent Garden. Mr. Longueville was eager to have him buried in Westminster Abbey and spoke to several of his admirers about it, offering to cover the costs, but none of them contributed. As a result, he was buried quietly, with Mr. Longueville and about seven or eight others attending the funeral. [238] Mr. Alderman Barber erected a monument to Butler in Westminster Abbey.
The poem entitled Hudibras, by which he acquired so high a reputation, was published at three different times; the first part came out in 1668 in 8vo. afterwards came out the second part, and both were printed together, with several additions, and annotations; at last, the third and last part was published, but without any annotations, as appears by the printed copy 1678. The great success and peculiarity of manner of this poem has produced many unsuccessful imitations of it, and some vain attempts have been made to translate some parts of it into Latin. Monsieur Voltaire gives it a very good character, and justly observes, that though there are as many thoughts as words in it, yet it cannot be successfully translated, on account of every line's having some allusion to English affairs, which no foreigner can be supposed to understand, or enter into. The Oxford antiquary ascribes to our author two pamphlets, supposed falsely, he says, to be William Prynne's; the one entitled Mola Asinaria, or the Unreasonable and Insupportable Burthen pressed upon the Shoulders of this Groaning Nation, London 1659, in one sheet 4to. the other, Two Letters: One from John Audland, a Quaker, to William Prynne; the other, Prynne's Answer, in three sheets fol. 1672. The life writer mentions a small poem in one sheet in 4to. on Du Val, a notorious highwayman, said to be written by Butler. These pieces, with a great many others, are published together, under the title of his Posthumous Works. The life writer abovementioned has preserved a fragment of Mr. Butler's, given by one whom he calls the ingenious Mr. Aubrey, who assured him he had it from the poet himself; it is indeed admirable, and the satire sufficiently pungent against the priests.
The poem titled *Hudibras*, which gave him such high acclaim, was published three times: the first part was released in 1668 in 8vo format. The second part came out later, and both parts were printed together with several additions and annotations. Finally, the third and final part was published, but without annotations, as shown in the printed copy from 1678. The poem's great success and unique style led to many unsuccessful imitations, and there have been some failed attempts to translate parts of it into Latin. Monsieur Voltaire describes it very positively and rightly notes that even though it has as many ideas as it does words, it can't be effectively translated since every line references English affairs that no outsider can be expected to understand or engage with. The Oxford antiquarian attributes two pamphlets to our author, which he claims are mistakenly thought to be by William Prynne: one titled *Mola Asinaria*, or the Unreasonable and Insupportable Burden on the Shoulders of this Groaning Nation, published in London 1659, in one sheet 4to, and the other, *Two Letters*: One from John Audland, a Quaker, to William Prynne; the other, Prynne's Response, in three sheets folio, 1672. The biographer mentions a short poem in one sheet in 4to about Du Val, a notorious highwayman, which is said to have been written by Butler. These works, along with many others, were published together under the title of his *Posthumous Works*. The aforementioned biographer preserved a fragment of Mr. Butler's work, provided by someone he calls the clever Mr. Aubrey, who claimed he got it from the poet himself; it's indeed remarkable, and the satire is sharply critical of the priests.
[239]
No jesuit e'er took in hand
To plant a church in barren land;
Nor ever thought it worth the while
A Swede or Russ to reconcile.
For where there is no store of wealth,
Souls are not worth the charge of health.
Spain in America had two designs:
To sell their gospel for their mines:
For had the Mexicans been poor,
No Spaniard twice had landed on their shore.
'Twas gold the Catholic religion planted,
Which, had they wanted gold, they still had wanted.
[239] No Jesuit ever tried to set up a church in a barren land; Nor did they ever think it was worth the effort to reconcile a Swede or a Russian. Because where there isn't any wealth, Souls aren't worth the cost of care. Spain had two goals in America: To sell their gospel for profits from their mines; If the Mexicans had been poor, No Spaniard would have landed on their shores more than once. It was gold that helped the Catholic faith take root, Which, if they hadn't wanted gold, they still wouldn't have needed.
Mr. Dryden[3] and Mr. Addison[4] have joined in giving testimony against our author, as to the choice of his verse, which they condemn as boyish and being apt to degenerate into the doggrel; but while they censure his verse, they applaud his matter, and Dryden observes, that had he chose any other verse, he would even then have excelled; as we say of a court favourite, that whatever his office be, he still makes it uppermost, and most beneficial to him.
Mr. Dryden[3] and Mr. Addison[4] have come together to criticize our author for his choice of verse, which they deem childish and likely to slip into nonsense. However, while they criticize his verse, they praise his content, and Dryden notes that if he had chosen a different verse, he would still have excelled; much like we say of a court favorite, that no matter what his role is, he always makes it the most prominent and advantageous for him.
We cannot close the life of this great man, without a reflection on the degeneracy of those times, which suffered him to languish in obscurity; and though he had done more against the Puritan interest, by exposing it to ridicule, than thousands who were rioting at court with no pretensions to favour, yet he was never taken notice of, nor had any calamity redressed, which leaves a stain on those who then ruled, that never can be obliterated. A minister of state seldom fails to reward a court tool, and a man of pleasure pays his instruments for their infamy, and what [240] character must that ministration bear, who allow wit, loyalty and virtue to pass neglected, and, as Cowley pathetically expresses it,
We can't end the story of this remarkable man without reflecting on the decline of those times, which allowed him to fade into obscurity. Even though he did more to undermine the Puritan cause by exposing it to mockery than thousands who were partying at court with no real connections, he was never acknowledged, nor were any of his misfortunes addressed. This leaves a mark on those who ruled back then that can never be erased. A government official rarely fails to reward a court sycophant, and a pleasure-seeker compensates their accomplices for their disgrace. What kind of reputation can that administration have which lets wit, loyalty, and virtue go unnoticed, and, as Cowley sadly puts it,
'In that year when manna rained on all, why
should the muses fleece be only dry.'
'In that year when manna fell from the sky, why
Should the muses' inspiration really be this dry?'
The following epigram is not unworthy of a place here.
The following epigram is worth including here.
Whilst Butler, needy wretch, was yet alive,
No gen'rous patron would a dinner give;
But lo behold! when dead, the mould'ring dust,
Rewarded with a monumental bust!
A poet's fate, in emblem here is shewn,
He ask'd for bread, and he received—a stone.
While Butler, a needy wretch, was still alive,
No generous patron would offer him a dinner;
But look! When he's dead, the crumbling dust,
Is rewarded with a monumental bust!
A poet's fate, in this emblem is shown,
He asked for bread, and he received—a stone.
Footnotes:
Footnotes:
Edmund Waller Esquire
Was descended of a family of his name in Buckinghamshire, a younger branch of the Wallers of Kent. He was born March 3, 1605 at Coleshill, which gives Warwickshire the honour of his birth. His father dying when he was very young, the care of his education fell to his mother, who sent him to Eton School, according to the author of his life, but Mr. Wood says, 'that he was mostly educated in grammaticals under one Dobson, minister of Great Wycombe in Bucks, who had been educated in Eton school,' without mentioning that Mr. Waller had been at all at Eton school: after he had acquired grammar learning, he was removed to King's college in Cambridge, and it is manifest that he must have been extremely assiduous in his studies, since he acquired so fine a taste of the ancients, in so short a time, for at sixteen or seventeen years of age, he was chosen into the last Parliament of King James I. and served as Burgess for Agmondesham.
He came from a family with the same name in Buckinghamshire, a younger branch of the Wallers of Kent. He was born on March 3, 1605, in Coleshill, which makes Warwickshire honored by his birth. His father died when he was very young, so his mother took charge of his education. She sent him to Eton School, according to the author of his life, but Mr. Wood claims that he was mainly educated in grammar by a man named Dobson, the minister of Great Wycombe in Bucks, who had been educated at Eton, without mentioning that Mr. Waller attended Eton at all. After he learned grammar, he moved to King's College in Cambridge. It’s clear that he must have been incredibly dedicated to his studies, as he developed a great appreciation for the classics in such a short time. By the age of sixteen or seventeen, he was elected to the last Parliament of King James I and served as Burgess for Agmondesham.
[241] In the year 1623, when Prince Charles nearly escaped being cast away in the road of St. Andre, coming from Spain, Mr. Waller wrote a Poem on that occasion, at an age when, generally speaking, persons of the acutest parts just begin to shew themselves, and at a time when the English poetry had scarce any grace in it. In the year 1628 he addressed a Poem to his Majesty, on his hearing the news of the duke of Buckingham's death, which, with the former, procured him general admiration: harmony of numbers being at that time so great a novelty, and Mr. Waller having, at once, so polished and refined versification, it is no wonder that he enjoyed the felicity of an universal applause. These poems recommended him to court-favour, and rendered him dear to persons of the best taste and distinction that then flourished. A Writer of his life observes, as a proof of his being much caressed by people of the first reputation, that he was one of the famous club, of which the great lord Falkland, Sir Francis Wainman, Mr. Chillingworth, Mr. Godolphin, and other eminent men were members. These were the immortals of that age, and to be associated with them, is one of the highest encomiums which can possibly be bestowed, and exceeds the most laboured strain of a panegyrist.
[241] In 1623, when Prince Charles almost got stranded on the road to St. Andre while returning from Spain, Mr. Waller wrote a poem about it at an age when most sharp-minded individuals just start to make their mark, and at a time when English poetry lacked much grace. In 1628, he wrote a poem to the King upon hearing of the Duke of Buckingham's death, which, along with the earlier poem, earned him widespread admiration. The harmony of his verses was such a novelty at the time, and Mr. Waller's polished and refined writing style was impressive, so it's no surprise that he received universal praise. These poems helped him gain favor at court and made him beloved by people of good taste and distinction during that era. A biographer notes that as evidence of his popularity among high-profile individuals, he was part of a famous club that included notable figures like the great Lord Falkland, Sir Francis Wainman, Mr. Chillingworth, Mr. Godolphin, and other eminent men. These were the luminaries of that time, and being associated with them is one of the highest compliments one could receive, surpassing even the most elaborate praises of a panegyrist.
A circumstance related of this club, is pretty remarkable: One evening, when they were convened, a great noise was heard in the street, which not a little alarmed them, and upon enquiring the cause, they were told, that a son of Ben Johnson's was arrested. This club was too generous to suffer the child of one, who was the genuine son of Apollo, to be carried to a Jail, perhaps for a trifle: they sent for him, but in place of being Ben Johnson's son, he proved to be Mr. George Morley, afterwards bishop of Winchester. Mr. Waller liked him so well, that he paid the debt, which [242] was no less than one hundred pounds, on condition that he would live with him at Beconsfield, which he did eight or ten years together, and from him Mr. Waller used to say, that he learned a taste of the ancient poets, and got what he had of their manner. But it is evident from his poems, written before this incident of Mr. Morley's arrest, that he had early acquired that exquisite Spirit; however, he might have improved it afterwards, by the conversation and assistance of Mr. Morley, to whom this adventure proved very advantageous.
A notable incident involving this club is quite remarkable: one evening, while they were gathered, a loud commotion echoed in the street, which alarmed them significantly. Upon inquiring about the cause, they were informed that a son of Ben Johnson had been arrested. This club was too generous to allow the child of someone who was genuinely considered a son of Apollo to be taken to jail, possibly for a minor offense. They sent for him, but instead of being Ben Johnson's son, he turned out to be Mr. George Morley, who later became the bishop of Winchester. Mr. Waller liked him so much that he paid the debt, which was no less than one hundred pounds, on the condition that Morley would live with him in Beaconsfield, which he did for about eight or ten years. Mr. Waller often said that he learned a taste for the ancient poets from him and picked up much of their style. However, it’s evident from his poems written before this incident with Mr. Morley that he had already developed an exquisite spirit; nonetheless, he might have refined it later through his conversations and guidance from Mr. Morley, which turned out to be very beneficial for him.
It is uncertain, at what time our author was married, but, it is supposed, that his first wife Anne, daughter and heir of Edward Banks, esq; was dead before he fell in love with lady Dorothy Sidney, daughter to the earl of Leicester, whom he celebrates under the name of Sacharissa. Mr. Waller's passion for this lady, has been the subject of much conversation; his verses, addressed to her, have been renowned for their delicacy, and Sacharissa has been proposed, as a model to succeeding poets, in the celebration of their mistresses. One cannot help wishing, that the poet had been as successful in his Addresses to her, as he has been in his love-strains, which are certainly the sweetest in the world. The difference of station, and the pride of blood, perhaps, was the occasion, that Sacharissa never became the wife of Waller; though in reality, as Mr. Waller was a gentleman, a member of parliament, and a person of high reputation, we cannot, at present, see so great a disproportion: and, as Mr. Waller had fortune, as well as wit and poetry, lord Leicester's daughter could not have been disgraced by such an alliance. At least we are sure of one thing, that she lives for ever in Waller's strains, a circumstance, which even her beauty could not have otherwise procured, nor the lustre of the earl of Sunderland, whom she afterwards married: the countess of Sunderland, like the radiant circles of that age, long before this time [243] would have slept in oblivion, but the Sacharissa of Waller is consigned to immortality, and can never die but with poetry, taste, and politeness.
It's unclear when our author got married, but it’s believed that his first wife, Anne, the daughter and heir of Edward Banks, Esq., had died before he fell for Lady Dorothy Sidney, daughter of the Earl of Leicester, whom he praises under the name Sacharissa. Mr. Waller's passion for this lady has been widely discussed; his poems dedicated to her are famous for their delicacy, and Sacharissa has been suggested as a role model for future poets in celebrating their muses. One can't help but wish that the poet had been as successful in his appeals to her as he has been in his love poems, which are definitely among the sweetest in the world. The difference in social status and pride of lineage may have kept Sacharissa from becoming Waller's wife; however, considering that Mr. Waller was a gentleman, a member of parliament, and a person of high reputation, it’s hard to see such a huge disparity now. Plus, since Mr. Waller had both wealth and talent, Lord Leicester's daughter wouldn’t have been embarrassed by such a union. At the very least, we know one thing: she lives on forever in Waller's verses, a fact her beauty alone couldn't have secured, nor the prestige of the Earl of Sunderland, whom she later married. The Countess of Sunderland, like the shining figures of that era, would have faded into obscurity long before now, but Waller's Sacharissa is destined for immortality and will never die as long as poetry, taste, and elegance exist.
Upon the marriage of that lady to lord Spenser, afterwards earl of Sunderland, which was solemnized July 11, 1639, Mr. Waller wrote the following letter to lady Lucy Sidney, her sister, which is so full of gallantry, and so elegantly turned, that it will doubtedly give pleasure to our readers to peruse it.
Upon that lady's marriage to Lord Spenser, later known as the Earl of Sunderland, which took place on July 11, 1639, Mr. Waller wrote the following letter to Lady Lucy Sidney, her sister. This letter is so full of charm and so gracefully written that it will undoubtedly delight our readers.
Madam,
Ma'am,
'In this common joy at Penshurst[1], I know, none to whom complaints may come less unseasonable than to your ladyship, the loss of a bedfellow, being almost equal to that of a mistress, and therefore you ought, at least, to pardon, if you consent not to the imprecations of the deserted, which just Heaven no doubt will hear. May my lady Dorothy, if we may yet call her so, suffer as much, and have the like passion for this young lord, whom she has preferred to the rest of mankind, as others have had for her; and may his love, before the year go about, make her taste of the first curse imposed upon womankind, the pains of becoming a mother. May her first born be none of her own sex, nor so like her, but that he may resemble her lord, as much as herself. May she, that always affected silence and retirement, have the house filled with the noise and number of her children, and hereafter of her grand-children; and then may [244] she arrive at that great curse, so much declined by fair ladies, old age; may she live to be very old, and yet seem young; be told so by her glass, and have no aches to inform her of the truth; and when she shall appear to be mortal, may her lord not mourn for her, but go hand in hand with her to that place, where we are told there is neither marrying, nor giving in marriage, that being there divorced, we may all have an equal interest in her again! my revenge being immortal, I wish all this may befall her posterity to the world's end, and afterwards! To you, madam, I wish all good things, and that this loss may, in good time, be happily supplied, with a more constant bedfellow of the other sex. Madam, I humbly kiss your hands, and beg pardon for this trouble, from
'In this shared happiness at Penshurst[1], I know there’s no one to whom complaints are less inappropriate than to you, my lady. Losing a partner in bed is almost as tough as losing a mistress, and so you should at least forgive me if you don’t agree with the outcries of the abandoned, which I’m sure just Heaven will listen to. May my lady Dorothy, if we can still call her that, suffer as much and have the same feelings for this young lord, whom she has chosen over everyone else, as others have had for her. And may his love, before the year is up, make her experience the first curse placed upon women, the pains of becoming a mother. May her firstborn not be a girl, nor so much like her that he doesn’t resemble her lord as much as he does her. May she, who always preferred silence and privacy, have her home filled with the noise and number of her children, and later, her grandchildren; and then may [244] she face that great curse, so often avoided by beautiful women: old age; may she live to be very old, yet still seem young; be told so by her mirror, and have no pains to remind her of the truth; and when she appears mortal, may her lord not mourn for her but walk hand in hand with her to that place where we’re told there’s no marrying or giving in marriage, so that being divorced there, we can all share her again! My desire for revenge being endless, I wish all this for her descendants until the end of the world, and beyond! To you, madam, I wish all good things, and hope that this loss will, in time, be happily filled with a more reliable partner of the opposite sex. Madam, I humbly kiss your hands and ask for your forgiveness for this inconvenience.'
'Your ladyship's
'Your honor's'
'most humble servant,
your humble servant,
'E. Waller.'
'E. Waller.'
He lived to converse with lady Sunderland when she was very old, but his imprecations relating to her glass did not succeed, for my lady knew she had the disease which nothing but death could cure; and in a conversation with Mr. Waller, and some other company at lady Wharton's, she asked him in raillery, 'When, Mr. Waller, will you write such fine verses upon me again?' 'Oh Madam,' said he, 'when your ladyship is as young again.'
He lived to chat with Lady Sunderland when she was very old, but his complaints about her drinking didn’t work, because she knew she had a disease that only death could cure. During a conversation with Mr. Waller and some other guests at Lady Wharton's, she jokingly asked him, "When, Mr. Waller, will you write such beautiful verses about me again?" "Oh Madam," he replied, "when your ladyship is young again."
In the year 1640, Mr. Waller was returned Burgess for Agmondesham, in which Parliament he opposed the court measures. The writer of his [245] life observes[2], 'that an intermission of Parliaments for 12 years disgusted the nation, and the House met in no good humour to give money. It must be confessed, some late proceedings had raised such jealousies as would be sure to discover themselves, whenever the King should come to ask for a supply; and Mr. Waller was one of the first to condemn those measures. A speech he made in the House upon this occasion, printed at the end of his poems, gives us some notion of his principles as to government.' Indeed we cannot but confess he was a little too inconstant in them, and was not naturally so steady, as he was judicious; which variable temper was the cause of his losing his reputation, in a great measure, with both parties, when the nation became unhappily divided. His love to poetry, and his indolence, laid him open to the insinuations of others, and perhaps prevented his fixing so resolutely to any one party, as to make him a favourite with either. As Mr. Waller did not come up to the heighths of those who were for unlimited monarchy, so he did not go the lengths of such as would have sunk the kingdom into a commonwealth, but had so much credit at court, that in this parliament the King particularly sent to him, to second his demands of some subsidies to pay the army; and Sir Henry Vane objecting against first voting a supply, because the King would not accept it, unless it came up to his proportion; Mr. Waller spoke earnestly to Sir Thomas Jermyn, comptroller of the houshold, to save his master from the effects of so bold a falsity; for, says he, I am but a country gentleman, and cannot pretend to know the King's mind: but Sir Thomas durst not contradict the secretary; and his son [246] the earl of St. Alban's, afterwards told Mr. Waller, that his father's cowardice ruined the King.
In 1640, Mr. Waller was elected as a representative for Agmondesham, where he opposed the government's initiatives. The author of his life notes that the long pause of 12 years without Parliament frustrated the nation, and when the House reconvened, they were not in a good mood to allocate funds. It must be acknowledged that recent actions had sparked suspicions that would inevitably arise whenever the King sought financial support; Mr. Waller was one of the first to criticize those measures. A speech he delivered in the House on this matter, included at the end of his poems, gives us some insight into his views on government. Indeed, we must admit he was somewhat inconsistent in his beliefs, not being as steadfast by nature as he was wise; this shifting temperament significantly harmed his reputation with both factions when the nation tragically split. His passion for poetry and his laxity made him vulnerable to the influences of others and possibly hindered him from firmly aligning with any one side to become a favorite of either. While Mr. Waller did not fully embrace those who supported absolute monarchy, he also did not align with those who would have plunged the nation into a commonwealth. Nevertheless, he held enough influence at court that in this Parliament, the King specifically requested him to support his call for subsidies to pay the army. When Sir Henry Vane objected to voting on a supply because the King would not accept it unless it was proportional, Mr. Waller earnestly appealed to Sir Thomas Jermyn, the comptroller of the household, to protect the King from the consequences of such a bold untruth; for, he said, "I’m just a country gentleman and can’t pretend to know the King’s feelings." But Sir Thomas did not dare contradict the secretary, and his son, the Earl of St. Alban’s, later told Mr. Waller that his father's cowardice harmed the King.
In the latter end of the year 1642, he was one of the commissioners appointed by the Parliament, to present their propositions for peace to his Majesty at Oxford. Mr. Whitelocke, in his Memorials, tells us, that when Mr. Waller kissed the King's hand in the garden at Christ's Church, his Majesty said to him, 'though you are last, yet you are not the worst, nor the least in our favour.' The discovery of a plot, continues Mr. Whitelocke, 'then in hand in London to betray the Parliament, wherein Mr. Waller was engaged, with Chaloner, Tomkins, and others, which was then in agitation, did manifest the King's courtship of Mr. Waller to be for that service.'
In late 1642, he was one of the commissioners chosen by Parliament to present their peace proposals to the King in Oxford. Mr. Whitelocke, in his Memorials, tells us that when Mr. Waller kissed the King's hand in the garden at Christ's Church, His Majesty told him, 'Even though you are last, you are neither the worst nor the least in our favor.' Mr. Whitelocke continues, 'The discovery of a plot happening in London to betray Parliament, in which Mr. Waller was involved along with Chaloner, Tomkins, and others, clearly showed the King's interest in Mr. Waller for that purpose.'
In the beginning of the year 1643, our poet was deeply engaged in the design for the reducing the city of London, and the Tower, for the service of his Majesty, which being discovered, he was imprisoned, and fined ten thousand pounds. As this is one of the most memorable circumstances in the life of Waller, we shall not pass it slightly over, but give a short detail of the rise, progress, and discovery of this plot, which issued not much in favour of Mr. Waller's reputation.
In early 1643, our poet was heavily involved in planning to take over the city of London and the Tower for the benefit of the King. Once this was discovered, he was imprisoned and fined ten thousand pounds. Since this is one of the most significant events in Waller's life, we won't gloss over it but will provide a brief account of the origins, development, and exposure of this scheme, which didn’t do much to enhance Mr. Waller's reputation.
Lord Clarendon observes[3], 'that Mr. Waller was a gentleman of very good fortune and estate, and of admirable parts, and faculties of wit and eloquence, and of an intimate conversation and familiarity with those who had that reputation. He had, from the beginning of the Parliament, been looked upon by all men, as a person of very entire affections to the King's service, and to the established government of church and state; and by having no manner of relation to [247] the court, had the more credit and interest to promote the service of it. When the ruptures grew so great between the King, and the two houses, that many of the Members withdrew from those councils, he, among the rest, absented himself, but at the time the standard was set up, having intimacy and friendship with some persons now of nearness about the King, with his Majesty's leave he returned again to London, where he spoke, upon all occasions, with great sharpness and freedom, which was not restrained, and therefore used as an argument against those who were gone upon pretence, that they were not suffered to declare their opinion freely in the House; which could not be believed, when all men knew what liberty Mr. Waller took, and spoke every day with impunity, against the proceedings of the House; this won him a great reputation with all people who wished well to the King; and he was looked upon as the boldest champion the crown had in either House, so that such Lords and Commons who were willing to prevent the ruin of the kingdom, complied in a great familiarity with him, at a man resolute in their ends, and best able to promote them; and it may be, they believed his reputation at court so good, that he would be no ill evidence there of other men's zeal and affection; so all men spoke their minds freely to him, both of the general distemper, and of the passions and ambition of particular persons, all men knowing him to be of too good a fortune, and too wary a nature, to engage himself in designs of hazard.'
Lord Clarendon notes that Mr. Waller was a man of considerable wealth and property, with remarkable talent, wit, and eloquence, and he was well-acquainted with those who had similar reputations. From the start of Parliament, everyone viewed him as someone wholly dedicated to the King's service and the established government of church and state. Having no direct connection to the court gave him even more credibility and influence in promoting its service. When tensions escalated between the King and the two houses, leading many members to withdraw from those councils, he also stayed away initially. However, when the standard was raised, he returned to London with the King's permission, thanks to his friendships with some individuals close to the King. He spoke with great sharpness and freedom on all occasions, which was unrestricted, leading others who had left to argue that they couldn't express their opinions freely in the House; this claim seemed implausible, as everyone knew the liberty Mr. Waller took and how he openly criticized the House's actions every day without consequence. This earned him significant respect from those who supported the King, and he was seen as the boldest advocate for the crown in either House. Consequently, Lords and Commons committed to preventing the kingdom's ruin formed a close rapport with him, viewing him as determined and most capable of advancing their goals. They likely believed his strong reputation at court would make him a valuable ally in demonstrating others' zeal and loyalty. As a result, everyone felt comfortable sharing their views with him, both regarding the general unrest and the personal ambitions of specific individuals, all aware that he was too prosperous and prudent to engage in risky schemes.
Mr. Tomkins already mentioned, had married Waller's sister, and was clerk of the Queen' council, and of very good fame for honesty and ability; great interest and reputation in the [248] city, and conversed much with those who disliked the proceedings of the Parliament, from whom he learned the dispositions of the citizens on all accidents, which he freely communicated to his brother Waller, as the latter imparted to him whatever observations he made from those with whom he conversed. Mr. Waller told him, that many lords and commons were for a peace. Mr. Tomkins made the same relation with respect to the most substantial men of London, which Mr. Waller reported to the well affected members of both houses; and Mr. Tomkins to the well affected citizens; whence they came to a conclusion, that if they heartily united in the mutual assistance of one another, they should be able to prevent those tumults which seemed to countenance the distractions, and both parties would be excited to moderation. The lord Conway at that time coming from Ireland incensed against the Scotch, discontented with the Parliament here, and finding Waller in good esteem with the earl of Northumberland, and in great friendship with the earl of Portland, entered into the same familiarity; and being a soldier, in the discourses they had, he insinuated, it was convenient to enquire into the numbers of the well affected in the city, that they might know whom they had to trust to. Mr. Waller telling Mr. Tomkins this, the latter imparted it to his confidents there; and it was agreed, that some trusty persons in every ward and parish about London should make a list of all the inhabitants, and by guessing at their several affections, compute the strength of that party which opposed an accommodation, and that which was for it.
Mr. Tomkins, as mentioned before, was married to Waller's sister and served as the clerk to the Queen's council. He was well-regarded for his honesty and skills, enjoying significant influence and reputation in the [248] city. He frequently engaged with those who were critical of Parliament, gathering insights about the citizens' sentiments on various matters, which he openly shared with his brother Waller. In return, Waller shared his observations from conversations he had. Mr. Waller informed him that many lords and commons supported peace. Mr. Tomkins reported similar sentiments regarding the most prominent figures in London, which Waller then communicated to the supportive members of both houses, while Tomkins shared the same with the supportive citizens. From this, they concluded that a united effort in mutual support could help prevent the disturbances that seemed to exacerbate tensions, and encourage moderation in both factions. At that time, Lord Conway was returning from Ireland, frustrated with the Scots and discontented with Parliament. Noticing Waller's good standing with the Earl of Northumberland and his strong friendship with the Earl of Portland, he sought to connect with them. Being a soldier, he suggested that it would be useful to assess the number of supportive citizens in the city to determine reliable allies. Mr. Waller shared this with Mr. Tomkins, who then communicated it to his trusted associates. They agreed that trustworthy individuals in each ward and parish around London should compile a list of all residents and, by estimating their individual sentiments, assess the strength of those opposing an agreement compared to those in favor of it.
Lord Clarendon declares, that he believes this design, was to beget such a combination among the well affected parties, that they would refuse to conform to those ordinances of the twentieth [249] part, and other taxes for the support of the war; and thereby or by joint petitioning for peace, and discountenancing the other who petitioned against it, to prevail with the Parliament to incline to a determination of the war, 'but that there ever was, says the earl, 'any formed design either of letting the King's army into London, which was impossible to be effected, or raising an army there, and surprizing the Parliament, or any person of it, or of using any violence in, or upon the city, I could never yet see cause to believe.' But it unluckily happened, that while this combination was on foot, Sir Nicholas Crisp procured a commission of array to be sent from Oxford to London, which was carried by the lady Aubigny, and delivered to a gentleman employed by Sir Nicholas to take it of her; and this being discovered at the same time Mr. Waller's plot was, the two conspiracies were blended into one; tho' the earl of Clarendon is satisfied that they were two distinct designs. His lordship relates the discovery of Mr. Waller's plot in this manner: 'A servant of Mr. Tomkins, who had often cursorily overheard his master and Mr. Waller discourse of the subject which we are upon, placed himself behind the hangings, at a time when they were together; and there whilst either of them discovered the language and opinion of the company which they kept, overheard enough to make him believe, that his information and discovery could make him welcome to those whom he thought concerned, and so went to Mr. Pym, and acquainted him with all he had heard, or probably imagined. The time when Mr. Pym was made acquainted with it, is not known; but the circumstance of publishing it was such as filled all men with apprehensions.'
Lord Clarendon states that he believes this plan was to create a coalition among the loyal parties, so they would refuse to comply with the regulations from the twentieth [249] section and other taxes to fund the war; and, either by jointly asking for peace or opposing those who asked against it, they would persuade Parliament to consider ending the war. However, he says there was never any serious plan to allow the King’s army into London, which he thought was impossible, to raise an army there and surprise Parliament or any of its members, or to use any force within the city. Unfortunately, while this coalition was forming, Sir Nicholas Crisp obtained a commission for a military gathering to be sent from Oxford to London. This was delivered by Lady Aubigny to a man assigned by Sir Nicholas to receive it; and when this was discovered at the same time Mr. Waller’s plot came to light, the two conspiracies became mixed together, although the Earl of Clarendon believes they were actually two separate plans. He recounts the discovery of Mr. Waller’s plot like this: "A servant of Mr. Tomkins, who had often casually overheard his master and Mr. Waller discussing the matter at hand, hid behind the curtains while they were together; and there, while either of them expressed the views and thoughts of their associates, he overheard enough to convince him that his information could make him welcome to those he thought were involved, and so he went to Mr. Pym and shared everything he had heard or likely imagined. The exact timing when Mr. Pym was informed is unclear, but the way it was made public caused great concern among everyone."
[250] 'It was on Wednesday the 31st of May, their solemn fast day, when being all at their sermon in St. Margaret's church, Westminster, according to their custom, a letter or message was brought privately to Mr. Pym; who thereupon with some of the most active members rose from their seats, and after a little whispering together, removed out of the church. This could not but exceedingly affect those who stayed behind. Immediately they sent guards to all the prisons, at Lambeth-house, Ely-house, and such places where malignants were in custody, with directions to search the prisoners, and some other places which they thought fit should be suspected. After the sermon was ended, the houses met, and were only then told, that letters were intercepted going to the King and the court at Oxford, which expressed some notable conspiracy in hand, to deliver up the Parliament and the city into the hands of the Cavaliers; and that the time for the execution of it drew near. Hereupon a committee was appointed to examine all persons they thought fit, and to apprehend some nominated at that time; and the same night this committee apprehended Mr. Waller and Mr. Tomkins, and the next day such as they suspected.'
[250] 'On Wednesday, May 31st, their solemn fast day, while everyone was at the sermon in St. Margaret's Church, Westminster, a letter or message was privately brought to Mr. Pym. He then rose from his seat with some of the most active members, and after a brief discussion, they left the church. This deeply affected those who stayed behind. Immediately, they sent guards to all the prisons, including Lambeth House, Ely House, and other locations where enemies of the state were being held, with orders to search the prisoners and other suspected places. After the sermon concluded, the houses met and were only then informed that letters had been intercepted that were going to the King and the court in Oxford. These letters revealed a significant conspiracy to hand over the Parliament and the city to the Cavaliers, and that the time for carrying it out was approaching. Consequently, a committee was formed to investigate all individuals they deemed necessary and to arrest some that were named at that time. That same night, this committee arrested Mr. Waller and Mr. Tomkins, and the following day they detained others they suspected.'
The Houses were, or seemed to be, so alarmed with the discovery of the plot, that six days after they took a sacred vow and covenant, which was also taken by the city and army, denouncing war against the King more directly than they had done before. The earl of Portland and lord Conway were imprisoned on Mr. Waller's accusation, and often confronted with him before the committee, where they as peremptorily denying, as he charging them, and there being no other witness but him against them, they were kept a while in restraint, and then bailed. Mr. Waller, after he had had 'says [251] the earl of Clarendon, with incredible dissimulation, acted such a remorse of conscience, that his trial was put off out of christian compassion, till he should recover his understanding (and that was not till the heat and fury of the prosecutors was abated by the sacrifices they had made) and by drawing visitants to himself of the most powerful ministers of all factions, had by his liberality and penitence, his receiving vulgar and vile sayings from them with humility and reverence, as clearer convictions, and informations than in his life he had ever had; and distributing great sums to them for their prayers and ghostly council, so satisfied them, that they satisfied others; was brought at his suit to the bar of the House of Commons on on the 4th of July 1643, where being a man in truth very powerful in language, and who, by what he spoke, and the manner of speaking it, exceedingly captivated the good will, and benevolence of his hearers, with such flattery, as was most exactly calculated to that meridian, with such a submission as their pride took delight in, and such a dejection of mind and spirit, as was like to couzen the major part. He laid before them, their own danger and concernment if they should suffer one of their body, how unworthy and monstrous soever, to be tried by the soldiers, who might thereby grow to such power hereafter, that they would both try those they would not be willing should be tried, and for things which they would account no crime, the inconvenience and insupportable mischief whereof wise commonwealths had foreseen and prevented, by exempting their own members from all judgments but their own. He prevailed, not to be tried by a Council of War, and thereby preserved his dear-bought life; so that in truth he did as much owe the keeping his head to that oration, as Cataline did the loss of his to those of Tully; and having done ill, very [252] well, he by degrees drew that respect to his parts, which always carries some companion to the person, that he got leave to compound for his transgression and them to accept of ten thousand pounds for his liberty; whereupon he had leave to recollect himself in another country (for his liberty was to be banishment) how miserable he had made himself in obtaining that leave to live out of his own. And there cannot be a greater evidence of the inestimable value of his parts, than that he lived in the good affection and esteem of many, the pity of most, and the reproach and scorn of few, or none.'
The Houses were so alarmed by the discovery of the plot that, six days later, they took a sacred vow along with the city and army, more directly denouncing war against the King than they had before. The Earl of Portland and Lord Conway were imprisoned based on Mr. Waller's accusation and were often confronted with him before the committee. They denied the charges as firmly as he made them, and since there were no other witnesses against them, they were detained for a while before being released on bail. Mr. Waller, after he had talked with the Earl of Clarendon, acted with incredible dissimulation, showing such remorse that his trial was postponed out of Christian compassion until he regained his senses (which didn't happen until the prosecutors had cooled down from the sacrifices they had made). By attracting influential ministers from all factions, and through his generosity and penitence, he accepted their common and vulgar sayings with humility and reverence, treating them as clearer insights than he had ever had in life. He distributed large sums to them for their prayers and spiritual counsel, which satisfied them so much that they satisfied others. He was brought to the bar of the House of Commons on July 4, 1643, where, being a powerful speaker, he captivated the goodwill and kindness of his audience with flattery tailored to their tastes, combined with a submission that appealed to their pride, and a dejection of spirit that could easily trick the majority. He presented to them their own danger if they allowed one of their own, however unworthy, to be tried by the soldiers, who might then gain such power that they could try those whom the members would never want to be tried, for actions they would see as no crime. Wise commonwealths had anticipated and prevented such inconveniences by exempting their members from all judgments except their own. He succeeded in avoiding a trial by a Council of War, thereby preserving his life; he owed retaining his head to that speech just as Cataline owed his loss to the speeches of Tully. After doing wrong, he managed rather well, gradually earning respect for his talents, which often accompany a person, and he was allowed to settle for his transgression, accepting ten thousand pounds for his freedom. Consequently, he was permitted to reflect in another country (since his liberty implied banishment) on how miserable he had made himself in obtaining the right to live away from his own land. There could be no greater testament to the immense value of his abilities than that he lived in the good graces and esteem of many, received the pity of most, and faced the reproach and scorn from few, if any at all.
After this storm had subsided, Mr. Waller travelled into France, where he continued several years. He took over his lady's jewels to support him, and lived very hospitably at Paris, and except that of lord Jermyn, afterwards earl of St. Alban's, who was the Queen of England's prime minister when she kept her court there, there was no English table but Mr. Waller's; which was so costly to him, that he used to say, 'he was at last come to the Rump Jewel.' Upon his return to England, such was the unsteadiness of his temper, he sided with those in power, particularly the Lord Protector, with whom he lived in great intimacy as a companion, tho' he seems not to have acted for him. He often declared that he found Cromwell very well acquainted with the Greek and Roman story; and he frequently took notice, that in the midst of their discourse, a servant has come to tell him, that such and such attended; upon which Cromwell would rise and stop them; talking at the door, where Mr. Waller could over-hear him say, 'The lord will reveal, the lord will help,' and several such expressions; which when he returned to Mr. Waller, he excused, saying, 'Cousin Waller, I must talk to these men after their own way.'
After the storm passed, Mr. Waller traveled to France, where he stayed for several years. He brought his lady's jewels to support himself and lived very well in Paris. Other than Lord Jermyn, who later became the Earl of St. Alban's and was the Queen of England's prime minister while she held court there, Mr. Waller was the only Englishman hosting dinners. His hospitality cost him so much that he used to joke that he had finally come to the Rump Jewel. When he returned to England, his temper was so unpredictable that he sided with those in power, especially the Lord Protector, with whom he formed a close friendship, even though he didn't seem to act on his behalf. He often said that he found Cromwell to be quite knowledgeable about Greek and Roman history. He frequently noticed that in the middle of their conversations, a servant would come in to announce that certain people were waiting, prompting Cromwell to stand up and greet them. While standing at the door, Mr. Waller could hear him say, "The Lord will reveal, the Lord will help," and other phrases like that. When he returned to Mr. Waller, he explained, saying, "Cousin Waller, I have to speak to these men in their own way."
[253] In 1654 he wrote a panegyric on Oliver Cromwell, as he did a poem on his death in 1658. At the restoration he was treated with great civility by King Charles II, who always made him one of his party in his diversions at the duke of Buckingham's, and other places, and gave him a grant of the provostship of Eaton-College; tho' that grant proved of no effect. He sat in several Parliaments after the restoration, and wrote a panegyric upon his Majesty's return, which however, was thought to fall much short of that which he before had wrote on Cromwell. The King one day asked him in raillery, 'How is it Waller, that you wrote a better encomium on Cromwell than on me.' May it please your Majesty, answered the bard, with the most admirable fineness, 'Poets generally succeed best in fiction.' Mr. Waller continued in the full vigour of his genius to the end of his life; his natural vivacity bore up against his years, and made his company agreeable to the last; which appears from the following little story.
[253] In 1654, he wrote a tribute to Oliver Cromwell, and he also wrote a poem about his death in 1658. When the monarchy was restored, he was treated with great respect by King Charles II, who often included him in his gatherings at the Duke of Buckingham's and other venues, granting him the position of provost at Eaton College, although that grant ended up having no effect. He served in several Parliaments after the restoration and wrote a tribute for the King’s return, which was considered to be much less impressive than the one he had previously written for Cromwell. One day, the King jokingly asked him, "How is it, Waller, that you wrote a better praise for Cromwell than for me?" To which the poet replied, with remarkable grace, "Your Majesty, poets usually do best in fiction." Mr. Waller maintained the full vibrancy of his talent until the end of his life; his natural liveliness kept him engaging to the very last, as demonstrated by the following little story.
King James II having ordered the earl of Sunderland to desire Mr. Waller to attend him one afternoon; when he came, the King carried him into his closet, and there asked him how he liked such a picture? 'Sir, says Mr. Waller, my eyes are dim, and I know not whose it is.' The King answered, 'It is the Princess of Orange;' and says Mr. Waller, 'she is like the greatest woman in the world.' 'Whom do you call so, said the King,' 'Queen Elizabeth, said he.' 'I wonder, Mr. Waller, replied the King, you should think so; but I must confess, she had a wise council;' and Sir, said Mr. Waller, 'did you ever know a Fool chuse a wise one.'
King James II asked the Earl of Sunderland to invite Mr. Waller to meet him one afternoon. When Mr. Waller arrived, the King took him into his private study and asked how he liked a certain painting. Mr. Waller replied, "Sir, my eyesight is poor, so I don’t know whose it is." The King said, "It’s the Princess of Orange." Mr. Waller then remarked, "She looks like the greatest woman in the world." The King asked, "Who do you mean by that?" Waller responded, "Queen Elizabeth." The King expressed surprise, saying, "I’m amazed you think that, but I must admit she had a wise council." To which Mr. Waller said, "Sir, have you ever seen a fool choose a wise one?"
Mr. Waller died of a dropsy October 21, 1687. Finding his distemper encrease, and having yielded [254] all hopes of recovery, he ordered his son-in-law Dr. Peter Birch, to desire all his children to join with him, and give him the sacrament. He at the same time professed himself a believer in revealed religion with great earnestness, telling them, that he remembered when the duke of Buckingham, once talked profanely before King Charles, he told him, 'My lord, I am a great deal older than your grace, and I believe I have heard more arguments for atheism, than ever your grace did; but I have lived long enough to see, there was nothing in them, and so I hope will your grace.' It is said, that had Mr. Waller lived longer, he would have inclined to the revolution, which by the violent measures of James II. he could foresee would happen. He was interred in the church-yard of Beaconsfield, where a monument is erected to his memory, the inscriptions on it were written by Mr. Thomas Rymer.
Mr. Waller died of dropsy on October 21, 1687. As his condition worsened and he lost hope for recovery, he instructed his son-in-law, Dr. Peter Birch, to ask all his children to come together with him and receive the sacrament. At the same time, he expressed his strong belief in revealed religion, recalling an incident when the Duke of Buckingham spoke irreverently in front of King Charles. He told the duke, "My lord, I'm much older than you, and I've encountered more arguments for atheism than you ever have; but I've lived long enough to realize that there's nothing to them, and I hope you will too." It is said that if Mr. Waller had lived longer, he might have supported the revolution, which he could foresee as a result of James II's harsh actions. He was buried in the churchyard of Beaconsfield, where a monument in his honor was erected, with the inscription written by Mr. Thomas Rymer.
He left several children behind him: He bequeathed his estate to his second son Edmund, his eldest, Benjamin, being so far from inheriting his father's wit, that he had not a common portion. Edmund, the second Son, used to be chosen member of Parliament for Agmondesham, and in the latter part of his life turned Quaker. William, the third son, was a merchant in London, and Stephen, the fourth, a civilian. Of the daughters, Mary was married to Dr. Peter Birch, prebendary of Westminster; another to Mr. Harvey of Suffolk, another to Mr. Tipping of Oxfordshire.
He left several children behind: He passed on his estate to his second son, Edmund, since his eldest, Benjamin, was so far from inheriting his father's intelligence that he barely had any sense. Edmund, the second son, was usually elected as a member of Parliament for Agmondesham, and later in life he became a Quaker. William, the third son, was a merchant in London, and Stephen, the fourth, was a lawyer. Among the daughters, Mary married Dr. Peter Birch, a prebendary of Westminster; another married Mr. Harvey from Suffolk, and another married Mr. Tipping from Oxfordshire.
These are the most material circumstances in the life of Mr. Waller, a man whose wit and parts drew the admiration of the world upon him when he was living, and has secured him the applause of posterity. As a statesman, lord Clarendon is of opinion, he wanted steadiness, and even insinuates, that he was deficient in point of honour; the earl at least construes his timidity, and apparent [255] cowardice, in a way not very advantageous to him.
These are the most significant events in the life of Mr. Waller, a man whose intelligence and talent earned him the admiration of the world during his lifetime and has secured him lasting praise. As a statesman, Lord Clarendon believes he lacked consistency and even suggests that he was lacking in honor; the Earl interprets his timidity and apparent [255] cowardice in a way that doesn't reflect well on him.
All men have honoured him as the great refiner of English poetry, who restored numbers to the delicacy they had lost, and joined to melifluent cadence the charms of sense. But as Mr. Waller is unexceptionally the first who brought in a new turn of verse, and gave to rhime all the graces of which it was capable, it would be injurious to his fame, not to present the reader with the opinions of some of the greatest men concerning him, by which he will be better able to understand his particular excellencies, and will see his beauties in full glow before him. To begin with Mr. Dryden, who, in his dedication to the Rival Ladies, addressed to the earl of Orrery, thus characterizes Waller.
All men have honored him as the great refiner of English poetry, who restored rhythm to the delicacy it had lost and combined smooth flow with meaningful content. But since Mr. Waller is undeniably the first to introduce a new style of verse and brought rhyme all the elegance it could have, it would be unfair to his reputation not to share the thoughts of some of the most respected figures about him, which will help the reader better appreciate his unique qualities and see his beauty in full view. To start with Mr. Dryden, who, in his dedication to the Rival Ladies addressed to the Earl of Orrery, characterizes Waller this way.
'The excellency and dignity of rhime were never fully known till Mr. Waller sought it: He first made writing easily an art; first shewed us to conclude the sense most commonly in distichs, which in the verses of those before him, runs on for so many lines together, that the reader is out of breath to overtake it.'
'The excellence and dignity of rhyme were never fully appreciated until Mr. Waller pursued it. He was the first to make writing an art form that was accessible; he first showed us how to wrap up the meaning most often in couplets, whereas in the verses of those before him, it would stretch on for so many lines that the reader would be out of breath trying to keep up.'
Voltaire, in his letters concerning the English nation, speaking of British poets, thus mentions Waller. 'Our author was much talked of in France. He had much the same reputation in London that Voiture had in Paris; and in my opinion deserved it better. Voiture was born in an age that was just emerging from barbarity; an age that was still rude and ignorant; the people of which aimed at wit, tho' they had not the least pretensions to it, and sought for points and conceits instead of sentiments. Bristol stones are more easily found than diamonds. Voiture born with an easy and frivolous genius, was the first who shone in this Aurora of French literature. Had he come into [256] the world after those great genius's, who spread such glory over the age of Lewis XIV, he would either have been unknown, would have been despised, or would have corrected his stile. Waller, tho' better than Voiture, was not yet a finished poet. The graces breathe in such of Waller's works as are wrote in a tender strain; but then they are languid thro' negligence, and often disfigured with false thoughts. The English had not at this time attained the art of correct writing; but his serious compositions exhibit a strength and vigour, which could not have been expected from the softness and effeminacy of his other pieces.'
Voltaire, in his letters about the English nation, mentions British poets, specifically Waller. "Our author was quite popular in France. He had a similar reputation in London as Voiture had in Paris; and honestly, I think he deserved it more. Voiture was born during a time that was just starting to emerge from barbarism; it was still rough and ignorant. The people aimed for wit, even though they had no real claim to it, and focused on clever phrases and puns rather than genuine feelings. Bristol stones are easier to find than diamonds. Voiture, with his easy-going and superficial genius, was the first to shine in this dawn of French literature. Had he been born later, after the great geniuses who brought such glory to the time of Louis XIV, he might have gone unnoticed, been looked down upon, or changed his style. Waller, though better than Voiture, wasn’t quite a polished poet yet. The beauty shines in some of Waller's work that is more tender; however, these pieces often come off as weak due to carelessness and are frequently marred by forced ideas. The English hadn’t mastered the art of polished writing at this time, but his serious works show a strength and vigor that was unexpected from the softness and delicacy of his other pieces."
The anonymous author of the preface to the second part of our author's poems, printed in the year 1690, has given his character at large, and tells us; 'That Waller is a name that carries every thing in it that is either great, or graceful in poetry. He was indeed the parent of English verse, and the first who shewed us our tongue had beauty and numbers in it. The tongue came into his hands like a rough diamond; he polished it first, and to that degree, that artists since have admired the workmanship without pretending to mend it. He undoubtedly stands first in the list of refiners; and for ought I know the last too; for I question whether in Charles II's reign; the English did not come to its full perfection, and whether it had not had its Augustan age, as well as the Latin.' Thus far this anonymous author. If I may be permitted to give my opinion in so delicate a point as the reputation of Waller, I shall take the liberty to observe, that had he, in place of preceding, succeeded those great wits who flourished in the reign of Charles II, he could never have rose to such great reputation, [257] nor would have deserved it: No small honour is due to him for the harmony which he introduced, but upon that chiefly does his reputation stand. He certainly is sometimes languid; he was rather a tender than a violent lover; he has not that force of thinking, that amazing reach of genius for which Dryden is renowned, and had it been his lot to have appeared in the reign of Queen Anne, I imagine, he would not have been ranked above the second class of poets. But be this as it may, poetry owes him the highest obligations for refining it, and every succeeding genius will be ready to acknowledge, that by copying Waller's strains, they have improved their own, and the more they follow him, the more they please.
The anonymous author of the preface to the second part of our author’s poems, published in 1690, has described his character in detail, saying: “Waller is a name that embodies everything great and graceful in poetry. He was indeed the father of English verse and the first to reveal the beauty and rhythm in our language. The language came to him like a rough diamond; he polished it so well that artists since have admired the craftsmanship without attempting to improve it. He undoubtedly ranks first among those who refined it; and for all I know, he might be the last too, for I doubt whether during Charles II's reign, English didn’t reach its full excellence, and whether it didn’t have its own Golden Age, just like Latin.” So far this anonymous author. If I may share my view on such a sensitive topic as Waller's reputation, I’ll take the liberty to say that if he had succeeded rather than preceded the great talents who thrived during Charles II's reign, he would never have achieved such high esteem, nor would he have deserved it. He certainly deserves credit for the harmony he brought to poetry, but his reputation largely rests on that alone. He does come off as somewhat weak at times; he was more of a gentle than passionate lover; he lacks the intense thought and remarkable genius that Dryden is celebrated for, and if he had emerged during Queen Anne’s reign, I imagine he would have been placed in the second tier of poets. But be that as it may, poetry is greatly indebted to him for its refinement, and every new talent will readily recognize that by mimicking Waller's style, they enhance their own work, and the more they imitate him, the more appealing they become.
Mr. Waller altered the Maid's Tragedy from Fletcher, and translated the first Act of the Tragedy of Pompey from the French of Corneille. Mrs. Katharine Philips, in a letter to Sir Charles Cotterell, ascribes the translation of the first act to our author; and observes, that Sir Edward Filmer did one, Sir Charles Sidley another, lord Buckhurst another; but who the fifth, says she, I cannot learn.
Mr. Waller adapted the Maid's Tragedy from Fletcher and translated the first act of the Tragedy of Pompey from Corneille's French. In a letter to Sir Charles Cotterell, Mrs. Katharine Philips credits our author with the translation of the first act and notes that Sir Edward Filmer did one, Sir Charles Sidley another, and Lord Buckhurst another; but as for the fifth, she says, I can't find out who it is.
Mrs. Philips then proceeds to give a criticism on this performance of Waller's, shews some faults, and points out some beauties, with a spirit and candour peculiar to her.
Mrs. Philips then goes on to critique Waller's performance, highlighting some flaws and pointing out a few strengths, with a spirit and honesty that's unique to her.
The best edition of our author's works is that published by Mr. Fenton, London 1730, containing poems, speeches, letters, &c. In this edition is added the preface to the first edition of Mr. Waller's poems after the restoration, printed in the year 1664.
The best edition of our author's works is the one published by Mr. Fenton in London in 1730, which includes poems, speeches, letters, etc. This edition also features the preface to the first edition of Mr. Waller's poems after the restoration, printed in 1664.
[258] As a specimen of Mr. Waller's poetry, we shall give a transcript of his Panegyric upon Oliver Cromwell.
[258] As an example of Mr. Waller's poetry, we will provide a copy of his Panegyric on Oliver Cromwell.
A Panegyric to my Lord Protector, of the present greatness and joint interest of his Highness and this Nation.
A Tribute to my Lord Guardian, celebrating the current greatness and shared interests of his Highness and this Nation.
In the Year 1654.
While with a strong, and yet a gentle hand
You bridle faction, and our hearts command,
Protect us from our selves, and from the foe,
Make us unite, and make us conquer too;
While with a strong yet gentle hand
You control divisions and lead our hearts,
Protect us from ourselves and from the enemy,
Help us come together and achieve victory too;
Let partial spirits still aloud complain,
Think themselves injur'd that they cannot reign,
And own no liberty, but where they may
Without controul upon their fellows prey.
Let lesser beings still loudly complain,
Feel wronged that they can’t hold power,
And only recognize freedom where they can
Prey on their peers without any restraint.
Above the waves as Neptune shew'd his face
To chide the winds, and save the Trojan race;
So has your Highness, rais'd above the rest,
Storms of Ambition tossing us represt.
Above the waves as Neptune showed his face
To scold the winds and save the Trojan race;
So has Your Highness, raised above the rest,
Calmed the storms of Ambition that tossed us down.
Your drooping country, torn with civil hate,
Restor'd by you, is made a glorious state;
The feat of empire, where the Irish come,
And the unwilling Scotch, to fetch their doom.
Your struggling country, divided by civil hate,
Restored by you, has become a glorious state;
A center of power, where the Irish arrive,
And the reluctant Scots, to meet their fate.
The sea's our own, and now all nations greet,
With bending sails, each vessel of our fleet.
Your pow'r extends as far as winds can blow,
Or swelling sails upon the globe may go.
The sea is ours, and now every nation welcomes,
With raised sails, each ship in our fleet.
Your power reaches as far as the winds can blow,
Or the swelling sails can travel around the world.
[259]
Heav'n, that hath plac'd this island to give law,
To balance Europe, and her states to awe,
In this conjunction doth on Britain smile;
The greatest leader, and the greatest isle.
[259]
Heaven, which has set this island to establish order,
To balance Europe and keep its nations in check,
In this moment is smiling upon Britain;
The greatest leader, and the greatest island.
Whether this portion of the world were rent
By the rude ocean from the Continent,
Or thus created, it was sure design'd
To be the sacred refuge of mankind.
Whether this part of the world was torn
From the continent by the rough ocean,
Or made like this, it was definitely intended
To be a sacred sanctuary for humanity.
Hither th' oppressed shall henceforth resort
Justice to crave, and succour at your court;
And then your Highness, not for our's alone,
But for the world's Protector shall be known.
From now on, the oppressed will come here
To seek justice and support at your court;
And then your Highness, not just for us,
But as the world's Protector, will be known.
Fame swifter than your winged navy flies
Thro' ev'ry land that near the ocean lies,
Sounding your name, and telling dreadful News
To all that piracy and rapine use.
Fame moves faster than your winged navy flies
Through every land near the ocean,
Shouting your name and spreading terrible news
To all who engage in piracy and plunder.
With such a chief the meanest nation blest,
Might hope to lift her head above the rest:
What may be thought impossible to do
By us, embraced by the seas, and you?
With a leader like that, even the smallest nation could hope to rise above the others. What may seem impossible for us, surrounded by the seas, can it really be so for you?
Lords of the world's great waste, the ocean, we
Whole forests send to reign upon the sea,
And ev'ry coast may trouble or relieve;
But none can visit us without your leave.
Lords of the world's vast wasteland, the ocean, we
Send entire forests to rule over the sea,
And every shore can both challenge or soothe;
But no one can approach us without your permission.
Angels and we have this prerogative,
That none can at our happy seats arrive;
While we descend at pleasure to invade
The bad with vengeance, and the good to aid.
Angels and we have this right,
That no one can reach our joyful places;
While we come down whenever we want to attack
The wicked with punishment, and help the good.
[260]
Our little world, the image of the great,
Like that, amidst the boundless ocean set,
Of her own growth hath all that nature craves,
And all that's rare, as tribute from the waves.
[260]
Our little world, a reflection of the vast,
Like that, surrounded by the endless ocean,
Has everything nature desires for its growth,
And all that's unique, as a gift from the waves.
As Ægypt does not on the clouds rely,
But to the Nile owes more than to the sky;
So what our Earth and what our heav'n denies,
Our ever-constant friend the sea, supplies.
As Egypt doesn't depend on the clouds,
But owes more to the Nile than to the sky;
So whatever our Earth and our heaven deny,
Our ever-reliable friend the sea provides.
The taste of hot Arabia's spice we know,
Free from the scorching sun that makes it grow;
Without the worm in Persian silks we shine,
And without planting drink of ev'ry vine.
The taste of hot Arabian spice we know,
Free from the blazing sun that helps it thrive;
Without the worm in Persian silks we shine,
And without the planting drink of every vine.
To dig for wealth we weary not our limbs.
Gold (tho' the heaviest Metal) hither swims:
Our's is the harvest where the Indians mow,
We plough the deep, and reap what others sow.
To search for wealth, we don’t tire our bodies.
Gold (even though it's the heaviest metal) comes to us:
Our harvest is where the Native Americans gather,
We explore the depths and gather what others plant.
Things of the noblest kind our own soil breeds;
Stout are our men, and warlike are our steeds;
Rome (tho' her eagle thro' the world had flown)
Cou'd never make this island all her own.
The best things come from our own land;
Our men are strong, and our horses are fierce;
Rome (even though her eagle has soared all over the world)
Could never fully claim this island as her own.
Here the third Edward, and the Black Prince too,
France conq'ring Henry flourish'd, and now you;
For whom we staid, as did the Grecian state,
Till Alexander came to urge their fate.
Here the third Edward and the Black Prince too,
France-conquering Henry thrived, and now you;
For whom we waited, just as the Grecian state,
Until Alexander arrived to shape their fate.
When for more world's the Macedonian cry'd,
He wist not Thetys in her lap did hide
Another yet, a word reserv'd for you,
To make more great than that he did subdue.
When the Macedonian cried out for more of the world,
He didn't realize that Thetys was hiding in her lap
Another yet, a word reserved for you,
To make greater than what he had conquered.
[261]
He safely might old troops to battle lead
Against th' unwarlike Persian, and the Mede;
Whose hasty flight did from a bloodless field,
More spoils than honour to the visitor yield.
[261]
He could safely lead veteran troops into battle
Against the unskilled Persian and the Mede;
Whose quick retreat left more loot than glory
For the one who came to visit the battlefield.
A race unconquer'd, by their clime made bold,
The Caledonians arm'd with want and cold,
Have, by a fate indulgent to your fame,
Been from all ages kept for you to tame.
A fierce race, made bold by their harsh land,
The Scots, armed with need and the cold,
Have, by a fate that favors your glory,
Been kept throughout the ages for you to conquer.
Whom the old Roman wall so ill confin'd,
With a new chain of garrisons you bind:
Here foreign gold no more shall make them come,
Our English Iron holds them fast at home.
Whoever the old Roman wall confined poorly,
With a new chain of garrisons, you secure:
Here foreign gold will no longer lure them here,
Our English Iron keeps them firmly at home.
They that henceforth must be content to know
No warmer region than their hills of snow,
May blame the sun, but must extol your grace,
Which in our senate hath allow'd them place.
Those who must now be satisfied to know
No warmer place than their snowy hills,
Can complain about the sun, but should praise your grace,
Which in our senate has given them a spot.
Preferr'd by conquest, happily o'erthrown,
Falling they rise, to be with us made one:
So kind dictators made, when they came home,
Their vanquish'd foes free citizens of Rome.
Preferred by conquest, happily overthrown,
Falling, they rise, to be made one with us:
So kind were the dictators when they returned,
Their defeated foes became free citizens of Rome.
Like favour find the Irish, with like fate
Advanc'd to be a portion of our state:
While by your valour, and your bounteous mind,
Nations, divided by the sea, are join'd.
Like favor find the Irish, with similar fate
Advanced to be a part of our state:
While through your bravery and generous spirit,
Nations, separated by the sea, are united.
Holland, to gain your friendship, is content
To be our out-guard on the continent:
She from her fellow-provinces wou'd go,
Rather than hazard to have you her foe.
Holland, eager to win your friendship, is willing
To serve as our protector on the continent:
She would leave her fellow provinces behind
Rather than risk having you as her enemy.
[262]
In our late fight, when cannons did diffuse
(Preventing posts) the terror and the news;
Our neighbour princes trembled at their roar:
But our conjunction makes them tremble more.
[262]
In our recent battle, when cannons were fired
(Blocking messages) the fear and the updates;
Our neighboring princes shook at their sound:
But our alliance makes them even more afraid.
Your never-failing sword made war to cease,
And now you heal us with the acts of peace
Our minds with bounty and with awe engage,
Invite affection, and restrain our rage.
Your always-reliable sword stopped the fighting,
And now you heal us with your peaceful actions.
You fill our minds with abundance and wonder,
Encourage love, and hold back our anger.
Less pleasure take brave minds in battles won,
Than in restoring such as are undone:
Tygers have courage, and the rugged bear,
But man alone can whom he conquers, spare.
Brave minds find less pleasure in winning battles,
Than in saving those who have been defeated:
Tigers have courage, and the tough bear,
But only humans can choose to spare those they conquer.
To pardon willing; and to punish, loath;
You strike with one hand, but you heal with both.
Lifting up all that prostrate lye, you grieve
You cannot make the dead again to live.
To forgive is easy; to punish is hard;
You hit with one hand, but you heal with both.
Lifting up all those who are down, you mourn
You cannot bring the dead back to life.
When fate or error had our Age mis-led,
And o'er this nation such confusion spread;
The only cure which cou'd from heav'n come down,
Was so much pow'r and piety in one.
When fate or mistake misled our generation,
And confusion spread across this nation;
The only remedy that could come from heaven,
Was so much strength and devotion in one.
One whose extraction's from an ancient line,
Gives hope again that well-born men may shine:
The meanest in your nature mild and good,
The noble rest secured in your blood.
Someone from an ancient background,
Brings hope that well-born people can excel again:
The humblest in your character is gentle and kind,
The noble traits are safely within your heritage.
Oft have we wonder'd, how you hid in peace
A mind proportion'd to such things as these;
How such a ruling sp'rit you cou'd restrain,
And practise first over your self to reign.
Often we’ve wondered how you found peace
With a mind capable of such things as these;
How you could hold back such a ruling spirit,
And first learn to govern yourself.
[263]
Your private life did a just pattern give
How fathers, husbands, pious sons shou'd live;
Born to command, your princely virtues slept
Like humble David's while the flock he kept:
[263] Your personal life offers a clear example of how fathers, husbands, and devout sons should live; Born to lead, your noble qualities lay dormant, Like humble David's while he tended to his sheep:
But when your troubled country call'd you forth,
Your flaming courage, and your matchless worth
Dazling the eyes of all that did pretend,
To fierce contention gave a prosp'rous end.
But when your troubled country called you forth,
Your burning courage and your unmatched value
Dazzled the eyes of everyone who claimed
To fierce conflict, you brought a successful end.
Still as you rise, the state, exalted too,
Finds no distemper while 'tis chang'd by you;
Chang'd like the world's great scene, when without noise
The rising sun night's vulgar lights destroys.
Still as you rise, the state, elevated too,
Feels no turmoil while it's transformed by you;
Transformed like the world's great scene, when quietly
The rising sun wipes out the night's ordinary lights.
Had you, some ages past, this race of glory
Run, with amazement we shou'd read your story;
But living virtue, all atchievements past,
Meets envy still to grapple with at last.
Had you, some ages ago, run this race of glory,
With amazement we would read your story;
But living virtue, all achievements in the past,
Faces envy still to contend with at last.
This Cæsar found, and that ungrateful age,
With losing him, went back to blood and rage.
Mistaken Brutus thought to break their yoke,
But cut the bond of union with that stroke.
This Caesar discovered, and that ungrateful time,
With his loss, returned to violence and anger.
Misguided Brutus believed he could end their control,
But severed the tie of unity with that act.
That sun once set, a thousand meaner stars
Gave a dim light to violence and wars,
To such a tempest as now threatens all,
Did not your mighty arm prevent the fall.
That sun has now set, and a thousand lesser stars
Cast a faint light on violence and wars,
To such a storm that now threatens us all,
Didn’t your powerful arm stop the downfall?
If Rome's great senate cou'd not wield that sword
Which of the conquer'd world had made them lord,
What hope had our's, while yet their pow'r was new,
To rule victorious armies, but by you?
If Rome's great Senate couldn't wield the sword
That made them the rulers of the conquered world,
What hope did we have, while their power was still strong,
To command victorious armies, but through you?
[264]
You, that had taught them to subdue their foes,
Cou'd order teach, and their high sp'rits compose:
To ev'ry duty you'd their minds engage,
Provoke their courage, and command their rage.
[264]
You, who taught them to conquer their enemies,
Could instruct them and calm their fierce spirits:
You would get their minds ready for any duty,
Stir up their courage and unleash their anger.
So when a lion shakes his dreadful mane,
And angry grows; if he that first took pain
To tame his youth, approach the haughty beast,
He bends to him, but frights away the rest.
So when a lion shakes his fearsome mane,
And becomes angry; if the one who first took the effort
To tame him in his youth approaches the proud beast,
He submits to him, but scares off everyone else.
As the vext world, to find repose, at last
Itself into Augustus' arms did cast:
So England now doth, with like toil opprest,
Her weary head upon your bosom rest.
As the troubled world finally found peace
In the embrace of Augustus:
So now England, weighed down by similar struggles,
Rests her tired head upon your chest.
Then let the muses, with such notes as these,
Instruct us what belongs unto our peace;
Your battles they hereafter shall indite,
And draw the image of our Mars in fight;
Then let the muses, with notes like these,
Teach us what leads to our peace;
Your battles they will later document,
And paint the picture of our Mars in battle;
Tell of towns storm'd, of armies overcome,
Of mighty kingdoms by your conduct won,
How, while you thunder'd, clouds of dust did choak
Contending troops, and seas lay hid in smoke.
Tell about towns attacked, armies defeated,
Of powerful kingdoms won through your leadership,
How, while you roared, clouds of dust choked
Fighting troops, and seas were obscured in smoke.
Illustrious acts high raptures do infuse,
And ev'ry conqueror creates a muse;
Here in low strains your milder deeds we sing,
But there, my lord, we'll bays and olive bring,
Illustrious acts inspire great excitement,
And every conqueror inspires a muse;
Here, we celebrate your gentler deeds,
But there, my lord, we'll bring laurel and olive.
To crown your head; while you in triumph ride
O'er vanquish'd nations, and the sea beside:
While all your neighbour princes unto you,
Like Joseph's sheaves, pay reverence and bow.
To crown your head; while you ride in triumph
Over defeated nations, and by the sea:
While all your neighboring princes come to you,
Like Joseph's sheaves, showing respect and bowing.
Footnotes:
Footnotes:
- The ancient seat of the Sydneys family in Kent; now in the possession of William Perry, esq; whose lady is niece to the late Sydney, earl of Leicester. A small, but excellent poem upon this delightful seat, was published by an anonymous hand, in 1750, entitled, Penshurst. See Monthly Review, vol. II. page 331.
- Life, p. 8, 9.
- History of the Rebellion, Edit. Oxon. 1707, 8vo.
John Ogilby,
This poet, who was likewise an eminent Geographer and Cosmographer, was born near Edinburgh in the year 1600[1]. His father, who was of an ancient and genteel family, having spent his estate, and being prisoner in the King's Bench for debt, could give his son but little education at school; but our author, who, in his early years discovered the most invincible industry, obtained a little knowledge in the Latin grammar, and afterwards so much money, as not only to procure his father's discharge from prison, but also to bind himself apprentice to Mr. Draper a dancing master in Holbourn, London. Soon after, by his dexterity in his profession, and his complaisant behaviour to his master's employers, he obtained the favour of them to lend him as much money as to buy out the remaining part of his time, and set up for himself; but being afterwards appointed to dance in the duke of Buckingham's great Masque, by a false step, he strained a vein in the inside of his leg, which ever after occasioned him to halt. He afterwards taught dancing to the sisters of Sir Ralph Hopton, at Wytham in Somersetshire, where, at leisure, he learned to handle the pike and musket. When Thomas earl of Strafford became Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, he was retained in his family to teach the art of dancing, and being [266] an excellent penman, he was frequently employed by the earl to transcribe papers for him.
This poet, who was also a distinguished Geographer and Cosmographer, was born near Edinburgh in 1600[1]. His father, coming from an old and respectable family, lost his fortune and ended up in the King's Bench for debt, so he could provide only limited schooling for his son. However, our author demonstrated incredible determination in his early years, acquiring some knowledge of Latin grammar. He later managed to raise enough money not only to free his father from prison but also to apprentice himself to Mr. Draper, a dance master in Holborn, London. Soon after, due to his skill in dancing and his pleasant demeanor with his master's clients, he earned their support to lend him money to buy out the remaining years of his apprenticeship and start his own business. However, after being chosen to dance in the duke of Buckingham's grand Masque, he suffered a leg injury from a misstep, which caused him to limp for the rest of his life. He later taught dancing to the sisters of Sir Ralph Hopton in Wytham, Somerset, where he took the time to learn to handle the pike and musket. When Thomas, Earl of Strafford, became Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, he joined his household to teach dancing and was also frequently asked by the earl to transcribe documents due to his excellent penmanship.
In his lordship's family it was that he first gave proofs of his inclination to poetry, by translating some of Æsop's Fables into English verse, which he communicated to some learned men, who understood Latin better than he, by whose assistance and advice he published them. He was one of the troop of guards belonging to the earl, and composed an humourous piece entitled the Character of a Trooper. About the time he was supported by his lordship, he was made master of the revels for the kingdom of Ireland, and built a little theatre for the representation of dramatic entertainments, in St. Warburgh's street in Dublin: but upon the breaking out of the rebellion in that kingdom, he was several times in great danger of his life, particularly when he narrowly escaped being blown up in the castle of Rathfarnam. About the time of the conclusion of the war in England, he left Ireland, and being shipwrecked, came to London in a very necessitous condition. After he had made a short stay in the metropolis, he travelled on foot to Cambridge, where his great industry, and love of learning, recommended him to the notice of several scholars, by whose assistance he became so compleat a master of the Latin tongue, that in 1646 he published an English translation of Virgil, which was printed in large 8vo. and dedicated to William marquis of Hereford. He reprinted it at London 1654 in fol. with this title; The Works of Publius Virgilius Maro, translated and adorned with Sculptures, and illustrated with Annotations; which, Mr. Wood tells us, was the fairest edition, that till then, the English press ever produced. About the year 1654 our indefatigable author learned the Greek language, and in four year's time published in fol. a translation of Homer's Iliad, adorned with excellent sculptures, illustrated [267] with Annotations, and addressed to King Charles II. The same year he published the Bible in a large fol. at Cambridge, according to the translation set forth by the special command of King James I. with the Liturgy and Articles of the Church of England, with Chorographical Sculptures. About the year 1662 he went into Ireland, then having obtained a patent to be made master of the revels there, a place which Sir William Davenant sollicited in vain. Upon this occasion he built a theatre at Dublin, which cost him 2000 l. the former being ruined during the troubles. In 1664 he published in London, in fol. a translation of Homer's Odyssey, with Sculptures, and Notes. He afterwards wrote two heroic poems, one entitled the Ephesian Matron, the other the Roman Slave, both dedicated to Thomas earl of Ossory. The next work he composed was an Epic Poem in 12 Books, in honour of King Charles I. but this was entirely lost in the fire of London in September 1666, when Mr. Ogilby's house in White Fryars was burnt down, and his whole fortune, except to the value of five pounds, destroyed. But misfortunes seldom had any irretrievable consequences to Ogilby, for by his insinuating address, and most astonishing industry, he was soon able to repair whatever loss he sustained by any cross accident. It was not long till he fell on a method of raising a fresh sum of money. Procuring his house to be rebuilt, he set up a printing-office, was appointed his Majesty's Cosmographer and Geographic Printer, and printed many great works translated and collected by himself and his assistants, the enumeration of which would be unnecessary and tedious.
In his lordship's family, he first showed his passion for poetry by translating some of Aesop's Fables into English verse, which he shared with some scholars who understood Latin better than he did. With their help and advice, he published them. He was part of the earl's guard and wrote a humorous piece called the Character of a Trooper. Around the time he received support from his lordship, he became the master of revels for the kingdom of Ireland and built a small theater on St. Warburgh's Street in Dublin for dramatic performances. However, when the rebellion broke out in that kingdom, he faced several life-threatening situations, especially when he narrowly escaped being blown up in the castle of Rathfarnham. After the war in England ended, he left Ireland and was shipwrecked, arriving in London in desperate circumstances. After a brief stay in the city, he walked to Cambridge, where his hard work and love of learning caught the attention of several scholars, who helped him become so proficient in Latin that in 1646, he published an English translation of Virgil, printed in large 8vo, and dedicated to William, Marquis of Hereford. He reprinted this in London in 1654 in folio under the title: The Works of Publius Virgilius Maro, translated and adorned with sculptures, and illustrated with annotations; which, according to Mr. Wood, was the finest edition produced by the English press up to that point. Around 1654, our tireless author learned Greek, and in four years published a translation of Homer's Iliad in folio, adorned with excellent sculptures, illustrated with annotations, and addressed to King Charles II. That same year, he published the Bible in a large folio at Cambridge, following the translation commissioned by King James I, along with the Liturgy and Articles of the Church of England, featuring chorographical sculptures. By 1662, he went to Ireland after obtaining a patent to become master of the revels there, a position that Sir William Davenant had sought in vain. On this occasion, he built a theater in Dublin, which cost him £2000, as the previous one had been destroyed during the turmoil. In 1664, he published in London, in folio, a translation of Homer's Odyssey, complete with sculptures and notes. He later wrote two epic poems, one titled the Ephesian Matron and the other the Roman Slave, both dedicated to Thomas, Earl of Ossory. His next work was an epic poem in 12 books honoring King Charles I, but this was completely lost in the Great Fire of London in September 1666, when Mr. Ogilby's house in White Fryars burned down, taking all his wealth except for five pounds. However, misfortunes rarely had lasting consequences for Ogilby; through his charming demeanor and incredible work ethic, he quickly found ways to recover from any setbacks he faced. It didn't take long before he discovered a way to raise new funds. He had his house rebuilt, set up a printing office, was appointed the king's Cosmographer and Geographic Printer, and printed many significant works that he translated and compiled himself, though listing them all would be excessive and tedious.
This laborious man died September 4, 1676, and was interred in the vault under part of the church in St. Bride's in Fleet-street. Mr. Edward Philips in [268] his Theatrum Poetarum stiles him one of the prodigies, from producing, after so late an initiation into literature, so many large and learned volumes, as well in verse as in prose, and tells us, that his Paraphrase upon Æsop's Fables, is generally confessed to have exceeded whatever hath been done before in that kind.
This hardworking man died on September 4, 1676, and was buried in the vault beneath part of St. Bride's Church in Fleet Street. Mr. Edward Philips in [268] his Theatrum Poetarum refers to him as one of the wonders of his time, for producing so many substantial and knowledgeable volumes in both verse and prose, especially after starting his literary career so late. He also notes that his Paraphrase on Æsop's Fables is widely acknowledged to have surpassed anything previously created in that genre.
As to our author's poetry, we have the authority of Mr. Pope to pronounce it below criticism, at least his translations; and in all probability his original epic poems which we have never seen, are not much superior to his translations of Homer and Virgil. If Ogilby had not a poetical genius, he was notwithstanding a man of parts, and made an amazing proficiency in literature, by the force of an unwearied application. He cannot be sufficiently commended for his virtuous industry, as well as his filial piety, in procuring, in so early a time of life, his father's liberty, when he was confined in a prison.
As for our author's poetry, we have Mr. Pope's endorsement to say it's beyond criticism, at least his translations; and it's likely that his original epic poems, which we’ve never seen, aren’t much better than his translations of Homer and Virgil. If Ogilby didn't have a poetic talent, he was still a capable individual and made impressive progress in literature through relentless hard work. He deserves high praise for his dedicated effort, as well as his devotion to his family, in securing his father's freedom when he was imprisoned at such an early age.
Ogilby seems indeed to have been a good sort of man, and to have recommended himself to the world by honest means, without having recourse to the servile arts of flattery, and the blandishments of falshood. He is an instance of the astonishing efficacy of application; had some more modern poets been blessed with a thousandth part of his oeconomy and industry, they needed not to have lived in poverty, and died of want. Although Ogilby cannot be denominated a genius, yet he found means to make a genteel livelihood by literature, which many of the sons of Parnassus, blessed with superior powers, curse as a very dry and unpleasing soil, but which proceeds more from want of culture, than native barrenness.
Ogilby seems to have been a genuinely good person who gained respect in the world through honest means, without resorting to flattery or deceit. He exemplifies the incredible power of hard work; if some more modern poets had just a fraction of his discipline and dedication, they wouldn’t have had to live in poverty and die from lack. While Ogilby might not be considered a genius, he managed to earn a respectable living from literature—a feat that many talented poets, who often complain about the unyielding nature of the literary world, might achieve if they tended to it more carefully rather than blaming it for their struggles.
Wilmot, Earl of Rochester.
It is an observation founded on experience, that the poets have, of all other men, been most addicted to the gratifications of appetite, and have pursued pleasure with more unwearied application than men of other characters. In this respect they are indeed unhappy, and have ever been more subject to pity than envy. A violent love of pleasure, if it does not destroy, yet, in a great measure, enervates all other good qualities with which a man may be endowed; and as no men have ever enjoyed higher parts from nature, than the poets, so few, from this unhappy attachment to pleasure, have effected so little good by those amazing powers. Of the truth of this observation, the nobleman, whose memoirs we are now to present to the reader, is a strong and indelible instance, for few ever had more ability, and more frequent opportunities, for promoting the interests of society, and none ever prostituted the gifts of Heaven to a more inglorious purpose. Lord Rochester was not more remarkable for the superiority of his parts, than the extraordinary debauchery of his life, and with his dissipations of pleasure, he suffered sometimes malevolent principles to govern him, and was equally odious for malice and envy, as for the boundless gratifications of his appetites.
It’s an observation based on experience that poets, more than anyone else, are the most indulgent when it comes to satisfying their desires, and they chase pleasure with more relentless enthusiasm than people of other professions. In this way, they are truly unhappy and have always been more deserving of pity than envy. A strong craving for pleasure can weaken all the other good qualities a person may have, even if it doesn’t completely destroy them. No one has ever been more naturally gifted than poets, yet very few have accomplished much good due to their unfortunate fixation on pleasure. A strong and lasting example of this truth is the nobleman we’re about to introduce to the reader, as few have had more talent and more frequent chances to benefit society, and none have squandered Heaven’s gifts for such a disgraceful purpose. Lord Rochester was as known for his exceptional talents as he was for his outrageous hedonism, and amidst his pursuit of pleasure, he occasionally allowed malicious tendencies to control him, being equally detestable for his bitterness and envy as for his insatiable cravings.
This is, no doubt, the character of his lordship, confirmed by all who have transmitted any [270] account of him: but if his life was supremely wicked, his death was exemplarily pious; before he approached to the conclusion of his days, he saw the follies of his former pleasures, he lived to repent with the severest contrition, and charity obliges all men to believe that he was as sincere in his protestations of penitence, as he had been before in libertine indulgence. The apparent sorrow he felt, arising from the stings and compunctions of conscience, entitle him to the reader's compassion, and has determined us to represent his errors with all imaginable tenderness; which, as it is agreeable to every benevolent man, so his lordship has a right to this indulgence, since he obliterated his faults by his penitence, and became so conspicuous an evidence on the side of virtue, by his important declarations against the charms of vice.
This is definitely the character of his lordship, confirmed by everyone who has given any [270] account of him: but while his life was extremely wicked, his death was notably pious. Before he reached the end of his days, he recognized the foolishness of his former pleasures, lived to truly repent with deep regret, and charity compels everyone to believe that he was as sincere in his expressions of remorse as he had been earlier in his excessive indulgence. The apparent sorrow he felt, stemming from the guilt and pain of his conscience, earns him the reader's compassion, and has led us to depict his mistakes with all possible sensitivity; which is agreeable to every kind person. His lordship deserves this leniency since he erased his faults through his repentance and became a significant example on the side of virtue with his strong statements against the allure of vice.
Lord Rochester was son of the gallant Henry lord Wilmot, who engaged with great zeal in the service of King Charles I. during the civil wars, and was so much in favour with Charles II. that he entrusted his person to him, after the unfortunate battle of Worcester, which trust he discharged with so much fidelity and address, that the young King was conveyed out of England into France, chiefly by his care, application and vigilance. The mother of our author was of the ancient family of the St. Johns in Wiltshire, and has been celebrated both for her beauty and parts.
Lord Rochester was the son of the brave Henry, Lord Wilmot, who passionately served King Charles I during the civil wars. He was held in such high regard by Charles II that the king entrusted his safety to him after the disastrous battle of Worcester. Lord Wilmot handled this responsibility with such loyalty and skill that the young king was able to escape from England to France mostly thanks to his efforts, dedication, and attentiveness. The author’s mother came from the old St. John family in Wiltshire and was known for both her beauty and intelligence.
In the year 1648, distinguished to posterity, by the fall of Charles I. who suffered on a scaffold erected before the window of his own palace, our author was born at Dichley, near Woodstock, in the same county, the scene of many of his pleasures, and of his death. His lordship's father had the misfortune to reap none of the rewards of suffering loyalty, for he died in 1660, immediately before the restoration, leaving his son as the [271] principal part of his inheritance, his titles, honours, and the merit of those extraordinary services he had done the crown; but though lord Wilmot left his son but a small estate, yet he did not suffer in his education by these means, for the oeconomy of his mother supplied that deficiency, and he was educated suitable to his quality. When he was at school (it is agreed by all his biographers) he gave early instances of a readiness of wit; and those shining parts which have since appeared with so much lustre, began then to shew themselves: he acquired the Latin to such perfection, that, to his dying day, he retained a great relish for the masculine firmness, as well as more elegant beauties of that language, and was, says Dr. Burnet, 'exactly versed in those authors who were the ornaments of the court of Augustus, which he read often with the peculiar delight which the greatest wits have often found in those studies.' When he went to the university, the general joy which over-ran the nation upon his Majesty's return, amounted to something like distraction, and soon spread a very malignant influence through all ranks of life. His lordship tasted the pleasures of libertinism, which then broke out in a full tide, with too acute a relish, and was almost overwhelmed in the abyss of wantonness. His tutor was Dr. Blandford, afterwards promoted to the sees of Oxford and Worcester, and under his inspection he was committed to the more immediate care of Phinehas Berry, fellow of Wadham College, a man of learning and probity, whom his lordship afterwards treated with much respect, and rewarded as became a great man; but notwithstanding the care of his tutor, he had so deeply engaged in the dissipations of the general jubilee, that he could not be prevailed upon to renew his studies, which were totally lost in [272] the joys more agreeable to his inclination. He never thought of resuming again the pursuit of knowledge, 'till the fine address of his governor, Dr. Balfour, won him in his travels, by degrees, to those charms of study, which he had through youthful levity forsaken, and being seconded by reason, now more strong, and a more mature taste of the pleasure of learning, which the Dr. took care to place in the most agreeable and advantageous light, he became enamoured of knowledge, in the pursuit of which he often spent those hours he sometimes stole from the witty, and the fair. He returned from his travels in the 18th year of his age, and appeared at court with as great advantage as any young nobleman ever did. He had a graceful and well proportioned person, was master of the most refined breeding, and possessed a very obliging and easy manner. He had a vast vivacity of thought, and a happy flow of expression, and all who conversed with him entertained the highest opinion of his understanding; and 'tis indeed no wonder he was so much caressed at a court which abounded with men of wit, countenanced by a merry prince, who relished nothing so much as brilliant conversation.
In 1648, famously marked by the execution of Charles I, who was killed on a scaffold set up outside his own palace, our author was born in Dichley, near Woodstock, in the same county that witnessed many of his joys and his death. His father had the misfortune of not reaping any rewards for his loyal suffering, as he died in 1660, just before the restoration, leaving his son as the [271] main part of his inheritance, along with titles, honors, and the accolades for his remarkable service to the crown. Although Lord Wilmot left his son with only a small estate, it didn't compromise his education, thanks to his mother’s management, and he was educated in a manner suitable for his status. When he was in school, it is widely agreed by his biographers that he showed early signs of wit and brilliance that would later shine through. He mastered Latin to such a degree that, until his dying day, he appreciated both the strength and the elegant beauty of the language. Dr. Burnet noted that he was “exactly versed in those authors who were the gems of Augustus's court, which he read often with the same delight that the greatest minds have found in those studies.” When he went to university, the nation erupted in joy over his Majesty's return, to a point that felt almost frenzied, creating a negative influence across all levels of society. Lord Wilmot indulged in the pleasures of libertinism, which were rampant at the time, and he was nearly consumed by a world of excess. His tutor was Dr. Blandford, who later became bishop of Oxford and Worcester, and under his guidance, he was placed in the care of Phinehas Berry, a fellow of Wadham College, known for his learning and integrity. Lord Wilmot treated him with much respect and rewarded him as fit for a great man; however, despite his tutor's efforts, he became so caught up in the celebrations of the jubilee that he neglected his studies, which were completely overshadowed by pleasures more to his taste. He did not think of resuming his pursuit of knowledge until the gentle persuasion of Dr. Balfour, his governor during his travels, gradually rekindled his interest in study, which he had abandoned due to youthful frivolity. With reason now more developed and a deeper appreciation for the joy of learning—skillfully presented by the doctor—he fell in love with knowledge, often spending hours he stole from socializing with witty companions and engaging women. He returned from his travels at the age of 18, making his debut at court with great distinction, rivaling any young nobleman before him. He had a graceful and well-proportioned figure, exhibited refined manners, and had a charming and approachable demeanor. He possessed a lively intellect and a natural eloquence, earning the highest regard from everyone he interacted with. It’s no surprise that he was so popular in a court full of clever individuals, backed by a jovial prince who valued brilliant conversation above all.
Soon after his lordship's return from his travels, he took the first occasion that offered, to hazard his life in the service of his country.
Soon after his lordship returned from his travels, he seized the first opportunity that arose to put his life on the line for the sake of his country.
In the winter of the year 1665 he went to sea, with the earl of Sandwich, when he was sent out against the Dutch East India fleet, and was in the ship called the Revenge, commanded by Sir Thomas Tiddiman, when the attack was made on the port of Bergen in Norway, the Dutch Ships having got into that port. It was, says Burnet, 'as desperate an attempt as ever was made, and during the whole action, the earl of Rochester shewed as brave and resolute a courage as possible. A person of honour told me he heard the [273] lord Clifford, who was in the same ship, often magnify his courage at that time very highly; nor did the rigour of the season, the hardness of the voyage, and the extreme danger he had been in, deter him from running the like the very next occasion; for the summer following he went to sea again, without communicating his design to his nearest relations. He went aboard the ship commanded by Sir Edward Spragge, the day before the great sea-fight of that year; almost all the volunteers that went in that ship were killed. During the action, Sir Edward Spragge not being satisfied with the behaviour of one of the captains, could not easily find a person that would undertake to venture through so much danger to carry his command to the captain; this lord offered himself to the service, and went in a little boat, through all the shot, and delivered his message, and returned back to Sir Edward, which was much commended by all that saw it.' These are the early instances of courage, which can be produced in favour of lord Rochester, which was afterwards impeached, and very justly, for in many private broils, he discovered a timid pusillanimous spirit, very unsuitable to those noble instances of the contrary, which have just been mentioned.
In the winter of 1665, he went to sea with the Earl of Sandwich when they were sent against the Dutch East India fleet. He was on a ship called the Revenge, commanded by Sir Thomas Tiddiman, during the attack on the port of Bergen in Norway, where the Dutch ships had taken shelter. Burnet says it was "as desperate an attempt as ever was made, and throughout the whole engagement, the Earl of Rochester displayed the bravest and most resolute courage possible." A respected person told me he heard Lord Clifford, who was on the same ship, frequently praise his courage highly at that time. Despite the harsh conditions of winter, the difficulties of the voyage, and the extreme dangers he faced, he wasn't discouraged from jumping back into action at the next opportunity; the following summer, he went to sea again without telling his closest relatives. He boarded the ship commanded by Sir Edward Spragge the day before the major sea battle that year, and almost all the volunteers on that ship were killed. During the battle, Sir Edward, dissatisfied with one captain's performance, struggled to find someone willing to risk their life to deliver a command to him. This lord offered himself for the task, went in a small boat through heavy fire, delivered his message, and returned to Sir Edward, which earned him many commendations from onlookers. These are early instances of courage in favor of Lord Rochester, who was later impeached, and rightly so, as in many personal conflicts he showed a timid, cowardly spirit, which was very inconsistent with the noble examples just mentioned.
The author of his life prefixed to his works, which goes under the name of M. St. Evremond, addressed to the Duchess of Mazarine, but which M. Maizeau asserts not to be his, accounts for it, upon the general observation of that disparity between a man and himself, upon different occasions. Let it suffice, says he, 'to observe, that we differ not from one another, more than we do from ourselves at different times.' But we imagine another, and a stronger reason may be given, for the cowardice which Rochester afterwards [274] discovered in private broils, particularly in the affair between him and the earl of Mulgrave, in which he behaved very meanly[1]. The courage which lord Rochester shewed in a naval engagement, was in the early part of his life, before he had been immersed in those labyrinths of excess and luxury, into which he afterwards sunk. It is certainly a true observation, that guilt makes cowards; a man who is continually subjected to the reproaches of conscience, who is afraid to examine his heart, lest it should appear too horrible, cannot have much courage: for while he is conscious of so many errors to be repented of, of so many vices he has committed, he naturally starts at danger, and flies from it as his greatest enemy. It is true, courage is sometimes constitutional, and there have been instances of men, guilty of every enormity, who have discovered a large share of it, but these have been wretches who have overcome all sense of honour, been lost to every consideration of virtue, and whose courage is like that of the lion of the desart, a kind of ferocious impulse unconnected with reason. Lord Rochester had certainly never overcome the reproaches of his conscience, whose alarming voice at last struck terror into his heart, and chilled the fire of the spirits.
The author of his life, who goes by M. St. Evremond, wrote a preface to his works addressed to the Duchess of Mazarine, although M. Maizeau claims it’s not actually his. He talks about the general observation of the difference that exists between a person and their own self at different times. He suggests that we don’t differ from each other any more than we differ from ourselves at various points in time. However, I believe there’s another, stronger explanation for the cowardice that Rochester later showed in private fights, especially in the incident with the Earl of Mulgrave, where he acted very poorly. The courage that Lord Rochester displayed during a naval battle was in the earlier part of his life, before he got lost in the excesses and luxuries that later consumed him. It’s definitely true that guilt turns people into cowards; a person who constantly faces their conscience’s accusations, who’s afraid to look into their heart for fear of what they might find, can’t have much courage. As long as they're aware of their many regrets and the wrongs they’ve committed, they instinctively flinch at danger and see it as their worst enemy. It’s also true that courage can sometimes be inherent, and there have been cases of individuals guilty of numerous atrocities who still show a significant amount of bravery. These people, however, are typically those who have completely disregarded any sense of honor, lost all consideration for virtue, and whose bravery resembles that of a desert lion—a kind of wild instinct that has no connection to reason. Lord Rochester never truly overcame the accusations of his conscience, whose terrifying voice eventually filled him with dread and extinguished the fire in his spirit.
Since his travels, and naval expeditions, he seemed to have contracted a habit of temperance, in which had he been so happy as to persevere, he must have escaped that fatal rock, on which he afterwards split, upon his return to court, where love and pleasure kept their perpetual rounds, under the smiles of a prince, whom nature had fitted for all the enjoyments of the most luxurious desires. In times so dissolute as these, it is no wonder if a man of so warm a constitution as Rochester, could not resist the [275] too flattering temptations, which were heightened by the participation of the court in general. The uncommon charms of Rochester's conversation, induced all men to court him as a companion, tho' they often paid too dear for their curiosity, by being made the subject of his lampoons, if they happened to have any oddities in their temper, by the exposing of which he could humour his propensity to scandal. His pleasant extravagancies soon became the subject of general conversation, by which his vanity was at once flattered, and his turn of satire rendered more keen, by the success it met with.
Since his travels and naval expeditions, he seemed to have developed a habit of moderation. If he had been fortunate enough to stick with it, he could have avoided that deadly rock he later crashed on when he returned to court, where love and pleasure were always in full swing, under the approval of a prince designed for all the pleasures of luxurious desires. In such a carefree time, it's no surprise that a man with a passionate nature like Rochester couldn't resist the tempting offers from the court. The unique charm of Rochester's conversation drew everyone to seek him out as a companion, though they often paid a hefty price for their curiosity, becoming the target of his satirical jabs if they had any quirks in their personality that he could mock. His amusing eccentricities quickly became the talk of the town, which both flattered his ego and sharpened his edge in satire due to the attention it received.
Rochester had certainly a true talent for satire, and he spared neither friends nor foes, but let it loose on all without discrimination. Majesty itself was not secure from it; he more than once lampooned the King, whose weakness and attachment to some of his mistresses, he endeavoured to cure by several means, that is, either by winning them from him, in spite of the indulgence and liberality they felt from a royal gallant, or by severely lampooning them and him on various occasions; which the King, who was a man of wit and pleasure, as well as his lordship, took for the natural sallies of his genius, and meant rather as the amusements of his fancy, than as the efforts of malice; yet, either by a too frequent repetition, or a too close and poignant virulence, the King banished him from the court for a satire made directly on him; this satire consists of 28 stanzas, and is entitled The Restoration, or the History of the Insipids; and as it contains the keenest reflexions against the political conduct, and private character of that Prince, and having produced the banishment of this noble lord, we shall here give it a place, by which his lordship's genius for this kind of writing will appear.
Rochester definitely had a real talent for satire, and he didn’t hold back on anyone, targeting both friends and enemies alike. Even the King wasn’t safe from his critiques; he mocked the King multiple times, trying to remedy his weaknesses and infatuations with various mistresses. He did this either by trying to win these women over himself, despite how pampered and cherished they felt in the presence of a royal lover, or by ridiculing both them and the King on different occasions. The King, who enjoyed wit and pleasure just like Rochester did, viewed these attacks as the natural outbursts of genius, seeing them more as playful whims than acts of malice. However, due to the frequency and sharpness of Rochester's satire, the King eventually exiled him from court over a specific piece aimed at him. This satire, made up of 28 stanzas, is called The Restoration, or the History of the Insipids. Since it contains some of the sharpest critiques against the King’s political actions and personal character, and because it led to Rochester's banishment, we will include it here to showcase his flair for this style of writing.
The RESTORATION, or The History of INSIPIDS, a Satire.
I.
Chaste, pious, prudent, Charles the second,
The miracle of thy restoration,
May like to that of quails be reckon'd,
Rain'd on the Israelitish nation;
The wish'd for blessing from Heaven sent,
Became their curse and punishment.
Chaste, devout, wise, Charles the second,
The blessing of your return,
Can be compared to the quails,
That fell upon the Israelite nation;
The hoped-for blessing sent from Heaven
Ended up being their curse and punishment.
II.
The virtues in thee, Charles, inherent,
Altho' thy count'nance be an odd piece,
Prove thee as true a God's Vicegerent,
As e'er was Harry with his cod-piece:
For chastity, and pious deeds,
His grandsire Harry Charles exceeds.
The qualities in you, Charles, are natural,
Even though your face is pretty unique,
Show that you are a true representative of God,
Just like Harry was with his codpiece: __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__
For purity and good actions,
His grandfather Harry surpasses Charles.
III.
Our Romish bondage-breaker Harry,
Espoused half a dozen wives.
Charles only one resolv'd to marry,
And other mens he never ——;
Yet has he sons and daughters more
Than e'er had Harry by threescore.
Our Catholic freedom fighter Harry,
Married six wives.
Charles decided to marry just one,
And never took someone else's —;
Yet he has more sons and daughters
Than Harry ever had by sixty.
IV.
Never was such a faith's defender;
He like a politic Prince, and pious,
Gives liberty to conscience tender,
And does to no religion tie us;
Jews, Christians, Turks, Papists, he'll please us
With Moses, Mahomet, or Jesus.
Never was there a defender of faith like him;
He’s like a wise and devoted leader,
Who allows freedom for sensitive beliefs,
And doesn't impose any religion on us;
Jews, Christians, Muslims, Catholics, he’ll satisfy us
With Moses, Muhammad, or Jesus.
V.
In all affairs of church or state
He very zealous is, and able,
Devout at pray'rs, and sits up late
At the cabal and council-table.
His very dog, at council-board,
Sits grave and wise as any lord.
In all matters of church or state
He is very enthusiastic and skilled,
Devout in prayer, and stays up late
At the meetings and council table.
Even his dog, at the council board,
Sits serious and wise like any lord.
VI.
Let Charles's policy no man flout,
The wisest Kings have all some folly;
Nor let his piety any doubt;
Charles, like a Sov'reign, wise and holy,
Makes young men judges of the bench,
And bishops, those that love a wench.
Let no one disrespect Charles's policy,
The wisest kings all have their own quirks;
And let's not question his piety;
Charles, like a wise and just ruler,
Makes young men judges of the court,
And bishops, those who love a woman.
VII.
His father's foes he does reward,
Preserving those that cut off's head;
Old cavaliers, the crown's best guard,
He lets them starve for want of bread.
Never was any King endow'd
With so much grace and gratitude.
His father's enemies he rewards,
Protecting those who killed him;
Old soldiers, the crown's best defense,
He lets them starve because there's no food.
Never has any King been blessed
With so much grace and gratitude.
VIII.
Blood, that wears treason in his face,
Villain compleat in parson's gown,
How much is he at court in grace,
For stealing Ormond and the crown!
Since loyalty does no man good,
Let's steal the King, and out-do Blood.
Blood, who wears treason on his face,
A total villain in a priest's robe,
How much does he charm the court,
For taking Ormond and the crown!
Since loyalty doesn't benefit anyone,
Let's steal the King and outsmart Blood.
IX.
A Parliament of knaves and sots
(Members by name you must not mention)
He keeps in pay, and buys their votes,
Here with a place, there with a pension:
[278]
When to give money he can't cologue 'em,
He does with scorn prorogue, prorogue 'em.
A parliament of tricksters and fools
(Do not mention the names of the members)
He pays them off and buys their votes,
Here with a job, there with a pension:
[278]
When he can’t buy them off, he just dismisses them,
He treats them with contempt and puts them off.
X.
But they long since, by too much giving,
Undid, betray'd, and sold the nation,
Making their memberships a living,
Better than e'er was sequestration.
God give thee, Charles, a resolution
To damn the knaves by dissolution.
But they have long ago, by giving too much,
Undone, betrayed, and sold the country,
Turning their memberships into a profit,
Better than any exile ever could be.
God grant you, Charles, a strong will
To get rid of the scoundrels by dissolving them.
XI.
Fame is not grounded on success,
Tho' victories were Cæsar's glory;
Lost battles make not Pompey less,
But left him stiled great in story.
Malicious fate does oft devise
To beat the brave, and fool the wise.
Fame isn't based on success,
Even though victories were Cæsar's pride;
Lost battles don't make Pompey less,
But he is still remembered as great in stories.
Malicious fate often plans
To defeat the brave and trick the wise.
XII.
Charles in the first Dutch war stood fair
To have been Sov'reign of the deep,
When Opdam blew up in the air,
Had not his Highness gone to sleep:
Our fleet slack'd sails, fearing his waking,
The Dutch had else been in sad taking.
Charles in the first Dutch war was on track
To become the leader of the sea,
When Opdam exploded in the sky,
If only his Highness hadn't fallen asleep:
Our fleet eased up on the sails, worried about him waking,
The Dutch would have otherwise been in serious trouble.
XIII.
The Bergen business was well laid,
Tho' we paid dear for that design;
Had we not three days parling staid,
The Dutch fleet there, Charles, had been thine:
Tho' the false Dane agreed to fell 'em,
He cheated us, and saved Skellum.
The Bergen deal was solid,
Even though we spent a lot on that plan;
If we hadn’t spent three days negotiating,
The Dutch fleet could have been yours, Charles:
Even though the deceitful Dane promised to sell them,
He tricked us and saved Skellum.
XIV.
Had not Charles sweetly chous'd the States,
By Bergen-baffle grown more wise;
And made 'em shit as small as rats,
By their rich Smyrna fleet's surprise:
Had haughty Holmes, but call'd in Spragg,
Hans had been put into a bag.
Had Charles not sweetly fooled the States,
By Bergen's tricks became smarter;
And made them scared like little rats,
By the unexpected arrival of their wealthy Smyrna fleet:
Had proud Holmes just called in Spragg,
Hans would have been thrown into a bag.
XV.
Mists, storms, short victuals, adverse winds,
And once the navy's wise division,
Defeated Charles's best designs,
'Till he became his foes derision:
But he had swing'd the Dutch at Chatham,
Had he had ships but to come at 'em.
Mists, storms, limited supplies, unfavorable winds,
And once the navy's smart strategy,
Ruined Charles's best plans,
Until he became a punchline for his enemies:
But he could have beaten the Dutch at Chatham,
If he had just had the ships to reach them.
XVI.
Our Black-Heath host, without dispute,
(Rais'd, put on board, why? no man knows)
Must Charles have render'd absolute
Over his subjects, or his foes:
Has not the French King made us fools,
By taking Maestricht with our tools?
Our Black-Heath host, without a doubt,
(Raised, put on board, why? Nobody knows)
Must Charles have completely surrendered
To his subjects or his enemies:
Hasn't the French King made us look foolish,
By capturing Maestricht using our resources?
XVII.
But Charles, what could thy policy be,
To run so many sad disasters;
To join thy fleet with false d'Estrees
To make the French of Holland masters?
Was't Carewell, brother James, or Teague,
That made thee break the Triple League?
But Charles, what could your plan be,
To deal with so many unfortunate events;
To team up with the deceitful d'Estrees
To make the French the ruling power in Holland?
Was it Carewell, brother James, or Teague,
That caused you to break the Triple League?
XVIII.
Could Robin Viner have foreseen
The glorious triumphs of his master;
The Wool-Church statue Gold had been,
Which now is made of Alabaster.
[280]
But wise men think had it been wood,
'Twere for a bankrupt King too good.
Could Robin Viner have predicted
The amazing victories of his master;
The Wool-Church statue that was once Gold,
Now made of alabaster.
[280]
But wise folks say had it been wood,
It would have been too good for a bankrupt King.
XIX.
Those that the fabric well consider.
Do of it diversly discourse;
Some pass their censure on the rider,
Others their judgment on the horse.
Most say, the steed's a goodly thing,
But all agree, 'tis a lewd King.
Those who think about the fabric well.
Talk about it in different ways;
Some criticize the rider,
People judge the horse.
Most agree the steed is a fine animal,
But everyone agrees, it's a wicked King.
XX.
By the lord mayor and his grave coxcombs,
Freeman of London, Charles is made;
Then to Whitehall a rich Gold box comes,
Which was bestow'd on the French jade[2]:
But wonder not it should be so, sirs,
When Monarchs rank themselves with Grocers.
By the lord mayor and his serious fools,
Freeman of London, Charles is honored;
Then a fancy gold box arrives at Whitehall,
Which was given to the French woman __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__:
But don’t be surprised that it’s like this, gentlemen,
When kings place themselves alongside grocers.
XXI.
Cringe, scrape no more, ye city-fops,
Leave off your feasting and fine speeches;
Beat up your drums, shut up your shops,
The courtiers then will kiss your breeches.
Arm'd, tell the Popish Duke that rules,
You're free-born subjects, not French mules.
Cringe and scrape no more, you city types,
Stop your eating and grand speeches;
Beat your drums, close your shops,
Then the courtiers will kiss your pants.
Get ready, tell the Catholic Duke in charge,
You’re free-born citizens, not French mules.
XXII.
New upstarts, bastards, pimps, and whores,
That, locust-like, devour the land,
By shutting up th'Exchequer-doors,
When there our money was trapann'd,
Have render'd Charles's restoration
But a small blessing to the nation.
New upstarts, illegitimate children, pimps, and prostitutes,
They swarm like locusts, devouring the land,
By closing the Exchequer doors,
Where our money got taken,
Have made Charles's return
Only a minor blessing for the nation.
XXIII.
Then, Charles, beware thy brother York,
Who to thy government gives law;
If once we fall to the old sport,
You must again both to Breda;
Where, spite of all that would restore you,
Grown wise by wrongs, we should abhor you.
Then, Charles, watch out for your brother York,
Who will set your rule;
If we slip back into the old game,
You need to go back to Breda;
Where, despite everything that would help you,
Having learned from our wrongs, we should hate you.
XXIV.
If, of all Christian blood the guilt
Cries loud of vengeance unto Heav'n,
That sea by treach'rous Lewis spilt,
Can never be by God forgiv'n:
Worse scourge unto his subjects, lord!
Than pest'lence, famine, fire, or sword.
If all the guilt from Christian blood
Calls out for revenge to Heaven,
That sea spilled by treacherous Lewis
Can never be forgiven by God:
A worse curse upon his people, lord!
Than plague, famine, fire, or sword.
XXV.
That false rapacious wolf of France,
The scourge of Europe, and its curse,
Who at his subjects cries does dance,
And studies how to make them worse;
To say such Kings, Lord, rule by thee,
Were most prodigious blasphemy.
That deceitful, greedy wolf of France,
The plague in Europe and its curse,
Who dances while crying to his subjects,
And finds ways to make them suffer even more;
To claim that such Kings rule by you,
Would be an outrageous blasphemy.
XXVI.
Such know no law, but their own lust;
Their subjects substance, and their blood,
They count it tribute due and just,
Still spent and spilt for subjects good.
If such Kings are by God appointed,
The devil may be the Lord's anointed.
Such people know no law except their own desires;
They take into account their subjects' resources and lives,
As a tribute that is owed and fair,
Constantly wasted and spilled for the sake of the subjects.
If such kings are chosen by God,
Then the devil might as well be God's chosen one.
XXVII.
Such Kings! curs'd be the pow'r and name,
Let all the world henceforth abhor 'em;
Monsters, which knaves sacred proclaim,
And then, like slaves, fall down before 'em.
[282]
What can there be in Kings divine?
The most are wolves, goats, sheep, or swine.
Such kings! Cursed be their power and name,
Let the whole world hate them from now on;
Monsters that fools claim are sacred,
And then, like servants, bow down before them.
[282]
What could possibly be divine about kings?
Most are wolves, goats, sheep, or pigs.
XXVIII.
Then farewel, sacred Majesty,
Let's pull all brutish tyrants down;
Where men are born, and still live free,
There ev'ry head doth wear a crown:
Mankind, like miserable frogs,
Prove wretched, king'd by storks and dogs.
Then farewell, sacred Majesty,
Let's take down all the cruel tyrants;
Where people are born and still live free,
Everyone wears a crown here:
Humans, like miserable frogs,
Prove wretched, ruled by storks and dogs.
Much about this time the duke of Buckingham was under disgrace, for things of another nature, and being disengaged from any particular attachment in town, he and lord Rochester resolved, like Don Quixote of old, to set out in quest of adventures; and they met with some that will appear entertaining to our readers, which we shall give upon the authority of the author of Rochester's Life, prefixed to his works. Among many other adventures the following was one:
Around this time, the Duke of Buckingham was in disgrace for other reasons, and since he wasn't tied down to any particular relationship in town, he and Lord Rochester decided, like Don Quixote of old, to set off in search of adventures. They encountered some that will be entertaining for our readers, which we will share based on the account from the author of Rochester's Life, which is included with his works. Among many other adventures, the following was one:
There happened to be an inn on New-market road to be lett, they disguised themselves in proper habits for the persons they were to assume, and jointly took this inn, in which each in his turn officiated as master; but they soon made this subservient to purposes of another nature.
There was an inn available on New-market road that was up for rent. They dressed in appropriate clothing for the roles they were going to play and together rented this inn, where each took turns acting as the owner. However, they quickly began using it for other purposes.
Having carefully observed the pretty girls in the country with whom they were most captivated, (they considered not whether maids, wives, or widows) and to gain opportunities of seducing them, they invited the neighbours, who had either wives or daughters, to frequent feasts, where the men were plied hard with good liquor, and the women sufficiently warmed to make but as little resistance as would be agreeable to their inclinations, dealing out their poison to both sexes, inspiring the men with wine, and other [283] strong liquors, and the women with love; thus they were able to deflower many a virgin, and alienate the affections of many a wife by this odd stratagem; and it is difficult to say, whether it is possible for two men to live to a worse purpose.
Having carefully watched the attractive girls in the countryside who captivated them (not caring whether they were maids, wives, or widows), they looked for chances to seduce them. They invited neighbors with wives or daughters to frequent feasts, where the men were served plenty of strong drinks and the women were warmed up enough to be easy to influence, catering to both genders, making men drunk with wine and other [283] strong liquors, while making women feel love; thus, they were able to deflower many virgins and disrupt the affections of many wives with this strange tactic. It’s hard to say if it's possible for two men to have a worse agenda.
It is natural to imagine that this kind of life could not be of long duration. Feasts so frequently given, and that without any thing to pay, must give a strong suspicion that the inn-keepers must soon break, or that they were of such fortune and circumstances, as did not well suit the post they were in.—This their lordships were sensible of, but not much concerned about it, since they were seldom found long to continue in the same sort of adventures, variety being the life of their enjoyments. It was besides, near the time of his Majesty's going to Newmarket, when they designed, that the discovery of their real plots, should clear them of the imputation of being concerned in any more pernicious to the government. These two conjectures meeting, they thought themselves obliged to dispatch two important adventures, which they had not yet been able to compass.—There was an old covetous miser in the neighbourhood, who notwithstanding his age, was in possession of a very agreeable young wife. Her husband watched her with the same assiduity he did his money, and never trusted her out of his sight, but under the protection of an old maiden sister, who never had herself experienced the joys of love, and bore no great benevolence to all who were young and handsome. Our noble inn-keepers had no manner of doubt of his accepting a treat, as many had done, for he loved good living with all his heart, when it cost him nothing; and except upon these occasions he was the most temperate and abstemious man alive; but then they could never prevail with him to bring his wife, [284] notwithstanding they urged the presence of so many good wives in the neighbourhood to keep her company. All their study was then how to deceive the old sister at home, who was set as a guardian over that fruit which the miser could neither eat himself, nor suffer any other to taste; but such a difficulty as this was soon to be overcome by such inventions. It was therefore agreed that lord Rochester should be dressed in woman's cloaths, and while the husband was feasting with my lord duke, he should make trial of his skill with the old woman at home. He had learned that she had no aversion to the bottle when she could come secretly and conveniently at it. Equipped like a country lass, and furnished with a bottle of spiritous liquors, he marched to the old miser's house. It was with difficulty he found means to speak with the old woman, but at last obtained the favour; where perfect in all the cant of those people, he began to tell the occasion of his coming, in hopes she would invite him to come in, but all in vain; he was admitted no further that the porch, with the house door a-jar: At last, my lord finding no other way, fell upon this expedient. He pretended to be taken suddenly ill, and tumbled down upon the threshold. This noise brings the young wife to them, who with much trouble persuades her keeper to help her into the house, in regard to the decorum of her sex, and the unhappy condition she was in. The door had not been long shut, till our imposter by degrees recovers, and being set on a chair, cants a very religious thanksgiving to the good gentlewoman for her kindness, and observed how deplorable it was to be subject to such fits, which often took her in the street, and exposed her to many accidents, but every now and then took a sip of the bottle, and recommended it to the old benefactress, who was sure [285] to drink a hearty dram. His lordship had another bottle in his pocket qualified with a Opium, which would sooner accomplish his desire, by giving the woman a somniferous dose, which drinking with greediness, she soon fell fast asleep.
It’s natural to think that this kind of lifestyle couldn’t last long. Holding feasts so often, and without anyone paying, obviously raises suspicions that the innkeepers would soon run out of funds or that they were in circumstances not suited for their roles. Their lordships understood this but weren’t overly worried, since they rarely stayed in the same kind of adventures for long; variety was the key to their enjoyment. Besides, it was close to the time when His Majesty was heading to Newmarket, and they planned for the discovery of their true intentions to clear them of any suspicions of being involved in something more harmful to the government. With these two thoughts in mind, they felt they should act on two important adventures they hadn’t yet managed to undertake. There was an old, greedy miser in the area who, despite his age, had a very charming young wife. He kept a close eye on her, just like he did with his money, never letting her out of his sight except when she was under the watchful gaze of an old spinster sister, who had never experienced the joys of love and harbored no goodwill toward anyone young and attractive. Our noble innkeepers had no doubt he would join them for a treat, as many others had, since he loved good food when it didn’t cost him anything; but aside from these occasions, he was the most temperate and ascetic man around. However, they could never convince him to bring his wife, even though they pointed out how many good wives lived nearby that could keep her company. Their main challenge was how to trick the old sister, who was like a guardian over the prize that the miser neither enjoyed himself nor allowed anyone else to experience. But an obstacle like this was quickly solvable with a bit of creativity. They agreed that Lord Rochester would dress as a woman, and while the husband was feasting with the duke, he would test his charm on the old woman at home. He learned that she didn’t mind a drink when she could have it discreetly. Dressed like a country girl and carrying a bottle of strong liquor, he made his way to the old miser’s house. It was hard for him to get a moment alone with the old woman, but he finally managed to get her attention; however, despite knowing all the local lingo, he could only make it to the porch, with the door slightly open. Eventually, finding no other way, he came up with a plan. He pretended to suddenly feel unwell and collapsed on the doorsteps. This commotion brought the young wife out, who, with much effort, convinced her guardian to let her inside, caring about the dignity of her gender and the unfortunate situation she was in. Once the door was closed, our imposter gradually recovered, and, once seated, expressed heartfelt thanks to the kind lady for her help, lamenting how unfortunate it was to suffer from such fits that could strike her in the street and lead to various mishaps. Every now and then, he took a sip from the bottle and urged the old benefactor to enjoy a hearty drink. His lordship also had another bottle in his pocket mixed with opium that would more swiftly achieve his goal, as it would quickly put the woman to sleep when consumed eagerly, and she soon fell deeply asleep.
His lordship having so far succeeded, and being fired with the presence of the young wife, for whom he had formed this odd scheme, his desires became impetuous, which produced a change of colour, and made the artless creature imagine the fit was returning. My lord then asked if she would be so charitable as to let him lie down on the bed; the good-natured young woman shewed him the way, and being laid down, and staying by him at his request, he put her in mind of her condition, asking about her husband, whom the young woman painted in his true colours, as a surly, jealous old tyrant. The rural innocent imagining she had only a woman with her, was less reserved in her behaviour and expressions on that account, and his lordship soon found that a tale of love would not be unpleasing to her. Being now no longer able to curb his appetite, which was wound up beyond the power of restraint, he declared his sex to her, and without much struggling enjoyed her.
His lordship had succeeded so far, and with the presence of the young wife, for whom he had created this strange plan, his desires became intense, causing a change in his demeanor that made the innocent girl think the fit was coming back. He then asked if she would be kind enough to let him lie down on the bed; the good-natured young woman showed him the way, and after lying down and staying by his request, he reminded her of her situation, inquiring about her husband. The young woman described her husband as a grumpy, jealous old tyrant. The naive girl, thinking she had only a woman with her, felt more relaxed in her behavior and expressions because of this, and his lordship quickly realized that a love story would be pleasing to her. Now unable to control his urges, which were heightened beyond his ability to resist, he revealed his identity to her and, without much hesitation, enjoyed her.
He now became as happy as indulgence could make him; and when the first transports were over, he contrived the escape of this young adultress from the prison of her keeper. She hearkened to his proposals with pleasure, and before the old gentlewoman was awake, she robbed her husband of an hundred and fifty pieces, and marched off with lord Rochester to the inn, about midnight.
He was now as happy as indulgence could make him, and when the initial excitement wore off, he planned the escape of this young adulteress from her keeper. She listened to his proposals with excitement, and before the old woman woke up, she stole one hundred and fifty pieces from her husband and left with Lord Rochester for the inn around midnight.
They were to pass over three or four fields before they could reach it, and in going over the last, they very nearly escaped falling into the enemy's [286] hands; but the voice of the husband discovering who he was, our adventurers struck down the field out of the path, and for the greater security lay down in the grass. The place, the occasion, and the person that was so near, put his lordship in mind of renewing his pleasure almost in sight of the cuckold. The fair was no longer coy, and easily yielded to his desires. He in short carried the girl home and then prostituted her to the duke's pleasure, after he had been cloyed himself. The old man going home, and finding his sitter asleep, his wife fled, and his money gone, was thrown into a state of madness, and soon hanged himself. The news was soon spread about the neighbourhood, and reached the inn, where both lovers, now as weary of their purchase as desirous of it before, advised her to go to London, with which she complied, and in all probability followed there the trade of prostitution for a subsistance.
They had to cross three or four fields before they could get there, and while crossing the last one, they almost ended up falling into the enemy's [286] hands. But as the husband realized who he was, our adventurers quickly veered off the path into the field and for extra safety, lay down in the grass. The situation, location, and the person so close by reminded him of the thrill of enjoying himself almost right in front of the cuckold. The girl was no longer shy and readily gave in to his desires. In the end, he took her home and then sold her off to the duke after satisfying himself first. The old man returned home to find his sitter asleep, his wife gone, and his money missing, which drove him into madness, leading him to hang himself. The news quickly spread through the neighborhood and reached the inn, where both lovers, now just as tired of their conquest as they were eager for it before, suggested that she go to London, which she agreed to, likely turning to prostitution to survive there.
The King, soon after this infamous adventure, coming that way, found them both in their posts at the inn, took them again into favour, and suffered them to go with him to Newmarket. This exploit of lord Rochester is not at all improbable, when his character is considered; His treachery in the affair of the miser's wife is very like him; and surely it was one of the greatest acts of baseness of which he was ever guilty; he artfully seduced her, while her unsuspecting husband was entertained by the duke of Buckingham; he contrived a robbery, and produced the death of the injured husband; this complicated crime was one of those heavy charges on his mind when he lay on his death-bed, under the dreadful alarms of his conscience.
The King, shortly after this notorious incident, came that way and found them both at their posts at the inn. He took them back into his favor and allowed them to accompany him to Newmarket. Lord Rochester's actions aren't at all surprising when you consider his character. His betrayal in the case of the miser's wife is very much in line with him; it was surely one of the most despicable things he ever did. He cleverly seduced her while her unsuspecting husband was being entertained by the Duke of Buckingham. He orchestrated a robbery that led to the husband's death. This complicated crime weighed heavily on his mind when he lay on his deathbed, tormented by the horrors of his conscience.
His lordship's amours at court made a great noise in the world of gallantry, especially that which he had with the celebrated Mrs. Roberts, mistress [287] to the King, whom she abondoned for the possession of Rochester's heart, which she found to her experience, it was not in her power long to hold. The earl, who was soon cloyed with the possession of any one woman, tho' the fairest in the world, forsook her. The lady after the first indignation of her passion subsided, grew as indifferent, and considered upon the proper means of retrieving the King's affections. The occasion was luckily given her one morning while she was dressing: she saw the King coming by, she hurried, down with her hair disheveled, threw herself at his feet, implored his pardon, and vowed constancy for the future. The King, overcome with the well-dissembled agonies of this beauty, raised her up, took her in his arms, and protested no man could see her, and not love her: he waited on her to her lodging, and there compleated the reconciliation. This easy behaviour of the King, had, with many other instances of the same kind, determined my lord Hallifax to assert, "That the love of King Charles II, lay as much as any man's, in the lower regions; that he was indifferent as to their constancy, and only valued them for the sensual pleasure they could yield."
His lordship's romances at court created quite a stir in the world of love, especially his affair with the famous Mrs. Roberts, who was the King's mistress but left him for Rochester's heart, which she soon realized she couldn’t keep. The earl, who quickly got bored with any one woman, no matter how beautiful, abandoned her. After the initial passion subsided, the lady became indifferent and started thinking of ways to win back the King's affections. One morning, while she was getting ready, she saw the King passing by, rushed down with her hair messy, threw herself at his feet, pleaded for his forgiveness, and promised to be faithful from then on. The King, taken by her well-acted distress, lifted her up, held her in his arms, and declared that no man could look at her and not fall in love. He accompanied her to her place, and they completed their reconciliation there. This easy manner of the King, along with many other similar instances, led my lord Hallifax to claim, "That King Charles II’s love, like any man’s, was rooted in the physical; that he was indifferent to their fidelity and only cared for the pleasure they could provide."
Lord Rochester's frolics in the character of a mountebank are well known, and the speech which he made upon the occasion of his first turning itinerant doctor, has been often printed; there is in it a true spirit of satire, and a keenness of lampoon, which is very much in the character of his lordship, who had certainly an original turn for invective and satirical composition.
Lord Rochester's antics as a traveling entertainer are well known, and the speech he gave when he first became an itinerant doctor has been printed many times; it captures a genuine spirit of satire and sharpness of mockery that fits his personality perfectly. He certainly had a unique talent for invective and satirical writing.
We shall give the following short extract from this celebrated speech, in which his lordship's wit appears pretty conspicuous.
We will include the following brief excerpt from this famous speech, where his lordship’s wit is quite evident.
[288] "If I appear (says Alexander Bendo) to any one like a counterfeit, even for the sake of that chiefly ought I to be construed a true man, who is the counterfeit's example, his original, and that which he employs his industry and pains to imitate and copy. Is it therefore my fault if the cheat, by his wit and endeavours, makes himself so like me, that consequently I cannot avoid resembling him? Consider, pray, the valiant and the coward, the wealthy merchant and the bankrupt; the politician and the fool; they are the same in many things, and differ but in one alone. The valiant man holds up his hand, looks confidently round about him, wears a sword, courts a lord's wife, and owns it; so does the coward. One only point of honour, and that's courage, which (like false metal, one only trial can discover) makes the distinction. The bankrupt walks the exchange, buys bargains, draws bills, and accepts them with the richest, whilst paper and credit are current coin; that which makes the difference is real cash, a great defect indeed, and yet but one, and that the last found out, and still till then the least perceived.—Now for the politician; he is a grave, diliberating, close, prying man: Pray are there not grave, deliberating, close, prying fools? If therefore the difference betwixt all these (tho' infinite in effect) be so nice in all appearance, will you yet expect it should be otherwise between the false physician, astrologer, &c. and the true? The first calls himself learned doctor, sends forth his bills, gives physic and council, tells, and foretells; the other is bound to do just as much. It is only your experience must distinguish betwixt them, to which I willingly submit myself."
[288] "If I seem (says Alexander Bendo) to anyone like a fake, even for that reason I should be seen as a true person, who's the example of the fake, his original, and what he works hard to imitate and copy. Is it my fault if the con artist, through his cleverness and efforts, makes himself so similar to me that I can't help but resemble him? Consider, please, the brave and the coward, the wealthy merchant and the bankrupt; the politician and the fool; they are alike in many ways and differ in just one. The brave person stands tall, looks around with confidence, carries a sword, pursues a lord's wife openly; so does the coward. The only point of honor that distinguishes them is courage, which (like a fake coin, can be revealed by just one test) makes the difference. The bankrupt walks through the marketplace, looks for good deals, draws checks, and accepts them among the wealthiest when paper and credit are common currency; what makes the difference is real cash, a significant flaw, and yet just one, which is discovered last and is still, until then, least noticed. Now, about the politician; he is a serious, thoughtful, sneaky, probing man: Are there not serious, thoughtful, sneaky, probing fools? If the distinction among all these (though vastly different in effect) is so subtle in appearance, do you really expect it to be different between the fake doctor, astrologer, etc., and the real one? The first calls himself a learned doctor, sends out his bills, gives medicine and advice, predicts and foretells; the other is obliged to do just as much. Only your experience can tell them apart, to which I willingly submit myself."
[289] When lord Rochester was restored again to the favour of King Charles II, he continued the same extravagant pursuits of pleasure, and would even use freedoms with that Prince, whom he had before so much offended; for his satire knew no bounds, his invention was lively, and his execution sharp.
[289] When Lord Rochester was back in the good graces of King Charles II, he kept up his excessive lifestyle focused on pleasure, and even felt comfortable joking with the king, whom he had previously upset so much; his satire was limitless, his creativity was vibrant, and his delivery was pointed.
He is supposed to have contrived with one of Charles's mistress's the following stratagem to cure that monarch of the nocturnal rambles to which he addicted himself. He agreed to go out one night with him to visit a celebrated house of intrigue, where he told his Majesty the finest women in England were to be found. The King made no scruple to assume his usual disguise and accompany him, and while he was engaged with one of the ladies of pleasure, being before instructed by Rochester how to behave, she pick'd his pocket of all his money and watch, which the king did not immediately miss. Neither the people of the house, nor the girl herself was made acquainted with the quality of their visitor, nor had the least suspicion who he was. When the intrigue was ended, the King enquired for Rochester, but was told he had quitted the house, without taking leave. But into what embarassment was he thrown when upon searching his pockets, in order to discharge the reckoning, he found his money gone; he was then reduced to ask the favour of the Jezebel to give him credit till tomorrow, as the gentleman who came in with him had not returned, who was to have pay'd for both. The consequence of this request was, he was abused, and laughed at; and the old woman told him, that she had often been served such dirty tricks, and would not permit him to stir till the reckoning was paid, and then called one of her bullies to take care of him. In this [290] ridiculous distress stood the British monarch; the prisoner of a bawd, and the life upon whom the nation's hopes were fixed, put in the power of a ruffian. After many altercations the King at last proposed, that she should accept a ring which he then took off his finger, in pledge for her money, which she likewise refused, and told him, that as she was no judge of the value of the ring, she did not chuse to accept such pledges. The King then desired that a Jeweller might be called to give his opinion of the value of it, but he was answered, that the expedient was impracticable, as no jeweller could then be supposed to be out of bed. After much entreaty his Majesty at last prevailed upon the fellow, to knock up a jeweller and shew him the ring, which as soon as he had inspected, he stood amazed, and enquired, with eyes fixed upon the fellow, who he had got in his house? to which he answered, a black-looking ugly son of a w——, who had no money in his pocket, and was obliged to pawn his ring. The ring, says the jeweller, is so immensely rich, that but one man in the nation could afford to wear it; and that one is the King. The jeweller being astonished at this accident, went out with the bully, in order to be fully satisfied of so extraordinary an affair; and as soon as he entered the room, he fell on his knees, and with the utmost respect presented the ring to his Majesty. The old Jezebel and the bully finding the extraordinary quality of their guest, were now confounded, and asked pardon most submissively on their knees. The King in the best natured manner forgave them, and laughing, asked them, whether the ring would not bear another bottle.
He supposedly plotted with one of Charles's mistresses a scheme to cure the king of his late-night escapades. He agreed to go out with him one night to visit a famous house of intrigue, claiming that the best women in England could be found there. The King had no hesitation in putting on his usual disguise and going along, and while he was with one of the women, already instructed by Rochester on how to act, she picked his pocket of all his money and watch, which the king didn't notice right away. Neither the people at the house nor the girl herself knew who their visitor was, nor did they suspect anything. When the encounter was over, the King asked for Rochester but was told he had left without saying goodbye. He was then thrown into great embarrassment when he searched his pockets to settle the bill and found his money was gone; he had to ask the woman for credit until the next day, explaining that the gentleman who came in with him was meant to pay for both. In response, he was mocked and ridiculed, and the woman told him she had been tricked before and wouldn’t let him leave until the bill was settled, then called one of her thugs to keep an eye on him. In this ridiculous situation stood the British monarch; a captive of a bawd, with the hopes of the nation resting on him, now at the mercy of a thug. After many arguments, the King finally suggested that she accept a ring he took off his finger as collateral for what he owed, but she refused, saying she couldn’t assess its value and didn’t want to take such a pledge. The King then asked for a jeweler to be called to determine its worth, but was told this was impractical since no jeweler would be awake at that hour. After much pleading, his Majesty convinced the thug to wake up a jeweler and show him the ring. Once the jeweler saw it, he was astonished and asked, with eyes wide, who the man in his house was. The thug replied it was an ugly-looking guy who had no money and was forced to pawn his ring. The jeweler responded that the ring was so incredibly valuable that only one man in the country could afford to wear it—and that man was the King. The jeweler, astonished by this situation, went out with the thug to confirm the odd circumstances, and as soon as he entered the room, he fell to his knees and respectfully presented the ring to his Majesty. The old woman and the thug, realizing who their extraordinary guest was, were flabbergasted and begged for forgiveness on their knees. The King, in a good-natured way, forgave them and, laughing, asked if the ring would be enough to get them another bottle.
Thus ended this adventure, in which the King learned how dangerous it was to risk his person in night-frolics; and could not [291] but severely reprove Rochester for acting such a part towards him; however he sincerely resolved never again to be guilty of the like indiscretion.
Thus ended this adventure, in which the King learned how dangerous it was to put himself at risk during nighttime escapades; he couldn't help but seriously reprimand Rochester for treating him that way; however, he genuinely resolved never to make the same mistake again.
These are the most material of the adventures, and libertine courses of the lord Rochester, which historians and biographers have transmitted to posterity; we shall now consider him as an author.
These are the most significant adventures and reckless exploits of Lord Rochester, which historians and biographers have passed down to future generations; now we will consider him as a writer.
He seems to have been too strongly tinctured with that vice which belongs more to literary people, than to any other profession under the fun, viz. envy. That lord Rochester was envious, and jealous of the reputation of other men of eminence, appears abundantly clear from his behaviour to Dryden, which could proceed from no other principle; as his malice towards him had never discovered itself till the tragedies of that great poet met with such general applause, and his poems were universally esteemed. Such was the inveteracy he shewed to Mr. Dryden, that he set up John Crown, an obscure man, in opposition to him, and recommended him to the King to compose a masque for the court, which was really the business of the poet laureat; but when Crown's Conquest of Jerusalem met with as extravagant success as Dryden's Almanzor's, his lordship then withdrew his favour from Crown, as if he would be still in contradiction to the public. His malice to Dryden is said to have still further discovered itself, in hiring ruffians to cudgel him for a satire he was supposed to be the author of, which was at once malicious, cowardly, and cruel: But of this we shall give a fuller account in the life of Mr. Dryden.
He seems to have been heavily influenced by a trait that is more common among literary folks than in other professions, which is envy. It’s clear that Lord Rochester was envious and jealous of the reputations of other notable individuals, especially given his behavior toward Dryden. His bitterness only became apparent after Dryden’s tragedies received widespread acclaim and his poems were highly regarded. The intensity of his hostility toward Mr. Dryden was such that he promoted John Crown, a lesser-known writer, to compete against him, even recommending him to the King to create a masque for the court—something that was really the role of the poet laureate. However, when Crown’s *Conquest of Jerusalem* achieved the same level of outrageous success as Dryden’s *Almanzor,* Lord Rochester withdrew his support from Crown, seemingly just to contradict public opinion. His animosity toward Dryden allegedly manifested further when he hired thugs to beat him up over a satire he was rumored to have written, which was both malicious and cowardly. We will provide more details on this in the life of Mr. Dryden.
Mr. Wolsely, in his preface to Valentinian, a tragedy, altered by lord Rochester from Fletcher, has given a character of his lordship and his writings, by no means consistent with that idea, [292] which other writers, and common tradition, dispose us to form of him.
Mr. Wolsely, in his preface to Valentinian, a tragedy altered by Lord Rochester from Fletcher, has provided a description of his lordship and his writings that is quite different from the impression that other writers and common tradition lead us to have about him.
'He was a wonderful man, says he, whether we consider the constant good sense, and agreeable mirth of his ordinary conversation, or the vast reach and compass of his inventions, and the amazing depth of his retired thoughts; the uncommon graces of his fashion, or the inimitable turns of his wit, the becoming gentleness, the bewitching softness of his civility, or the force and fitness of his satire; for as he was both the delight, the love, and the dotage of the women, so was he a continued curb to impertinence, and the public censure of folly; never did man stay in his company unentertained, or leave it uninstructed; never was his understanding biassed, or his pleasantness forced; never did he laugh in the wrong place, or prostitute his sense to serve his luxury; never did he stab into the wounds of fallen virtue, with a base and a cowardly insult, or smooth the face of prosperous villany, with the paint and washes of a mercenary wit; never did he spare a sop for being rich, or flatter a knave for being great. He had a wit that was accompanied with an unaffected greatness of mind, and a natural love to justice and truth; a wit that was in perpetual war with knavery, and ever attacking those kind of vices most, whose malignity was like to be the most dissusive, such as tended more immediately to the prejudice of public bodies; and were a common nusance to the happiness of human kind. Never was his pen drawn but on the side of good sense, and usually employed like the arms of the ancient heroes, to stop the progress of arbitrary oppression, and beat down the brutishness of headstrong [293] will: to do his King and country justice, upon such public state thieves as would beggar a kingdom to enrich themselves: these were the vermin whom to his eternal honour his pen was continually pricking and goading; a pen, if not so happy in the success, yet as generous in the aim, as either the sword of Theseus, or the club of Hercules; nor was it less sharp than that, or less weighty than this. If he did not take so much care of himself as he ought, he had the humanity however, to wish well to others; and I think I may truly affirm he did the world as much good by a right application of satire, as he hurt himself by a wrong pursuit of pleasure.'
'He was an amazing man, he says, whether we look at his constant common sense and enjoyable humor in everyday conversations, or the wide range and depth of his ideas, and the incredible insight of his reflective thoughts; the unique elegance of his style, or the unmatched cleverness of his jokes, the appealing gentleness, the captivating kindness of his manners, or the strength and appropriateness of his satire; for while he was the joy, the love, and the obsession of women, he was also a consistent check on rudeness, and a public critic of foolishness; no one ever spent time with him without being entertained, or left without being enlightened; his understanding was never skewed, nor was his enjoyment forced; he never laughed at the wrong time, or cheapened his intellect to satisfy his desires; he never attacked the vulnerabilities of fallen virtue with a cowardly insult, nor did he gloss over successful villainy with the makeup and tricks of a mercenary wit; he never gave a pass to someone for being wealthy, or flattered a scoundrel for being powerful. He had a sense of humor that was coupled with an authentic greatness of character, and a natural love of justice and truth; a wit that was always at odds with deceit, continually targeting the vices most harmful to society, especially those that most directly harmed the greater good; these were a common nuisance to the happiness of humanity. His pen was never wielded except on the side of logic, usually used like the weapons of ancient heroes, to halt the spread of arbitrary oppression, and to combat the brutality of stubborn desires; to serve justice for his King and country against those public thieves who would bankrupt a kingdom to enrich themselves: these were the pests that, to his eternal credit, his pen often pricked and prodded; a pen, while perhaps not always successful, was as noble in intention as either the sword of Theseus or the club of Hercules; nor was it any less sharp or less weighty. While he may not have taken as much care of himself as he should have, he still had the humanity to wish well for others; and I can honestly say he did as much good for the world through the right application of satire as he harmed himself through the wrong pursuit of pleasure.'
In this amiable light has Mr. Wolsely drawn our author, and nothing is more certain, than that it is a portraiture of the imagination, warmed with gratitude, or friendship, and bears but little or no resemblance to that of Rochester; can he whose satire is always levelled at particular persons, be said to be the terror of knaves, and the public foe of vice, when he himself has acknowledged that he satirized only to gratify his resentment; for it was his opinion, that writing satires without being in a rage, was like killing in cold blood. Was his conversation instructive whose mouth was full of obscenity; and was he a friend to his country, who diffused a dangerous venom thro' his works to corrupt its members? in which, it is to be feared he has been but too successful. Did he never smooth the face of prosperous villainy, as, Mr. Wolsely expresses it, the scope of whose life was to promote and encourage the most licentious debauchery, and to unhinge all the principles of honour?—Either Mr. Wolsely must be strangely mistaken? or all other writers who have given us [294] accounts of Rochester must be so; and as his single assertions are not equal to the united authorities of so many, we may reasonably reject his testimony as a deviation from truth.
In this friendly manner, Mr. Wolsely has portrayed our author, and it’s clear that it’s a creation of the imagination, fueled by gratitude or friendship, and bears little to no resemblance to that of Rochester. Can someone whose satire targets specific people truly be considered a threat to wrongdoers and a public enemy of vice when he has admitted that he wrote satire only to express his anger? He believed that writing satires without being furious was like killing in cold blood. Was his conversation enlightening when it was filled with obscenities? And can he be considered a friend to his country if he spread a dangerous poison through his works to corrupt its members? Sadly, it seems he may have been quite successful at that. Did he never smooth over the appearance of thriving villainy, as Mr. Wolsely puts it, with a life aimed at promoting and encouraging the most reckless debauchery and undermining all principles of honor? Either Mr. Wolsely is seriously mistaken, or all the other writers who have provided us accounts of Rochester must be. Since his individual claims don’t hold up against the combined authority of so many others, we can reasonably dismiss his testimony as a departure from the truth.
We have now seen these scenes of my lord Rochester's life, in which he appears to little advantage; it is with infinite pleasure we can take a view of the brighter side of his character; to do which, we must attend him to his death-bed. Had he been the amiable man Mr. Wolsely represents him, he needed not have suffered so many pangs of remorse, nor felt the horrors of conscience, nor been driven almost to despair by his reflexions on a mispent life.
We have now seen these aspects of Lord Rochester's life, where he comes across quite poorly; it brings us great pleasure to look at the brighter side of his character. To do this, we must accompany him to his deathbed. If he had been the kind man Mr. Wolsely paints him to be, he wouldn't have had to endure so many feelings of regret, nor have faced the terrifying weight of his conscience, nor been pushed to the brink of despair by his thoughts on a wasted life.
Rochester lived a profligate, but he died a penitent. He lived in defiance of all principles; but when he felt the cold hand of death upon him, he reflected on his folly, and saw that the portion of iniquity is, at last, sure to be only pain and anguish.
Rochester lived a reckless life, but he died regretful. He lived against all principles; but when he sensed the cold grip of death, he thought about his foolishness and realized that a life of wrongdoing ultimately leads to nothing but pain and suffering.
Dr. Burnet, the excellent bishop of Sarum (however he may be reviled by a party) with many other obligations conferred upon the world, has added some account of lord Rochester in his dying moments. No state policy in this case, can well be supposed to have biased him, and when there are no motives to falsehood, it is somewhat cruel to discredit assertions. The Dr. could not be influenced by views of interest to give this, or any other account of his lordship; and could certainly have no other incentive, but that of serving his country, by shewing the instability of vice, and, by drawing into light an illustrious penitent, adding one wreath more to the banners of virtue.
Dr. Burnet, the esteemed bishop of Sarum (no matter what negative opinions some may have), has contributed to the world in many ways, including an account of Lord Rochester's final moments. It's hard to believe that any political motivation influenced him in this case, and when there are no reasons for dishonesty, it's somewhat cruel to dismiss his claims. The doctor had no personal gain to push him to share this or any other story about his lordship; his only motive was to serve his country by highlighting the instability of vice and showcasing a prominent penitent, thereby adding another victory to the cause of virtue.
Burnet begins with telling us, that an accident fell out in the early part of the Earl's life, which in its consequences confirmed him in the pursuit of vicious courses.
Burnet starts by saying that an accident happened early in the Earl's life, which ultimately reinforced his inclination towards a life of vice.
[295] "When he went to sea in the year 1665, there happened to be in the same ship with him, Mr. Montague, and another gentleman of quality; these two, the former especially, seemed persuaded that they mould never return into England. Mr. Montague said, he was sure of it; the other was not so positive. The earl of Rochester and the last of these entered into a formal engagement, not without ceremonies of religion, that if either of them died, he should appear and give the other notice of the future state, if there was any. But Mr. Montague would not enter into the bond. When the Day came that they thought to have taken the Dutch fleet in the port of Bergen, Mr. Montague, tho' he had such a strong presage in his mind of his approaching death, yet he bravely stayed all the while in the place of the greatest danger. The other gentleman signalized his courage in the most undaunted manner, till near the end of the action; when he fell on a sudden into such a trembling, that he could scarce stand: and Mr. Montague going to him to hold him up, as they were in each other; arms, a cannon ball carried away Mr. Montague's belly, so that he expired in an hour after."
[295] "When he went to sea in 1665, he was on the same ship as Mr. Montague and another man of high status. These two, especially the former, seemed convinced that they would never return to England. Mr. Montague was sure of it; the other wasn’t so certain. The Earl of Rochester and the last of the two made a formal pact, with some religious rituals, that if either of them died, he would come back and inform the other about the afterlife, if there was one. However, Mr. Montague refused to join in on the pact. When the day came that they planned to attack the Dutch fleet in the port of Bergen, Mr. Montague, despite having a strong sense that he was about to die, bravely remained in the most dangerous spot. The other gentleman showed great courage until near the end of the battle, when he suddenly started trembling so badly that he could barely stand. Mr. Montague rushed to support him, but as they were in each other's arms, a cannonball struck Mr. Montague, fatally injuring him so that he died an hour later."
The earl of Rochester told Dr. Burnet, that these presages they had in their minds, made some impression on him that there were separate beings; and that the soul either by a natural sagacity, or some secret notice communicated to it, had a sort of divination. But this gentleman's never appearing was a snare to him during the rest of his life: Though when he mentioned this, he could not but acknowledge, it was an unreasonable thing for him to think that beings in another state were not under such laws and limits that they could not command their motion, but as the supreme power should order them; and that one who had so corrupted [296] the natural principles of truth as he had, had no reason to expect that miracles should be wrought for his conviction.
The Earl of Rochester told Dr. Burnet that the thoughts they had in their minds made him believe that there were separate beings; and that the soul, either through a natural intuition or some hidden insight, had a kind of foresight. But the fact that this gentleman never appeared was a trap for him for the rest of his life. However, when he brought this up, he couldn’t help but admit that it was unreasonable for him to think that beings in another state were not bound by such laws and limits that they couldn’t control their movement except as the supreme authority directed them; and that someone who had so distorted the natural principles of truth as he had had no reason to expect that miracles would be performed to convince him.
He told Dr. Burnet another odd presage of approaching death, in lady Ware, his mother-in-law's family. The chaplain had dreamed that such a day he should die; but being by all the family laughed out of the belief of it, he had almost forgot it, till the evening before at supper; there being thirteen at table, according to an old conceit that one of the family must soon die; one of the young ladies pointed to him, that he was the person. Upon this the chaplain recalling to mind his dream, fell into some disorder, and the lady Ware reproving him for his superstition, he said, he was confident he was to die before morning; but he being in perfect health, it was not much minded. It was saturday night, and he was to preach next day. He went to his chamber and set up late as it appeared by the burning of his candle; and he had been preparing his notes for his sermon, but was found dead in his bed next morning.
He told Dr. Burnet about another strange omen of impending death related to Lady Ware, his mother-in-law’s family. The chaplain had dreamed that he would die on a certain day; but when the whole family laughed him out of believing it, he almost forgot about it until the evening before at dinner. There were thirteen people at the table, and according to an old superstition that one of them would die soon, one of the young women pointed out that he was the one. This made the chaplain remember his dream, and he became a bit unsettled. Lady Ware scolded him for his superstition, but he insisted he would die before morning. Since he was in perfect health, no one paid much attention. It was Saturday night, and he was supposed to preach the next day. He went to his room and stayed up late, as evidenced by the burning candle. He had been preparing his notes for the sermon but was found dead in his bed the next morning.
These things his lordship said, made him incline to believe that the soul was of a substance distinct from matter; but that which convinced him of it was, that in his last sickness, which brought him so near his death, when his spirits were so spent he could not move or stir, and did not hope to live an hour, he said his reason and judgment were so clear and strong, that from thence he was fully persuaded, that death was not the dissolution of the soul, but only the separation of it from matter. He had in that sickness great remorse for his past life; but he afterwards said, they were rather general and dark horrors, than any conviction of transgression against his maker; he was sorry he had lived so as to waste his strength so soon, or that he had brought such an ill name upon himself; and had an agony in his [297] mind about it, which he knew not well how to express, but believed that these impunctions of conscience rather proceeded from the horror of his condition, than any true contrition for the errors of his life.
These things his lordship said made him believe that the soul was separate from matter. What truly convinced him was during his final illness, when he was so close to death that he couldn’t move or hope to live for another hour. He claimed his reason and judgment were so clear and strong that he became fully convinced that death wasn't the end of the soul but simply the separation of it from the body. During that illness, he felt deep regret for his past life; however, he later said those feelings were more like vague fears rather than a genuine sense of wrongdoing against his creator. He regretted living in a way that drained his strength too quickly and earned him a bad reputation. He felt a distress in his mind about this, which he struggled to articulate, but he believed those pangs of conscience stemmed more from the fear of his condition than from true remorse about his life’s mistakes.
During the time Dr. Burnet was at lord Rochester's house, they entered frequently into conversation upon the topics of natural and reveal'd religion, which the Dr. endeavoured to enlarge upon and explain in a manner suitable to the condition of a dying penitent; his lordship expressed much contrition for his having so often violated the laws of the one, against his better knowledge, and having spurned the authority of the other in the pride of wanton sophistry. He declared that he was satisfied of the truth of the christian religion, that he thought it the institution of heaven, and afforded the most natural idea of the supreme being, as well as the most forcible motives to virtue of any faith professed amongst men.
During the time Dr. Burnet was at Lord Rochester's house, they often talked about natural and revealed religion. The doctor tried to elaborate and explain these topics in a way that was appropriate for someone who was dying and seeking forgiveness. His lordship expressed deep regret for having repeatedly broken the laws of the former, despite knowing better, and for rejecting the authority of the latter out of pride and misguided reasoning. He stated that he was convinced of the truth of the Christian religion, believed it was a divine institution, and thought it provided the clearest understanding of the supreme being, along with the strongest motivations for virtue of any belief system among humans.
'He was not only satisfied (says Dr. Burnet) of the truth of our holy religion, merely as a matter of speculation, but was persuaded likewise of the power of inward grace, of which he gave me this strange account. He said Mr. Parsons, in order to his conviction, read to him the 53d chapter of the prophesies of Isaiah, and compared that with the history of our Saviour's passion, that he might there see a prophesy concerning it, written many ages before it was done; which the Jews that blasphemed Jesus Christ still kept in their hands as a book divinely inspired. He said, as he heard it read, he felt an inward force upon him, which did so enlighten his mind and convince him, that he could resist it no longer, for the words had an authority which did shoot like rays or beams in his mind, so that he was not only convinced by the reasonings he had [298] about it, which satisfied his understanding, but by a power, which did so effectually constrain him that he ever after firmly believed in his Saviour, as if he had seen him in the clouds.'
'He was not only convinced (says Dr. Burnet) of the truth of our holy religion, not just as a matter of speculation, but also believed in the power of inner grace, which he described to me in this unusual account. He said Mr. Parsons, to help him come to this belief, read to him the 53rd chapter of the prophecies of Isaiah and compared it to the history of our Savior's suffering so he could see a prophecy about it, written many ages before it happened; a prophecy that the Jews who blasphemed Jesus Christ still held onto as a divinely inspired book. He said that as he listened to it being read, he felt an inner force upon him that enlightened his mind and convinced him so strongly that he could no longer resist it, for the words had an authority that struck him like rays or beams within his mind. Thus, he was not only swayed by the reasoning he had about it, which satisfied his understanding, but also by a power that so effectively compelled him that he afterward firmly believed in his Savior, as if he had seen him in the clouds.'
We are not quite certain whether there is not a tincture of enthusiasm in this account given by his lordship, as it is too natural to fly from one extreme to another, from the excesses of debauchery to the gloom of methodism; but even if we suppose this to have been the case, he was certainly in the safest extreme; and there is more comfort in hearing that a man whose life had been so remarkably profligate as his, should die under such impressions, than quit the world without one pang for past offences.
We’re not entirely sure if there’s a hint of enthusiasm in this account from his lordship, as it’s common to swing from one extreme to another, from wild partying to the seriousness of methodism; but even if that’s true, he was definitely at the safest extreme. It’s more reassuring to hear that a man with such a notoriously reckless life should die with these feelings than to leave the world without a single regret for his past wrongs.
The bishop gives an instance of the great alteration of his lordship's temper and dispositions (from what they were formerly) in his sickness. 'Whenever he happened to be out of order, either by pain or sickness, his temper became quite ungovernable, and his passions so fierce, that his servants were afraid to approach him. But in this last sickness he was all humility, patience, and resignation. Once he was a little offended with the delay of a servant, who he thought made not haste enough, with somewhat he called for, and said in a little heat, that damn'd fellow.' Soon after, says the Dr. I told him that I was glad to find his stile so reformed, and that he had so entirely overcome that ill habit of swearing, only that word of calling any damned which had returned upon him was not decent; his answer was, 'O that language of fiends, which was so familiar to me, hangs yet about me, sure none has deserved more to be damned than I have done; and after he had humbly asked God pardon for it, he desired me to call the person to him [299] that he might ask him forgiveness; but I told him that was needless, for he had said it of one who did not hear it, and so could not be offended by it. In this disposition of mind, continues the bishop, all the while I was with him four days together; he was then brought so low that all hope of recovery was gone. Much purulent matter came from him with his urine, which he passed always with pain, but one day with inexpressible torment; yet he bore it decently, without breaking out into repinings, or impatient complaints. Nature being at last quite exhausted, and all the floods of life gone, he died without a groan on the 26th of July 1680, in the 33d year of his age. A day or two before his death he lay much silent, and seemed extremely devout in his contemplations; he was frequently observed to raise his eyes to heaven, and send forth ejaculations to the searcher of hearts, who saw his penitence, and who, he hoped, would forgive him.'
The bishop gives an example of how much his lordship’s temperament and behavior changed during his illness. 'Whenever he felt unwell, whether from pain or sickness, his temper became completely unmanageable, and his emotions were so intense that his servants were afraid to approach him. But during this last illness, he showed nothing but humility, patience, and acceptance. Once, he got a bit annoyed at a servant for not hurrying enough with something he had asked for, and he muttered in frustration, “that damned fellow.” Soon after, Dr. I mentioned that I was pleased to see his attitude had improved and that he had largely overcome his bad habit of swearing, except for that one outburst about someone being damned, which wasn’t appropriate. His response was, “Oh, that language of demons, which used to come so easily to me, still lingers. No one has deserved to be damned more than I have.” After humbly asking God for forgiveness for it, he wanted me to call the person to him so he could ask for their forgiveness. I told him that wasn’t necessary because he had said it about someone who didn’t hear it and therefore couldn’t be offended. In this state of mind, the bishop continues, for the four days I was with him, he was brought so low that all hope of recovery was lost. He passed a large amount of purulent material with his urine, always in pain, but one day he experienced indescribable torment; still, he handled it with dignity, without complaining or expressing irritation. Eventually, as his body gave out and he lost all life's strength, he died without a groan on July 26, 1680, at the age of 33. A day or two before his death, he was very quiet and seemed deeply immersed in prayer; he was often seen looking up to heaven and sending out heartfelt pleas to the one who knows our hearts, who witnessed his repentance, and whom he hoped would forgive him.'
Thus died lord Rochester, an amazing instance of the goodness of God, who permitted him to enjoy time, and inclined his heart to penitence. As by his life he was suffered to set an example of the most abandoned dissoluteness to the world; so by his death, he was a lively demonstration of the fruitlessness of vicious courses, and may be proposed as an example to all those who are captivated with the charms of guilty pleasure.
Thus died Lord Rochester, an incredible example of God's goodness, who allowed him to have a chance to repent. While he lived, he showed the world the depths of a wasteful life; through his death, he vividly demonstrated the emptiness of a life of sin, and he can be presented as a warning to everyone who is enticed by the allure of forbidden pleasures.
Let all his failings now sleep with him in the grave, and let us only think of his closing moments, his penitence, and reformation. Had he been permitted to have recovered his illness, it is reasonable to presume he would have been as lively an example of virtue as he had ever been of vice, and have born his testimony in favour of religion.
Let all his shortcomings rest with him in the grave, and let’s only remember his final moments, his regret, and his transformation. If he had been given the chance to recover from his illness, it’s fair to say he would have been as shining an example of virtue as he was once of vice, and would have supported religion wholeheartedly.
[300] He left behind him a son named Charles, who dying on the 12th of November, was buried by his father on the 7th of December following: he also left behind him three daughters. The male line ceasing, Charles II. conferred the title of earl of Rochester on Lawrence viscount Killingworth, a younger son of Edward earl of Clarendon.
[300] He left a son named Charles, who passed away on November 12th and was buried by his father on December 7th of the same year; he also left behind three daughters. With the male line ending, Charles II gave the title of Earl of Rochester to Lawrence, Viscount Killingworth, a younger son of Edward, Earl of Clarendon.
We might now enumerate his lordship's writings, of which we have already given some character; but unhappily for the world they are too generally diffused, and we think ourselves under no obligations to particularize those works which have been so fruitful of mischief to society, by promoting a general corruption of morals; and which he himself in his last moments wished he could recal, or rather that he never had composed.
We could now list his lordship's writings, some of which we have already described; but unfortunately for the world, they are too widely spread, and we feel no need to specify those works that have caused so much harm to society by encouraging a general decline in morals; and which he himself, in his final moments, wished he could take back, or rather that he had never written at all.
George Villiers, Duke Buckingham.
Son and heir of George, duke, marquis, and earl of Buckingham, murdered by Felton in the year 1628. This nobleman was born at Wallingford-House in the parish of St. Martin's in the Fields on the 30th of January 1627, and baptized there on the 14th of February following, by Dr. Laud, then bishop of Bath and Wells, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury.
Son and heir of George, duke, marquis, and earl of Buckingham, murdered by Felton in 1628. This nobleman was born at Wallingford House in the parish of St. Martin's in the Fields on January 30, 1627, and baptized there on February 14, 1627, by Dr. Laud, who was then bishop of Bath and Wells and later became archbishop of Canterbury.
Before we proceed to give any particulars of our noble author's life, we must entreat the reader's indulgence to take a short view of the life of his grace's father, in which, some circumstances extremely curious will appear; and we are the more emboldened to venture upon this freedom, as some who have written this life before us, have taken the same liberty, by which the reader is no loser; for the first duke of Buckingham was a man whose prosperity was so instantaneous, his honours so great, his life so dissipated, and his death so remarkable, that as no minister ever enjoyed so much power, so no man ever drew the attention of the world more upon him. No sooner had he returned from his travels, and made his first appearance at court, than he became a favourite with King James, who, (says Clarendon) 'of all wise men he ever knew, was most delighted and taken with handsome persons and fine cloaths.'
Before we dive into the details of our esteemed author's life, we kindly ask the reader to take a brief look at the life of his father's grace, where some very interesting facts will emerge. We feel more confident in sharing this since some writers who have covered this life before us have taken the same approach, which benefits the reader; for the first Duke of Buckingham was a man whose rise was incredibly quick, his honors were significant, his lifestyle was extravagant, and his death was noteworthy. No minister has ever held so much power, and no one has attracted as much attention from the world. As soon as he returned from his travels and made his first appearance at court, he quickly became a favorite of King James, who, as Clarendon states, 'of all the wise men he ever knew, was most pleased with attractive people and fine clothes.'
[302] He had begun to be weary of his favourite the earl of Somerset, who was the only one who kept that post so long, without any public reproach from the people, till at last he was convicted of the horrid conspiracy against the life of Sir Thomas Overbury, and condemned as a murderer. While these things were in agitation, Villiers appeared at court; he was according to all accounts, the gayest and handsomest man in his time, of an open generous temper, of an unreserved affability, and the most engaging politeness.
[302] He had started to grow tired of his favorite, the Earl of Somerset, who was the only one to hold that position for so long without facing any public backlash, until he was eventually found guilty of the terrible conspiracy against Sir Thomas Overbury’s life and was condemned as a murderer. While all this was happening, Villiers showed up at court; by all accounts, he was the most charming and attractive man of his time, known for his open, generous nature, his friendly demeanor, and his captivating politeness.
In a few days he was made cup-bearer to the King, by which he was of course to be much in his presence, and so admitted to that conversation with which that prince always abounded at his meals. He had not acted five weeks on this stage, to use the noble historian's expression, till he mounted higher, being knighted, and made gentleman of the bed-chamber, and knight of the most noble order of the garter, and in a short time a baron, a viscount, an earl, a marquis, and lord high-admiral of England, lord warden of the cinque ports, master of the horse, and entirely disposed all the favours of the King, acting as absolutely in conferring honours and distinctions, as if he himself had wore the diadem.
In just a few days, he became the cup-bearer to the King, which meant he would be spending a lot of time around him and joining in on the lively conversations that the prince always had during meals. He hadn’t even been on this stage for five weeks, to use the noble historian's phrase, before he rose even higher—he was knighted, became a gentleman of the bedchamber, knighted into the most noble order of the Garter, and before long became a baron, a viscount, an earl, a marquis, and the Lord High Admiral of England, as well as the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, the Master of the Horse, and he completely managed all the King's favors, acting as if he were the one wearing the crown when it came to handing out honors and titles.
We find him soon after making war or peace, according to humour, resentment, or favour. He carried the prince of Wales into Spain to see the Infanta, who was proposed to him as a wife; and it plainly enough appears, that he was privy to one intrigue of prince Charles, and which was perhaps the only one, which that prince, whom all historians, whether friends or enemies to his cause; have agreed to celebrate for chastity, and the temperate virtues. There is an original letter of prince Charles to the duke, which was published by Mr. Thomas Hearne, and is said once to have belonged [303] to archbishop Sancroft. As it is a sort of curiosity we shall here insert it,
We find him soon after making war or peace, depending on mood, resentment, or favor. He took the Prince of Wales to Spain to meet the Infanta, who was suggested as a potential bride; and it’s clear that he was involved in one of Prince Charles' schemes, which was probably the only one that prince, praised for his chastity and temperate virtues by all historians, whether friends or enemies to his cause, engaged in. There is an original letter from Prince Charles to the duke, published by Mr. Thomas Hearne, and it's said to have once belonged to Archbishop Sancroft. As it’s a kind of curiosity, we will include it here, [303]
"Stenny,
Stenny,
"I have nothing now to write to you, but to give you thankes both for the good councell ye gave me, and for the event of it. The King gave mee a good sharpe potion, but you took away the working of it by the well relished comfites ye sent after it. I have met with the partie, that must not be named, once alreddie, and the culler of wryting this letter shall make mee meet with her on saturday, although it is written the day being thursday. So assuring you that the bus'ness goes safely onn, I rest
"I don’t have much to say to you right now, except to thank you for the great advice you gave me and for how it all turned out. The King gave me a strong dose, but you countered its effects with the delicious sweets you sent afterward. I’ve already encountered the person who must not be named once, and the reason I'm writing this letter will lead me to meet her on Saturday, even though I’m writing it on Thursday. So, just to reassure you that everything is going smoothly, I’ll sign off."
"Your constant friend
"Your reliable friend"
"CHARLES.
CHARLES.
"I hope you will not shew the King this letter, but put it in the safe custody of mister Vulcan."
"I hope you won't show this letter to the King, but instead keep it safe with Mr. Vulcan."
It was the good fortune of this nobleman to have an equal interest with the son as with the father; and when prince Charles ascended the throne, his power was equally extensive, and as before gave such offence to the House of Commons and the people, that he was voted an enemy to the realm, and his Majesty was frequently addressed to remove him from his councils. Tho' Charles I. had certainly more virtues, and was of a more military turn than his father, yet in the circumstance of doating upon favourites, he was equally weak. His misfortune was, that he never sufficiently trusted his own judgment, which was often better than that of [304] his servants; and from this diffidence he was tenacious of a minister of whose abilities he had a high opinion, and in whose fidelity he put confidence.
It was a stroke of luck for this nobleman to have a similar connection with the son as he did with the father; and when Prince Charles took the throne, his influence was just as wide-ranging. Just like before, it upset the House of Commons and the public so much that he was declared an enemy of the state, and his Majesty was often urged to remove him from his advisors. Although Charles I. definitely had more virtues and was more military-minded than his father, he was just as weak when it came to favoring favorites. His misfortune was that he didn’t fully trust his own judgment, which was often better than that of his servants; because of this insecurity, he held on tightly to a minister whom he regarded highly for his skills and trusted for his loyalty.
The duke at last became so obnoxious, that it entered into the head of an enthusiast, tho' otherwise an honest man, one lieutenant Felton, that to assassinate this court favourite, this enemy of the realm, would be doing a grateful thing to his country by ridding it of one whose measures in his opinion, were likely soon to destroy it.—
The duke finally became so unbearable that it occurred to an enthusiastic, although otherwise good man, Lieutenant Felton, that assassinating this court favorite, this enemy of the nation, would be a noble act for his country by getting rid of someone whose actions, in his view, were likely to ruin it.
The fate of the duke was now approaching, and it is by far the most interesting circumstance in his life.
The duke's fate was now nearing, and it is by far the most intriguing aspect of his life.
We shall insert, in the words of the noble historian, the particular account of it.
We will include, in the words of the esteemed historian, the specific details about it.
'John Felton, an obscure man in his own person, who had been bred a soldier, and lately a lieutenant of foot, whose captain had been killed on the retreat at the Isle of Ree, upon which he conceived that the company of right ought to have been conferred upon him; and it being refused him by the duke of Buckingham, general of the army, had given up his commission and withdrawn himself from the army. He was of a melancholic nature, and had little conversation with any body, yet of a gentleman's family in Suffolk, of a good fortune, and reputation. From the time that he had quitted the army he resided at London; when the House of Commons, transported with passion and prejudice against the duke, had accused him to the House of Peers for several misdemeanors and miscarriages, and in some declarations had stiled him the cause of all the evils the kingdom suffered, and an enemy to the public.
John Felton, an unknown man in his own right, had trained as a soldier and recently served as a lieutenant. His captain had been killed during the retreat at the Isle of Ree, which led him to believe that he deserved a promotion to captain. However, after the Duke of Buckingham, the army's general, denied his request, he resigned from his commission and left the army. He had a melancholic nature and didn’t talk much, but he came from a gentleman's family in Suffolk, with a good fortune and reputation. After leaving the army, he lived in London. Meanwhile, the House of Commons, filled with anger and bias against the duke, accused him to the House of Peers of various wrongdoings and labeled him as the cause of all the kingdom's troubles and an enemy to the public.
'Some transcripts of such expressions, and some [305] general invectives he met with amongst the people, to whom this great man was not grateful, wrought so far upon this melancholic gentleman, that he began to believe he should do God good service if he killed the duke. He chose no other instrument to do it than an ordinary knife, which he bought of a common cutler for a shilling, and thus provided, he repaired to Portsmouth, where he arrived the eve of St. Bartholomew. The duke was then there, in order to prepare and make ready the fleet and the army, with which he resolved in a few days to transport himself to the relief of Rochelle, which was then besieged by cardinal Richelieu, and for the relief whereof the duke was the more obliged, by reason that at his being at the Isle of Ree, he had received great supplies of victuals, and some companies of their garrison from the town, the want of both which they were at this time very sensible of, and grieved at.
'Some transcripts of such expressions, and some [305] general insults he encountered among the people, who did not appreciate this great man, affected this gloomy gentleman so much that he started to believe he would be doing God a favor if he killed the duke. He chose no other weapon for this than a regular knife, which he bought from a local cutler for a shilling, and with this, he headed to Portsmouth, where he arrived on the eve of St. Bartholomew. The duke was there at that time, preparing the fleet and the army, with which he planned in a few days to go to the aid of Rochelle, which was then under siege by Cardinal Richelieu, and for which the duke felt especially obligated, since during his time at the Isle of Ree, he had received significant supplies of food, as well as some troops from their garrison in the town—both of which they were currently lacking and lamenting.'
'This morning of St. Bartholomew, the duke had received letters, in which he was advertised, that Rochelle had relieved itself; upon which he directed that his breakfast might be speedily made ready, and he would make haste to acquaint the King with the good news, the court being then at Southwick, about five miles from Portsmouth. The chamber in which he was dressing himself was full of company, and of officers in the fleet and army. There was Monsieur de Soubize, brother to the duke de Rohan, and other French gentlemen, who were very sollicitous for the embarkation of the army, and for the departure of the fleet for the relief of Rochelle; and they were at that time in much trouble and and perplexity, out of apprehension that the news the duke had received that morning might slacken the preparations of the voyage, which their impatience and interest, persuaded [306] them was not advanced with expedition; and so they held much discourse with the duke of the impossibility that his intelligence could be true, and that it was contrived by the artifice and dexterity of their enemies, in order to abate the warmth and zeal that was used for their relief, the arrival of which relief, those enemies had much reason to apprehend; and a longer delay in sending it, would ease them of that terrible apprehension; their forts and works towards the sea, and in the harbour being almost finished.
This morning of St. Bartholomew, the duke received letters informing him that Rochelle had managed to defend itself. He ordered his breakfast to be prepared quickly because he wanted to inform the King about the good news, as the court was at Southwick, about five miles from Portsmouth. The room where he was getting dressed was filled with people, including officers from the fleet and army. Among them was Monsieur de Soubize, brother of the duke de Rohan, and other French gentlemen who were very anxious about the army's embarkation and the fleet's departure to assist Rochelle. They were quite troubled and worried, believing that the news the duke received that morning might slow down the preparations for the voyage, which their impatience and concerns suggested was not advancing quickly enough. They engaged in lengthy discussions with the duke, arguing that it was impossible for his information to be true, claiming it was a scheme by their enemies to dampen the enthusiasm and urgency for their support. Their enemies had reason to fear the arrival of such support, and any further delay in sending it would lessen their significant worries, as their fortifications and defenses towards the sea and in the harbor were nearly complete.
'This discourse, according to the natural custom of that nation, and by the usual dialect of that language, was held with such passion and vehemence, that the standers-by who understood not French, did believe they were angry, and that they used the duke rudely. He being ready, and informed that his breakfast was ready, drew towards the door, where the hangings were held up; and in that very passage turning himself to speak with Sir Thomas Fryer, a colonel of the army, who was then speaking near his ear, he was on a sudden struck over his shoulder upon the breast with a knife; upon which, without using any other words, than that the villain has killed me, and in the same moment pulling out the knife himself, he fell down dead, the knife having pierced his heart. No man had ever seen the blow, or the man who gave it; but in the confusion they were in, every man made his own conjecture, and declared it as a thing known, most agreeing, that it was done by the French, from the angry discourse they thought they had heard from them, and it was a kind of miracle, that they were not all killed that instant: The sober sort that preserved them from it, having the same opinion of their guilt, and only reserving them [307] for a more judicial examination, and proceeding.
This conversation, following the usual customs of that country and in the typical dialect of that language, was filled with such passion and intensity that bystanders who didn’t understand French believed the speakers were angry and treating the duke rudely. He, prepared and informed that his breakfast was ready, moved toward the door, where the drapes were held up. As he turned to speak with Sir Thomas Fryer, a colonel in the army, who was speaking close to him, he was suddenly struck on the shoulder and in the chest with a knife. Without saying anything more than “the villain has killed me,” and as he pulled the knife out himself, he fell down dead, the knife having pierced his heart. No one had seen the attack or the person who carried it out, but in the chaos, everyone speculated and treated their guesses as facts, with most agreeing it was done by the French, based on the heated conversation they thought they had heard. It seemed miraculous that they weren’t all killed on the spot; those who remained calm believed in the guilt of the assailants, holding them [307] for a more formal investigation and proceedings.
'In the crowd near the door, there was found upon the ground a hat, in the inside whereof, there was sewed upon the crown a paper, in which were writ four or five lines of that declaration made by the House of Commons, in which they had stiled the duke an enemy to the kingdom; and under it a short ejaculation towards a prayer. It was easily enough concluded, that the hat belonged to the person who had committed the murder, but the difficulty remained still as great, who that person should be; for the writing discovered nothing of the name; and whosoever it was, it was very natural to believe, that he was gone far enough not to be found without a hat. In this hurry, one running one way, another another way, a man was seen walking before the door very composedly without a hat; whereupon one crying out, here's the fellow that killed the duke, upon which others run thither, every body asking which was he; to which the man without the hat very composedly answered, I am he. Thereupon some of those who were most furious suddenly run upon the man with their drawn swords to kill him; but others, who were at least equally concerned in the loss and in the sense of it, defended him; himself with open arms very calmly and chearfully exposing himself to the fury and swords of the most enraged, as being very willing to fall a sacrifice to their sudden anger, rather than be kept for deliberate justice, which he knew must be executed upon him.
'In the crowd by the door, a hat was found on the ground. Inside the hat, there was a piece of paper sewn to the crown, which contained four or five lines from a declaration made by the House of Commons, branding the duke as an enemy to the kingdom. Beneath it was a short prayer. It was easy to conclude that the hat belonged to the person who had committed the murder, but the challenge remained in identifying who that person was; the writing revealed nothing about a name, and it was reasonable to think that whoever it was had gone far enough to avoid being caught without a hat. In the chaos, as some ran one way and others another, a man was seen walking calmly in front of the door without a hat. Someone yelled, "Here's the guy who killed the duke!" and others ran over, all asking who he was. The man without the hat answered calmly, "I am he." Some of those who were most furious suddenly rushed at him with drawn swords to kill him, but others, equally upset about the loss, defended him. He stood there with open arms, calmly and cheerfully exposing himself to the fury and swords of the angriest crowd, seemingly willing to be a sacrifice to their sudden rage rather than face deliberate justice, which he knew would be carried out against him.'
'He was now enough known, and easily discovered to be that Felton, whom we mentioned before, who had been a lieutenant in the army; he was quickly carried into a private room by [308] the persons of the best condition, some whereof were in authority, who first thought fit, so far to dissemble, as to mention the duke only grievously wounded, but not without hopes of recovery. Upon which Felton smiled, and said, he knew well enough he had given him a blow that had determined all their hopes. Being then asked at whose instigation he had performed that horrid, wretched act, he answered them with a wonderful assurance, That they should not trouble themselves in that enquiry; that no man living had credit or power enough with him to have engaged or disposed him, to such an action, that he had never entrusted his purpose or resolution to any man; that it proceeded from himself, and the impulse of his own conscience, and that the motives thereunto will appear if his hat were found. He spoke very frankly of what he had done, and bore the reproaches of them that spoke to him, with the temper of a man who thought he had not done amiss. But after he had been in prison some time, where he was treated without any rigour, and with humanity enough; and before and at his tryal, which was about four months after, at the King's Bench, he behaved himself with great modesty, and wonderful repentance; being as he said convinced in his conscience that he had done wickedly, and asked pardon of the King and Duchess, and all the Duke's servants, whom he acknowledged he had offended, and very earnestly besought the judges that he might have his hand struck off, with which he had performed that impious act before he should be put to death.'
'He was now well-known and easily recognized as Felton, the lieutenant from the army we mentioned earlier. He was quickly taken into a private room by [308] some of the most respected individuals, some of whom held authority. They initially chose to downplay the situation, mentioning that the duke was gravely wounded but still had hopes of recovery. At this, Felton smiled and remarked that he was quite aware he had dealt a blow that had dashed all their hopes. When asked who had influenced him to commit such a horrific act, he replied with remarkable confidence that they shouldn't bother to investigate, as no one had the power or influence over him to prompt such an action. He insisted that his decision came purely from himself and the voice of his own conscience, and that the reasons for it would become clear if they found his hat. He spoke candidly about his actions and accepted the criticism from those addressing him with the calmness of someone who believed he had not acted wrongly. However, after spending some time in prison, where he was treated with kindness and humanity, and at his trial about four months later at the King's Bench, he exhibited great humility and deep remorse. He expressed that he was convinced in his conscience he had acted wickedly and sought forgiveness from the King, the Duchess, and all the Duke's servants, whom he acknowledged he had wronged. He earnestly pleaded with the judges to have his hand severed—the one that had carried out that impious act—before he was executed.'
This is the account lord Clarendon gives in the first volume of his history, of the fall of this great favourite, which serves to throw a melancholy veil over the splendor of his life, [309] and demonstrates the extreme vanity of exterior pomp, and the danger those are exposed to who move on the precipice of power. It serves to shew that of all kind of cruelty, that which is the child of enthusiasm is the word, as it is founded upon something that has the appearance of principles; and as it is more stedfast, so does it diffuse more mischief than that cruelty which flows from the agitations of passion: Felton blindly imagined he did God service by assassination, and the same unnatural zeal would perhaps have prompted him to the murder of a thousand more, who in his opinion were enemies to their country.
This is the account Lord Clarendon gives in the first volume of his history about the downfall of this great favorite, which casts a sad shadow over the brilliance of his life, [309] and shows the extreme vanity of outward show, along with the danger faced by those who tread the edge of power. It serves to illustrate that of all types of cruelty, the one that stems from enthusiasm is the worst, as it is based on something that seems principled; and since it is more steadfast, it spreads more harm than cruelty that arises from emotional turmoil. Felton foolishly thought he was serving God by committing murder, and that same unnatural fervor may have driven him to kill a thousand others who he believed were enemies to his country.
The above-mentioned historian remarks, that there were several prophecies and predictions scattered about, concerning the duke's death; and then proceeds to the relation of the most astonishing story we have ever met with.
The historian mentioned above notes that there were several predictions and prophecies floating around regarding the duke's death; then he goes on to tell the most astonishing story we've ever encountered.
As this anecdote is countenanced by so great a name, I need make no apology for inserting it, it has all the evidence the nature of the thing can admit of, and is curious in itself.
As this story is supported by such a significant name, I don’t need to apologize for including it; it has all the evidence that the situation allows and is interesting on its own.
'There was an officer in the King's wardrobe in Windsor-Castle of a good reputation for honesty and discretion, and then about the age of fifty years, or more. This man had been bred in his youth in a school in the parish where Sir George Villiers the father of the Duke lived, and had been much cherished and obliged in that season of his age, by the said Sir George, whom afterwards he never saw. About six months before the miserable end of the duke of Buckingham, about midnight, this man, being in his bed at Windsor, where his office was, and in very good health, there appeared to him, on the side of his bed, a man of very venerable aspect, who fixing his eyes upon him, asked him, if he [310] knew him; the poor man half dead with fear, and apprehension, being asked the second time, whether he remembered him, and having in that time called to his memory, the presence of Sir George Villiers, and the very cloaths he used to wear, in which at that time he used to be habited; he answered him, That he thought him to be that person; he replied, that he was in the right, that he was the same, and that he expected a service from him; which was, that he should go from him to his son the duke of Buckingham, and tell him, if he did not somewhat to ingratiate himself to the people, or at least, to abate the extreme malice they had against him, he would be suffered to live but a short time, and after this discourse he disappeared, and the poor man, if he had been at all waking, slept very well till the morning, when he believed all this to be a dream, and considered it no otherwise.
There was an officer in the King’s wardrobe at Windsor Castle known for his honesty and good judgment, around the age of fifty or more. This man had grown up in a school in the same parish where Sir George Villiers, the father of the Duke, lived, and was fondly regarded by Sir George during that time in his life, although he never saw him again afterward. About six months before the tragic end of the Duke of Buckingham, this man was in bed at Windsor, where he worked, and in very good health when a figure of great dignity appeared beside him. The figure, fixing his gaze on him, asked if he recognized him. The terrified man, nearly paralyzed with fear, was asked a second time if he remembered him. At that moment, he recalled the presence of Sir George Villiers and the clothes he used to wear. He replied that he thought it was him. The figure confirmed he was correct and that he needed a favor from him: he was to go to his son, the Duke of Buckingham, and warn him that unless he did something to win over the people or at least lessen their intense hatred toward him, he wouldn’t live much longer. After this conversation, the figure vanished, and the poor man, if he was ever truly awake, slept soundly until morning, believing it had all been a dream and thinking nothing more of it.
'Next night, or shortly after, the same person appeared to him again in the same place, and about the same time of the night, with an aspect a little more severe than before; and asking him whether he had done as he required him? and perceiving he had not, he gave him very severe reprehensions, and told him, he expected more compliance from him; and that if he did not perform his commands, he should enjoy no peace of mind, but should be always pursued by him: Upon which he promised to obey him.
'The next night, or shortly after, the same person showed up again in the same spot, around the same time of night, looking a bit more serious than before. They asked him if he had done what was requested of him, and when he realized he hadn’t, he was met with some harsh criticism. The figure told him he expected more cooperation and warned that if he didn’t follow through with his commands, he wouldn’t find any peace of mind and would always be haunted by him. In response, he promised to obey.'
'But the next morning waking exceedingly perplexed with the lively representation of all that had passed, he considered that he was a person at such a distance from the duke, that he knew not how to find any admittance into his presence, much less any hope to be believed in what he should say, so [311] with great trouble and unquietness he spent some time in thinking what he should do. The poor man had by this time recovered the courage to tell him, That in truth he had deferred the execution of his commands, upon considering how difficult a thing it would be for him to get access to the duke, having acquaintance with no person about him; and if he could obtain admission to him, he would never be able to persuade him that he was sent in such a manner, but he should at best be thought to be mad, or to be set on and employed by his own or the malice of other men to abuse the duke, and so he should be sure to be undone. The person replied, as he had done before, that he should never find rest, till he should perform what he required, and therefore he were better to dispatch it; that the access to his son was known to be very easy; and that few men waited long for him, and for the gaining him credit, he would tell him two or three particulars, which he charged him never to mention to any person living, but to the duke himself; and he should no sooner hear them, but he would believe all the rest he should say; and so repeating his threats he left him.
But the next morning, feeling really confused about everything that had happened, he realized he was so far from the duke that he had no idea how to get in front of him, let alone be taken seriously when he spoke. So, with a lot of trouble and anxiety, he spent some time thinking about what to do. The poor man had by now found the courage to tell him that he had actually postponed carrying out his orders because he realized how hard it would be to get to the duke since he didn’t know anyone who could help; and even if he could meet him, he wouldn’t be able to convince the duke that he was sent in such a way. He would probably just be seen as crazy or thought to be working for someone else who wanted to harm the duke, and then he’d definitely be in big trouble. The other person replied, as he had before, that he would never find peace until he did what was required, and it would be better for him to get it done. He mentioned that getting to his son was actually quite easy; very few people had to wait long for him. To help him gain credibility, he would share a couple of details that he insisted he never mention to anyone else, only to the duke. As soon as the duke heard them, he would believe everything else he said; and with that, repeating his threats, he left him.
'In the morning the poor man more confirmed by the last appearance, made his journey to London, where the court then was. He was very well known to Sir Ralph Freeman, one of the masters of the requests, who had married a lady that was nearly allied to the duke, and was himself well received by him. To him this man went; and tho' he did not acquaint him with all the particulars, he said enough to him to let him see there was somewhat extraordinary in it, and the knowledge he had of the sobriety and discretion of the man, made the more impression on him. He desired that by [312] his means he might be brought to the duke, to such a place, and in such a manner as should be thought fit; affirming, that he had much to say to him; and of such a nature as would require much privacy, and some time and patience in the hearing. Sir Ralph promised he would speak first to the duke of him, and then he should understand his pleasure, and accordingly on the first opportunity he did inform him of the reputation and honesty of the man, and then what he desired, and all he knew of the matter. The duke according to his usual openness and condescension told him, that he was the next day, early, to hunt with the King; that his horses should attend him to Lambeth Bridge, where he would land by five o'Clock in the morning, and if the man attended him there at that hour, he would walk and speak with him as long as should be necessary. Sir Ralph carried the man with him next morning, and presented him to the duke at his landing, who received him courteously, and walked aside in conference near an hour, none but his own servants being at that hour near the place, and they and Sir Ralph at such a distance, that they could not hear a word, though the duke sometimes spoke, and with great commotion, which Sir Ralph the more easily perceived, because he kept his eyes always fixed upon the duke; having procured the conference, upon somewhat he knew, there was of extraordinary; and the man told him in his return over the water, that when he mentioned those particulars, which were to gain him credit, the substance whereof he said he durst not impart to him, the duke's colour changed, and he swore he could come by that knowledge only by the devil, for that those particulars were known only to himself, and to one person more, who, he was sure, would never speak of it.
In the morning, the poor man, more convinced by his last experience, set off for London, where the court was at the time. He was well known to Sir Ralph Freeman, one of the masters of the requests, who had married a woman closely related to the duke and was well-liked by him. The man approached Sir Ralph and, although he didn’t share all the details, he revealed enough to indicate that something extraordinary was happening. Sir Ralph’s knowledge of the man's sobriety and discretion made a stronger impression on him. He asked Sir Ralph to help him meet the duke in a way that would be deemed appropriate, insisting he had a lot to discuss, and that it would require privacy, time, and patience to hear. Sir Ralph promised he would first speak to the duke about him and then let him know what the duke thought. Accordingly, at the first opportunity, he informed the duke about the man's reputation and honesty, as well as what he sought and everything he knew about the situation. The duke, in his usual open and approachable manner, told Sir Ralph that he was set to hunt with the King the next morning. His horses would be waiting for him at Lambeth Bridge, where he would arrive by 5 o’clock in the morning. If the man was there at that hour, the duke would walk and talk with him for as long as necessary. The next morning, Sir Ralph took the man with him and presented him to the duke as he landed. The duke welcomed him kindly and spoke with him privately for nearly an hour, with only his own servants nearby, and they, along with Sir Ralph, were far enough away that they couldn’t hear a word, though the duke occasionally spoke passionately. Sir Ralph noticed this more easily since he kept his eyes on the duke, having arranged the meeting because he knew something extraordinary was happening. On their way back across the water, the man told Sir Ralph that when he mentioned certain details meant to gain his trust, the duke's expression changed. He swore that he could only know that information through the devil, as those details were known only to him and one other person, whom he was sure would never reveal it.
[313] 'The duke pursued his purpose of hunting, but was observed to ride all the morning with great pensiveness, and in deep thoughts, without any delight in the exercise he was upon, and before the morning was spent, left the field, and alighted at his mother's lodgings at Whitehall, with whom he was shut up for the space of two or three hours, the noise of their discourse frequently reaching the ears of those who attended in the next rooms and when the duke left her, his countenance appeared full of trouble, with a mixture of anger: a countenance that was never before observed in him in any conversation with her, towards whom he had a profound reverence, and the countess herself was, at the duke's leaving her, found overwhelmed in tears, and in the highest agony imaginable; whatever there was of all this, it is a notorious truth, that when the news of the duke's murder (which happened within a few months) was brought to his mother, she seemed not in the least degree surprized, but received it as if she had foreseen it, nor did afterwards express such a degree of sorrow, as was expected from such a mother, for the loss of such a son.'
[313] 'The duke went out hunting but was seen riding all morning looking deep in thought and clearly not enjoying himself. Before the morning was over, he left the field and went to his mother’s place at Whitehall, where they talked privately for two or three hours. The sound of their conversation often reached the ears of those waiting in the next rooms. When the duke finally came out, he looked troubled and angry—an expression no one had ever seen on him during conversations with her, as he held her in great respect. The countess, on the other hand, was found in tears and in extreme distress when he left. Regardless of everything that happened, it is a well-known fact that when his mother heard the news of the duke's murder (which occurred a few months later), she didn’t seem surprised at all. She took it as if she had expected it and didn’t show the level of grief that one would anticipate from a mother who lost such a son.'
This is the representation which lord Clarendon gives of this extraordinary circumstance, upon which I shall not presume to make any comment; but if ever departed spirits were permitted to interest themselves with human affairs, and as Shakespear expresses it, revisit the glimpses of the moon, it seems to have been upon this occasion: at least there seems to be such rational evidence of it, as no man, however fortified against superstition, can well resist.
This is how Lord Clarendon describes this extraordinary situation, and I won’t presume to comment on it; but if departed souls were ever allowed to engage with human events, and as Shakespeare puts it, revisit the glimpses of the moon, it seems like it was during this time. At the very least, there appears to be such credible evidence of it that no one, no matter how resistant to superstition they are, can easily dismiss it.
But let us now enter upon the life of the son of this great man; who, if he was inferior to his father as a statesman, was superior in wit, and wanted only application to have made a very [314] great figure, even in the senate, but his love of pleasure was immoderate, which embarrassed him in the pursuit of any thing solid or praise-worthy.
But let’s now look at the life of the son of this great man; who, if he was not as skilled as his father in politics, was smarter and only lacked dedication to have become a very [314] great figure, even in the senate. However, his excessive love of pleasure got in the way of achieving anything meaningful or commendable.
He was an infant when his father's murder was perpetrated, and received his early education from several domestic tutors, and was afterwards sent to the university of Cambridge: when he had finished his course there, he travelled with his brother lord Francis, under the care of William Aylesbury, esquire. Upon his return, which was after the breaking out of the civil wars, he was conducted to Oxford, and presented to his Majesty, then there, and entered into Christ Church. Upon the decline of the King's cause, the young duke of Buckingham attended Prince Charles into Scotland, and was present in the year 1651 at the battle of Worcester, where he escaped beyond sea, and was soon after made knight of the garter. He came afterwards privately into England, and, November 19, 1657, married Mary, the daughter and heir of Thomas lord Fairfax, by whose interest he recovered all or most of his estate, which he had lost before. After the restoration, at which time he is said to have possessed an estate of 20,000 l. per annum, he was made one of the lords of the King's bed-chamber, and of the privy council, lord lieutenant of Yorkshire, and, at last, master of the horse.
He was just a baby when his father was murdered and received his early education from several tutors at home. Later, he was sent to the University of Cambridge. After completing his studies there, he traveled with his brother Lord Francis, accompanied by William Aylesbury, Esq. When he returned, after the civil wars had started, he went to Oxford, was introduced to the King, who was there at the time, and enrolled at Christ Church. As the King's cause deteriorated, the young Duke of Buckingham accompanied Prince Charles to Scotland and was present at the Battle of Worcester in 1651, where he managed to escape overseas. Soon after, he was knighted and became a Knight of the Garter. He later returned to England privately and on November 19, 1657, married Mary, the daughter and heir of Thomas Lord Fairfax, whose support helped him regain most, if not all, of his previously lost estate. After the restoration, at which point it's said he owned an estate worth £20,000 a year, he was appointed one of the lords of the King's bedchamber and of the privy council, lord lieutenant of Yorkshire, and eventually became master of the horse.
In the year 1666, being discovered to have maintained secret correspondence by letters, and other transactions, tending to raise mutinies among some of his Majesty's forces, and stir up sedition among his people, and to have carried on other traiterous designs and practices, he absconded, upon which a proclamation was issued the same year for apprehending him. Mr. Thomas Carte, in his Life of the Duke of Ormond[1], [315] tells us, 'that the duke's being denied the post of president of the North, was probably the reason of his disaffection to the King; and, that just before the recess of the Parliament, one Dr. John Heydon was taken up for treasonable practices, in sowing a sedition in the navy, and engaging persons in a conspiracy to seize the Tower. The man was a pretender to great skill in astrology, but had lost much of his reputation, by prognosticating the hanging of Oliver to his son Richard Cromwel and Thurloe, who came to him in disguise, for the calculation of nativities, being dressed like distressed cavaliers. He was for that put into prison, and continued in confinement sixteen months, whilst Cromwel outlived the prediction four years. This insignificant fellow was mighty great with the duke of Buckingham, who, notwithstanding the vanity of the art, and the notorious ignorance of the professor of it, made him cast not only his own, but the King's nativity; a matter of dangerous curiosity, and condemned by a statute which could only be said to be antiquated, because it had not for a long time been put in execution. This fellow he had likewise employed, among others, to excite the seamen to mutiny, as he had given money to other rogues to put on jackets to personate seamen, and to go about the country begging in that garb, and exclaiming for want of pay, while the people oppressed with taxes, were cheated of their money by the great officers of the crown. Heydon pretended to have been in all the duke's secrets, for near four years past, and that he had been all that time designing against the King and his government, that his grace thought the present reason favourable for the execution of his design, and had his agents at work in the navy and in the kingdom, to ripen the general discontents of the [316] people, and dispose them to action, that he had been importuned by him to head the first party he could get together, and engage in an insurrection, the duke declaring his readiness to appear and join in the undertaking, as soon as the affair was begun. Some to whom Heydon unbosomed himself, and had been employed by him to carry letters to the duke of Buckingham, discovered the design. Heydon was taken up, and a serjeant at arms sent with a warrant by his Majesty's express order to take up the duke, who, having defended his house by force, for some time at least, found means to escape. The King knew Buckingham to be capable of the blackest designs, and was highly incensed at him for his conduct last sessions, and insinuating that spirit into the Commons, which had been so much to the detriment of the public service. He could not forbear expressing himself with more bitterness against the duke, than was ever dropped from him upon any other occasion. When he was sollicited in his behalf, he frankly said, that he had been the cause of continuing the war, for the Dutch would have made a very low submission, had the Parliament continued their first vigorous vote of supplying him, but the duke's cabals had lessened his interest both abroad and at home, with regard to the support of the war. In consequence of this resentment, the King put him out of the privy council, bedchamber, and lieutenancy of York, ordering him likewise to be struck out of all commissions. His grace absconding, a proclamation was issued out, requiring his appearance, and surrender of himself by a certain day.'
In 1666, after it was discovered that he had been secretly communicating through letters and other means to incite mutinies among some of the King's forces and stir up unrest among his people, he fled. Consequently, a proclamation was issued that same year to apprehend him. Mr. Thomas Carte, in his Life of the Duke of Ormond[1], [315] tells us that the duke's refusal to be appointed president of the North was likely the reason for his discontent with the King. Just before Parliament broke, a Dr. John Heydon was arrested for treasonable actions, attempting to incite rebellion in the navy and getting people to join a conspiracy to seize the Tower. Heydon claimed to be highly skilled in astrology but had lost much of his credibility after predicting that Oliver Cromwell would be hanged, which he told to Cromwell's son Richard and Thurloe, who visited him in disguise, dressed as troubled cavaliers seeking astrological insights. Because of this, he was imprisoned and remained there for sixteen months, while Cromwell outlived this prediction by four years. This insignificant individual had a close connection with the duke of Buckingham, who, despite the questionable nature of astrology and Heydon's obvious lack of knowledge, asked him to create horoscopes not only for himself but also for the King—a practice forbidden by ancient laws that hadn’t been enforced for a long time. Heydon was also involved in efforts to incite the sailors to mutiny, as he had paid other rogues to dress as sailors and travel the country begging, claiming they hadn't been paid while the public, burdened with taxes, was being cheated by the high-ranking officials of the crown. Heydon pretended to have been privy to all of the duke's secrets for nearly four years and stated that he had been plotting against the King and his government this entire time. The duke believed the current situation was advantageous for his plans and had his agents working in the navy and across the kingdom to exploit the general discontent of the people and encourage them to take action. He also claimed that the duke had urged him to lead the first group he could assemble and take part in an uprising, with the duke ready to support the effort once it began. Some individuals to whom Heydon confided and whom he had tasked with delivering letters to the duke of Buckingham revealed this plot. Heydon was arrested, and a sergeant-at-arms was sent with a warrant by the King's express order to arrest the duke, who, having defended his home by force for a time, managed to escape. The King recognized Buckingham’s potential for treacherous plots and was extremely angry with him for his behavior during the last sessions, insinuating a damaging spirit into the Commons that harmed public service. He couldn’t help but express his bitterness towards the duke more than he had ever done in any other instance. When asked to help Buckingham, he openly stated that the duke had prolonged the war since the Dutch were prepared to submit completely had Parliament maintained their initial strong vote of support for him, but the duke’s scheming had weakened his standing both domestically and internationally regarding the war effort. Due to this anger, the King removed him from the privy council, the bedchamber, and the lieutenancy of York, and ordered that his name be removed from all commissions. After Buckingham fled, a proclamation was issued demanding his return and surrender by a specific date.
Notwithstanding this appearance of resentment against him, yet Charles, who was far from being of an implacable temper, took Buckingham again into favour, after he had made an humble submission; [317] he was restored to his place in the council, and in the bedchamber in 1667, and seemed perfectly confirmed in the good graces of the King, who was, perhaps, too much charmed with his wit to consider him as an enemy.
Despite this apparent resentment towards him, Charles, who was not at all inclined to hold a grudge, welcomed Buckingham back into his favor after he made a sincere apology; [317] he was reinstated in his position in the council and the bedchamber in 1667, and appeared to be fully secure in the King's good graces, who was perhaps too captivated by his wit to view him as an enemy.
In the year 1670, the duke was supposed to be concerned in Blood's attempt on the life of the duke of Ormond. This scheme was to have conveyed that nobleman to Tyburn, and there to have hanged him; for which purpose he was taken out of his coach in St. James's Street, and carried away by Blood and his son beyond Devonshire House, Piccadilly, but then rescued. Blood afterwards endeavoured to steal the crown out of the Tower, but was seized; however, he was not only pardoned, but had an estate of five hundred pounds a year given him in Ireland, and admitted into an intimacy with the King. The reason of Blood's malice against the duke of Ormond was, because his estate at Sorney was forfeited for his treason in the course of government, and must have been done by any lord lieutenant whatever. This, together with the instigation of some enemy of the duke of Ormond's at court, wrought upon him so, that he undertook the assassination. Mr. Carte supposes, that no man was more likely to encourage Blood in this attempt, than the duke of Buckingham, who, he says was the most profligate man of his time, and had so little honour in him, that he would engage in any scheme to gratify an irregular passion. The duke of Ormond had acted with some severity against him, when he was detected in the attempt of unhinging the government, which had excited so much resentment, as to vent itself in this manner. Mr. Carte likewise charges the duchess of Cleveland with conspiring against Ormond, but has given no reasons why he thinks she instigated the attempt. [318] The duchess was cousin to the duke of Buckingham, but it appears in the Annals of Gallantry of those times, that she never loved him, nor is it probable she engaged with him in so dangerous a scheme.
In 1670, the duke was allegedly involved in Blood's plot to kill the duke of Ormond. The plan was to take that nobleman to Tyburn and hang him; for this, he was pulled out of his carriage on St. James's Street and taken away by Blood and his son beyond Devonshire House, Piccadilly, but he was rescued. Blood later tried to steal the crown from the Tower but was caught. However, he was not only pardoned but also granted an estate of five hundred pounds a year in Ireland and welcomed into the King's circle. Blood's hatred for the duke of Ormond stemmed from the forfeiture of his estate at Sorney due to his treason, which was a result of government actions that could have been enacted by any lord lieutenant. This, along with encouragement from an enemy of the duke of Ormond at court, motivated him to attempt the assassination. Mr. Carte suggests that no one was more likely to support Blood in this effort than the duke of Buckingham, who he describes as the most disreputable man of his time, lacking honor and willing to engage in any scheme to satisfy a reckless desire. The duke of Ormond had dealt harshly with him after he was caught trying to undermine the government, which stirred up enough resentment to lead to the assassination plot. Mr. Carte also accuses the duchess of Cleveland of conspiring against Ormond, though he does not provide reasons for suggesting she was behind the attempt. [318] The duchess was a cousin of the duke of Buckingham, but the records of that era indicate she never loved him, nor is it likely she would have collaborated with him in such a risky scheme.
That Buckingham was a conspirator against Ormond, Mr. Carte says, there is not the least doubt; and he mentions a circumstance of his guilt too strong to be resisted. That there were reasons to think him the person who put Blood upon the attempt of the duke of Ormond, (says he) 'cannot well be questioned, after the following relation, which I had from a gentleman (Robert Lesly of Glaslough, in the county of Monaghan, esquire) whose veracity and memory, none that knew him, will ever doubt, who received it from the mouth of Dr. Turner, bishop of Ely. The earl of Ossory came in one day, not long after the affair, and seeing the duke of Buckingham standing by the King, his colour rose, and he spoke to this effect; My lord, I know well, that you are at the bottom of this late attempt of Blood's upon my father, and therefore I give you fair warning, if my father comes to a violent end by sword or pistol, or the more secret way of poison, I shall not be at a loss to know the first author of it; I shall consider you as the assassin; I shall treat you as such, and wherever I meet you, I shall pistol you, though you stood behind the King's chair, and I tell it you in his Majesty's presence, that you may be sure I shall keep my word.' I know not whether this will be deemed any breach of decorum to the King, in whose presence it was said, but, in my opinion, it was an act of spirit and resentment worthy of a son, when his father's life was menaced, and the villain (Blood) who failed in the attempt, was so much courted, caressed, and in high favour immediately afterwards.
That Buckingham was a conspirator against Ormond, Mr. Carte states, there is no doubt about it; he cites a piece of evidence of his guilt that is too strong to overlook. There are reasons to believe he was the one who influenced Blood to attack the Duke of Ormond, which "cannot be questioned, after the following account I received from a gentleman (Robert Lesly of Glaslough, in the county of Monaghan, esquire) whose honesty and memory no one who knew him would doubt, who heard it directly from Dr. Turner, bishop of Ely. One day not long after the incident, the Earl of Ossory came in and saw the Duke of Buckingham standing by the King. He became visibly angry and said something like this: My lord, I know very well that you are behind Blood's recent attack on my father, and so I’m giving you fair warning; if my father dies a violent death by sword, pistol, or even by poison, I won’t hesitate to know who was responsible. I’ll consider you the assassin; I’ll treat you like one, and wherever I find you, I’ll shoot you, even if you’re standing behind the King's chair. I'm telling you this in the presence of His Majesty so you can be sure I’ll follow through.' I’m not sure if this is seen as a breach of decorum in front of the King, but in my view, it was a bold and passionate move by a son when his father's life was threatened, especially since the villain (Blood) who failed in his attempt was later so courted, flattered, and favored.
[319] In June 1671, the duke was installed chancellor of the university of Cambridge, and the same year was sent ambassador to the King of France; who being pleased with his person and errand, entertained him very nobly for several days together; and upon his taking leave, gave him a sword and belt set with Pearls and Diamonds, to the value of 40,000 pistoles. He was afterwards sent to that King at Utrecht in June 1672, together with Henry earl of Arlington, and George lord Hallifax. He was one of the cabal at Whitehall, and in the beginning of the session of Parliament, February 1672, endeavoured to cast the odium of the Dutch war from himself, upon lord Arlington, another of the cabal. In June 1674, he resigned the chancellorship of Cambridge. About this time he became a great favourer of the Nonconformists. February 16, 1676, his grace, and James earl of Salisbury, Anthony earl of Shaftsbury, and Philip lord Wharton, were committed to the Tower by order of the House of Lords, for a contempt, in refusing to retract what they had said the day before, when the duke, immediately after his Majesty had ended his speech to both Houses, endeavoured to shew from law and reason, that the long prorogation was nulled, and the Parliament was consequently dissolved.
[319] In June 1671, the duke was appointed chancellor of the University of Cambridge, and that same year he was sent as an ambassador to the King of France. The king, pleased with his presence and mission, hosted him lavishly for several days. When he took his leave, the king presented him with a sword and belt adorned with pearls and diamonds, valued at 40,000 pistoles. He was later sent to meet the king in Utrecht in June 1672, along with Henry, Earl of Arlington, and George, Lord Halifax. He was part of the cabal at Whitehall and at the beginning of the Parliament session in February 1672, tried to shift the blame for the Dutch war onto Lord Arlington, another member of the cabal. In June 1674, he resigned from the chancellorship of Cambridge. Around this time, he became a strong supporter of the Nonconformists. On February 16, 1676, he, along with James, Earl of Salisbury, Anthony, Earl of Shaftesbury, and Philip, Lord Wharton, were committed to the Tower by order of the House of Lords for contempt, as they refused to retract statements made the previous day when the duke, right after the king addressed both Houses, attempted to argue from law and reason that the long prorogation was void and the Parliament was therefore dissolved.
The chief of our author's works is,
The main focus of our author's works is,
The Rehearsal, a Comedy, first acted on December 7, 1671. It is said that the duke was assisted in writing this play, by his Chaplain Dr. Thomas Sprat, Martin Clifford, esquire, master of the Charterhouse, and Mr. Samuel Butler, author of Hudibras. Jacob, in his Lives of the Poets, observes, 'that he cannot exactly learn when his grace began this piece; but this much, says he, [320] we may certainly gather from the plays ridiculed in it, that it was before the end of 1663, and finished before 1664, because it had been several times rehearsed, the players were perfect in their parts, and all things in readiness for its acting, before the great plague in 1665, and that then prevented it, for what was then intended, was very different from what now appears. In that he called his poet Bilboa, by which name Sir Robert Howard was the person pointed at. During this interval, many plays were published, written in heroic rhime, and on the death of Sir William Davenant 1669, whom Mr. Dryden succeeded in the laurel, it became still in greater vogue; this moved the duke to change the name of his poet, from Bilboa to Bayes.'
The Rehearsal, a Comedy, was first performed on December 7, 1671. It’s said that the duke was helped in writing this play by his Chaplain Dr. Thomas Sprat, Martin Clifford, esquire, master of the Charterhouse, and Mr. Samuel Butler, the author of Hudibras. Jacob, in his Lives of the Poets, notes, “that he cannot exactly determine when his grace started this piece; but this much, he says, [320] we can certainly glean from the plays mocked in it, that it was before the end of 1663, and completed before 1664, because it had been rehearsed several times, the actors were well-prepared, and everything was set for its performance before the great plague in 1665, which then prevented it. What was intended at that time was very different from what we see now. In that, he referred to his poet as Bilboa, which was a name meant for Sir Robert Howard. During this period, many plays were published, written in heroic rhyme, and after the death of Sir William Davenant in 1669, whom Mr. Dryden succeeded in the laurels, it became even more popular; this prompted the duke to change the name of his poet from Bilboa to Bayes.”
This character of Bayes is inimitably drawn; in it the various foibles of poets (whether good, bad or indifferent) are so excellently blended as to make the most finished picture of a poetical coxcomb: 'Tis such a master-piece of true humour as will ever last, while our English tongue is understood, or the stage affords a good comedian to play it. How shall I now avoid the imputation of vanity, when I relate, that this piece, on being revived (when I[2] first appeared in the part of Bayes) at the Theatre-Royal in Covent-Garden in the year 1739, was, in that one season (continued to 1740) played upwards of forty nights, to great audiences, with continued mirthful applause. As this is a truth, I give it to the candid; and let the relation take its chance, though it should not be thought by some (who may not abound in good nature) that I only mean by this, to pay due regard to the merit of the piece, though it speaks for itself; for, without extraordinary merit in the writing, it could never have gained such an uncommon run, at the distance of fourscore years from its being first written, when most of those [321] pieces were forgot which it particularly satirises; or, if remembered, they were laughed into fame by the strong mock-parodies with which this humorous piece of admirable burlesque abounds.
This character of Bayes is uniquely crafted; it perfectly blends the various quirks of poets (whether they're good, bad, or mediocre) to create a complete picture of a poetic fool. It’s such a masterpiece of genuine humor that it will endure as long as the English language is understood and as long as there are talented comedians to perform it. How can I avoid the appearance of vanity when I share that this play, when revived (when I first took on the role of Bayes) at the Theatre-Royal in Covent Garden in 1739, was performed over forty times in that season (continuing into 1740), to large audiences, with constant laughter and applause? Since this is true, I present it honestly; let it be known, even if some (who may lack good nature) think I’m just trying to highlight the merit of the work, which speaks for itself. Without exceptional quality in the writing, it could never have enjoyed such a remarkable run, eighty years after it was first written, when most of the works it satirizes have been forgotten; and if they are remembered, they've been laughed into recognition by the strong parodies abundant in this brilliant piece of burlesque.
Mr. Dryden, in revenge for the ridicule thrown on him in this piece, exposed the duke under the name of Zimri in his Absalom and Achitophel. This character, drawn by Dryden, is reckoned a masterpiece; it has the first beauty, which is truth; it is a striking picture, and admirably marked: We need make no apology for inserting it here; it is too excellent to pass unnoticed.
Mr. Dryden, in retaliation for the mockery he faced in this piece, revealed the duke under the alias of Zimri in his Absalom and Achitophel. This character, created by Dryden, is considered a masterpiece; its main quality is truth. It’s a vivid portrayal and exceptionally well-defined: We don’t need to apologize for including it here; it’s too remarkable to overlook.
In the first rank of these did Zimri stand:
A man so various that he seemed to be
Not one, but all mankind's epitome.
Stiff in opinions, always in the wrong;
Was every thing by starts, and nothing long;
But, in the course of one revolving moon,
Was Chymist, fidler, statesman, and buffoon:
Then all for women, painting, rhiming, drinking;
Besides ten thousand freaks that died in thinking.
Blest madman, who could every hour employ,
In something new to wish, or to enjoy!
Railing, and praising were his usual themes,
And both, to shew his judgment, in extremes;
So over violent, or over civil,
That every man with him was God, or devil.
In squandering wealth was his peculiar art;
Nothing went unrewarded but desert.
Beggar'd by fools, whom still he found too late,
He had his jest, and they had his estate.
He laught himself from court, then sought relief,
By forming parties, but could ne'er be chief.
Thus wicked, but in will, of means bereft,
He left not faction, but of that was left.
In the top tier of these stood Zimri:
A guy so diverse that he seemed to be
Not one, but the embodiment of all humanity.
Stubborn in his beliefs, always wrong;
He was everything in fits and starts, and nothing lasted long;
But in the span of a single month,
He was a chemist, musician, politician, and clown:
Then he focused on women, painting, rhyming, drinking;
Plus countless quirks that just disappeared in thought.
Blessed madman, who could fill every hour
With something new to wish for or enjoy!
Complaining and praising were his usual topics,
And both, to demonstrate his judgment, in extremes;
So overly passionate, or overly polite,
That every man with him was either a god or a devil.
In wasting wealth, he had a special talent;
Nothing was rewarded except merit.
Ruined by fools, whom he always found too late,
He had his joke, and they had his wealth.
He laughed himself out of the court, then sought help,
By forming factions, but could never be the leader.
Thus wicked, but in will, without means,
He left not a faction, but was left by one.
[322] It is allowed by the severest enemies of this nobleman, that he had a great share of vivacity, and quickness of parts, which were particularly turned to ridicule; but while he has been celebrated as a wit, all men are silent as to other virtues, for it is no where recorded, that he ever performed one generous disinterested action in his whole life; he relieved no distressed merit; he never shared the blessing of the widow and fatherless, and as he lived a profligate, he died in misery, a by-word and a jest, unpitied and unmourned.
[322] Even his fiercest critics agree that this nobleman had a lot of energy and quick wit, especially when it came to making fun of others. However, while he is praised as a clever person, no one talks about any other virtues he might have had. There’s no record of him ever doing a single unselfish act in his life; he never helped anyone in need, nor did he support widows and orphans. He lived a reckless life and died in misery, turned into a joke, without anyone caring or grieving for him.
He died April 16, 1687, Mr. Wood says, at his house in Yorkshire, but Mr. Pope informs us, that he died at an inn in that county, in very mean circumstances. In his Epistle to lord Bathurst, he draws the following affecting picture of this man, who had possessed an estate of near 50,000 l. per annum, expiring,
He died on April 16, 1687. Mr. Wood says he passed away at his home in Yorkshire, but Mr. Pope tells us he died at an inn in that county, under very poor conditions. In his Epistle to Lord Bathurst, he paints the following poignant picture of this man, who once had an estate of nearly 50,000 pounds a year, dying,
In the worst inn's worst room, with mat half hung
The floors of plaister, and the walls of dung,
On once a flock-bed, but repair'd with straw,
With tape-ty'd curtains, never meant to draw,
The George and Garter dangling from that bed,
Where tawdry yellow, strove with dirty red,
Great Villiers lies—alas! how chang'd from him
That life of pleasure, and that foul of whim!
Gallant and gay, in Cliveden's proud alcove,
The bow'r of wanton Shrewsbury[3] and love;
Or just as gay in council, in a ring
Of mimick'd statesmen and their merry king.
No wit to flatter left of all his store!
No fool to laugh at, which he valued more;
There, victor of his health, of fortune, friends,
And fame, this lord of useless thousands ends.
[323]
His grace's fate, sage Cutler could foresee,
And well (he thought) advised him, 'live like me.'
As well, his grace replied, 'like you, Sir John!
That I can do, when all I have is gone:'
In the worst inn's worst room, with the mat half-hung,
The floors made of plaster, and the walls made of dung,
Once a flock bed, now patched with straw,
With taped curtains, never meant to draw,
The George and Garter hanging from that bed,
Where cheap yellow clashed with dirty red,
Great Villiers lies—oh, how different from him
That life of pleasure and that nature of whim!
Gallant and cheerful, in Cliveden's proud alcove,
The bower of seductive Shrewsbury and love;
Or just as cheerful in council, in a circle
Of mimicked statesmen and their merry king.
No wit to flatter left of all his store!
No fool to laugh at, which he valued more;
There, conqueror of his health, of fortune, friends,
And fame, this lord of useless wealth meets his end.
[323]
His grace's fate, wise Cutler could foresee,
And well (he thought) advised him, 'live like me.'
'As well,' his grace replied, 'like you, Sir John!
I could do that when all I have is gone:'
Besides the celebrated Comedy of the Rehearsal, the duke wrote the following pieces;
Besides the famous Comedy of the Rehearsal, the duke wrote the following pieces;
- An Epitaph on Thomas, Lord Fairfax, which has been often reprinted.
- A Short Discourse upon the Reasonableness of Men's having a Religion or Worship of God. This Piece met with many Answers, to which, the Duke wrote Replies.
- A Demonstration of the above Duty.
- Several Poems, particularly, Advice to a Painter to draw my Lord Arlington. Timon, a Satire on several Plays, in which he was assisted by the Earl of Rochester; a Consolatory Epistle to Julian Secretary to the Muses; upon the Monument; upon the Installment of the Duke of Newcastle; the Rump-Parliament, a Satire; the Mistress; the Lost Mistress; a Description of Fortune.
- Several Speeches.
Footnotes:
Footnotes:
Matthew Smith, Esquire.
(The following Account of this Gentleman came to our Hands too late to be inserted in the Chronological Series.)
(The following account of this gentleman came to us too late to be included in the chronological series.)
This gentleman was the son of John Smith, an eminent Merchant at Knaresborough in the county of York, and descended from an ancient family of that name, seated at West-Herrington [324] and Moreton House in the county pal. of Durham. Vide Philpot's Visitation of Durham, in the Heralds Office, page 141.
This man was the son of John Smith, a well-known merchant in Knaresborough, York, and came from an old family of that name, located at West-Herrington and Moreton House in the county palatine of Durham. See Philpot's Visitation of Durham, in the Heralds Office, page 141.
He was a Barrister at Law, of the Inner-Temple, and appointed one of the council in the North, the fifteenth of King Charles I. he being a Loyalist, and in great esteem for his eminence and learning in his profession; as still further appears by his valuable Annotations on Littleton's Tenures he left behind him in manuscript. He also wrote some pieces of poetry, and is the author of two dramatical performances.
He was a Barrister at Law from the Inner Temple and was appointed to the council in the North on the fifteenth of King Charles I. He was a Loyalist and highly regarded for his expertise and knowledge in his field, as evidenced by his valuable annotations on Littleton's Tenures that he left behind in manuscript form. He also wrote some poetry and was the author of two plays.
- The Country Squire, or the Merry Mountebank, a Ballad Opera of one Act.
- The Masquerade du Ciel, a Masque, which was published the year that he died, 1640, by John Smith of Knaresborough, Esq; (eldest son and heir to this Matthew, by Anne his wife, daughter of Henry Roundell, esq; who dedicated it to the Queen. He was a person of the greatest loyalty, and very early addicted to arms, which made him extreamly zealous and active during the civil wars, in joining with the Royalists, particularly at the battle of Marston-Moor 1644, when he personally served under Prince Rupert, for which he and his family were plundered and sequestered. He also fined twice for Sheriff, to avoid the oaths in those days.)
Thomas Otway.
This excellent poet was not more remarkable for moving the tender passions, than for the variety of fortune, to which he was subjected. We have some where read an observation, [325] that the poets have ever been the least philosophers, and were always unhappy in a want of firmness of temper, and steadiness of resolution: of the truth of this remark, poor Mr. Otway is a lively instance; he never could sufficiently combat his appetite of extravagance and profusion, to live one year in a comfortable competence, but was either rioting in luxurious indulgence, or shivering with want, and exposed to the insolence and contempt of the world. He was the son of Mr. Humphry Otway, rector of Wolbeding in Sussex, and was born at Trottin in that county, on March 3, 1651. He received his education at Wickeham school, near Winchester, and became a commoner of Christ Church in Oxford, in the beginning of the year 1669. He quitted the university without a degree, and retired to London, though, in the opinion of some historians, he went afterwards to Cambridge, which seems very probable, from a copy of verses of Mr. Duke's to him, between whom subsisted a sincere friendship till the death of Mr. Otway. When our poet came to London, the first account we hear of him, is, that he commenced player, but without success, for he is said to have failed in want of execution, which is so material to a good player, that a tolerable execution, with advantage of a good person, will often supply the place of judgment, in which it is not to be supposed Otway was deficient.
This amazing poet was just as notable for stirring deep emotions as he was for the ups and downs of his life. We've read somewhere that poets are often not the best philosophers and tend to struggle with a lack of emotional stability and strong determination. Poor Mr. Otway is a perfect example of this; he could never manage to curb his tendency for extravagance, making it impossible for him to live even one year comfortably. Instead, he either indulged in luxurious living or faced poverty and the scorn of the world. He was the son of Mr. Humphry Otway, the rector of Wolbeding in Sussex, and was born in Trottin, Sussex, on March 3, 1651. He was educated at Wickham school near Winchester and became a commoner at Christ Church in Oxford at the beginning of 1669. He left university without a degree and moved to London, although some historians believe he later went to Cambridge, which seems likely given a poem by Mr. Duke addressed to him, as they shared a genuine friendship until Mr. Otway's death. When our poet arrived in London, the first thing we hear about him is that he tried his hand at acting, but it didn’t go well; he reportedly lacked the execution needed for a good performer. A decent performance with a good appearance can often make up for a lack of judgement, in which Otway was probably not lacking.
Though his success as an actor was but indifferent, yet he gained upon the world by the sprightliness of his conversation, and the acuteness of his wit, which, it seems, gained him the favour of Charles Fitz Charles, earl of Plymouth, one of the natural sons of King Charles II. who procured him a cornet's Pommission in the new raised English forces designed for Flanders. All who have written of Mr. Otway observe, that he returned from Flanders in very necessitous circumstances, [326] but give no account how that reverse of fortune happened: it is not natural to suppose that it proceeded from actual cowardice, or that Mr. Otway had drawn down any disgrace upon himself by misbehaviour in a military station. If this had been the case, he wanted not enemies who would have improved the circumstance, and recorded it against him, with a malicious satisfaction; but if it did not proceed from actual cowardice, yet we have some reason to conjecture that Mr. Otway felt a strong disinclination to a military life, perhaps from a consciousness that his heart failed him, and a dread of misbehaving, should he ever be called to an engagement; and to avoid the shame of which he was apprehensive in consequence of such behaviour, he, in all probability, resigned his commission, which could not but disoblige the earl of Plymouth, and expose himself to necessity. What pity is it, that he who could put such masculine strong sentiments into the mouth of such a resolute hero as his own Pierre, should himself fail in personal courage, but this quality nature withheld from him, and he exchanged the chance of reaping laurels in the field of victory, for the equally uncertain, and more barren laurels of poetry. The earl of Rochester, in his Session of the Poets, has thus maliciously recorded, and without the least grain of wit, the deplorable circumstances of Otway.
Although his success as an actor was pretty mediocre, he made a name for himself through his lively conversation and sharp wit, which apparently won him the favor of Charles Fitz Charles, the Earl of Plymouth, one of King Charles II's illegitimate sons. The earl helped him secure a cornet's commission in the newly raised English forces headed for Flanders. Everyone who has written about Mr. Otway notes that he returned from Flanders in dire straits, [326] but they don't explain how that downfall happened. It’s hard to believe it was due to actual cowardice or that Mr. Otway brought shame upon himself through poor behavior in a military role. If that were the case, he certainly had enemies who would have jumped at the chance to highlight that and take pleasure in it. However, if it wasn’t due to cowardice, we can speculate that Mr. Otway had a strong aversion to military life, possibly because he feared he would falter and make mistakes if he ever faced battle. To avoid the shame he dreaded from such a failure, he likely resigned his commission, which would have upset the Earl of Plymouth and left him in difficult circumstances. It’s a shame that someone who could give such powerful and masculine words to a bold character like his own Pierre could lack personal courage himself; this trait was simply not in his nature. He traded the chance to earn glory on the battlefield for the unpredictability and more barren rewards of poetry. The Earl of Rochester, in his "Session of the Poets," has maliciously recorded, and without any wit, the unfortunate situation of Otway.
Tom Otway came next, Tom Shadwell's dear Zany, And swears for heroics he writes best of any; Don Carlos his pockets so amply had filled, That his mange was quite cured, and his lice were all killed. But Apollo had seen his face on the stage, And prudently did not think fit to engage The scum of a playhouse, for the prop of an age. |
} } } |
[327] Mr. Otway translated out of French into English, the History of the Triumvirate; the First Part of Julius Cæsar, Pompey and Crassus, the Second Part of Augustus, Anthony and Lepidus, being a faithful collection from the best historians, and other authors, concerning the revolution of the Roman government, which happened under their authority, London 1686 in 8vo. Our author finding his necessities press, had recourse to writing for the stage, which he did with various success: his comedy has been blamed for having too much libertinism mixed with it; but in tragedy he made it his business, for the most part, to observe the decorum of the stage. He has certainly followed nature in the language of his tragedy, and therefore shines in the passionate parts more than any of our English poets. As there is something familiar and domestic in the fable of his tragedy, he has little pomp, but great energy in his expressions; for which reason, though he has admirably succeeded in the tender and melting parts of his tragedies, he sometimes falls into too great a familiarity of phrase in those, which, by Aristotle's rule, ought to have been raised and supported by the dignity of expression. It has been observed by the critics, that the poet has founded his tragedy of Venice Preservcd, on so wrong a plot, that the greatest characters in it are those of rebels and traitors. Had the hero of this play discovered the same good qualities in defence of his country, that he shewed for his ruin and subversion, the audience could not enough pity and admire him; but as he is now represented, we can only say of him, what the Roman historian says of Catiline, that his fall would have been glorious (si pro Patria sic concidisset) had he so fallen, in the service of his country.
[327] Mr. Otway translated from French to English the History of the Triumvirate; the First Part of Julius Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus, and the Second Part of Augustus, Anthony, and Lepidus, which is a faithful compilation from the best historians and other authors about the changes in the Roman government that occurred under their authority, London 1686 in 8vo. Our author, facing financial difficulties, turned to writing for the stage, which he did with varying degrees of success: his comedy has been criticized for being too libertine; however, in tragedy, he generally tried to maintain the decorum of the stage. He definitely followed nature in the language of his tragedies, making him excel in the emotional parts more than any of our English poets. Since there is something relatable and domestic in the story of his tragedy, he uses less grandeur but conveys great energy in his expressions; for this reason, while he has succeeded superbly in the tender and emotional moments of his tragedies, he sometimes becomes too familiar in phrases that, according to Aristotle's standards, should be elevated and dignified. Critics have pointed out that the poet's tragedy, Venice Preserved, is based on such a flawed plot that its greatest characters are rebels and traitors. If the hero of this play had shown the same good qualities in defending his country that he displayed in its destruction, the audience would have had immense pity and admiration for him; but as he is currently portrayed, we can only echo what the Roman historian said of Catiline, that his downfall would have been glorious (si pro Patria sic concidisset) had he fallen while serving his country.
Mr. Charles Gildon, in his Laws of Poetry, stiles Mr. Otway a Poet of the first Magnitude, [328] and tells us, and with great justice, that he was perfect master of the tragic passions, and draws them every where with a delicate and natural simplicity, and therefore never fails to raise strong emotions in the soul. I don't know of a stronger instance of this force, than in the play of the Orphan; the tragedy is composed of persons whose fortunes do not exceed the quality of such as we ordinarily call people of condition, and without the advantage of having the scene heightened by the importance of the characters; his inimitable skill in representing the workings of the heart, and its affection, is such that the circumstances are great from the art of the poet, rather than from the figure of the persons represented. The whole drama is admirably wrought, and the mixture of passions raised from affinity, gratitude, love, and misunderstanding between brethren, ill usage from persons obliged slowly returned by the benefactors, keeps the mind in a continual anxiety and contrition. The sentiments of the unhappy Monimia are delicate and natural, she is miserable without guilt, but incapable of living with a consciousness of having committed an ill act, though her inclination had no part in it. Mrs. Barry, the celebrated actress, used to say, that in her part of Monimia in the Orphan, she never spoke these words, Ah! poor Castalio, without tears; upon which occasion Mr. Gildon observes, that all the pathetic force had been lost, if any more words had been added, and the poet would have endeavoured, in vain, to have heightened them, by the addition of figures of speech, since the beauty of those three plain simple words is so great by the force of nature, that they must have been weakened and obscured by 'the finest flowers of rhetoric.
Mr. Charles Gildon, in his Laws of Poetry, refers to Mr. Otway as a Poet of the highest caliber, and rightly so, stating that he was a true master of tragic emotions, portraying them everywhere with a subtle and natural simplicity, which consistently evokes powerful feelings in the soul. I can't think of a stronger example of this impact than in the play The Orphan; the tragedy consists of characters whose circumstances don't go beyond what we usually consider upper-class, and it doesn't rely on the significance of the characters to elevate the scene. His unparalleled skill in depicting the dynamics of the heart and its emotions is such that the intensity comes from the poet's craft rather than from the status of the characters involved. The entire drama is beautifully constructed, and the blend of emotions stemming from family ties, gratitude, love, and misunderstandings among siblings, along with mistreatment from those they owe, creates a constant state of anxiety and remorse. The feelings of the unfortunate Monimia are both delicate and genuine; she suffers without guilt yet cannot bear to live with the knowledge of having committed a wrongful act, even though she played no part in it. Mrs. Barry, the renowned actress, used to say that while playing Monimia in The Orphan, she never said the words, "Ah! poor Castalio," without tears; on this note, Mr. Gildon points out that any additional words would have diminished the emotional impact, and the poet would have failed to enhance them with rhetorical flourishes, as the beauty of those three simple words is so profound that they would have been weakened and obscured by the most elegant figures of speech.
The tragedy of the Orphan is not without great blemishes, which the writer of a criticism [329] on it, published in the Gentleman's Magazine, has very judiciously and candidly shewn. The impetuous passion of Polydore breaks out sometimes in a language not sufficiently delicate, particularly in that celebrated passage where he talks of rushing upon her in a storm of love. The simile of the bull is very offensive to chaste ears, but poor Otway lived in dissolute times, and his necessity obliged him to fan the harlot-face of loose desire, in compliance to the general corruption. Monimia staying to converse with Polydor, after he vauntingly discovers his success in deceiving her, is shocking; had she left him abruptly, with a wildness of horror, that might have thrown him under the necessity of seeking an explanation from Castalio, the scene would have ended better, would have kept the audience more in suspence, and been an improvement of the consequential scene between the brothers; but this remark is submitted to superior judges.
The tragedy of the Orphan isn’t without significant flaws, which a critic in the Gentleman's Magazine has wisely and honestly pointed out. Polydore’s intense emotions sometimes come out in a way that isn’t very refined, especially in that famous part where he talks about charging at her in a storm of love. The comparison to a bull is pretty inappropriate for decent ears, but Otway was living in immoral times, and his circumstances forced him to tap into the crude desires that were common then. Monimia's choice to stay and talk with Polydor after he boasts about tricking her is disturbing; if she had abruptly left him in a fit of horror, it might have forced him to seek an explanation from Castalio, which would have made the scene end better, kept the audience more on edge, and improved the following scene between the brothers. But this observation is left to those with better judgment.
Venice Preferred is still a greater proof of his influence over our passions, and the faculty of mingling good and bad characters, and involving their fortunes, seems to be the distinguished excellence of this writer. He very well knew that nothing but distressed virtue can strongly touch us with pity, and therefore, in this play, that we may have a greater regard for the conspirators, he makes Pierre talk of redressing wrongs, and repeat all the common place of male contents.
Venice Preferred is still a stronger demonstration of his influence over our emotions, and the ability to mix good and bad characters while intertwining their fates seems to be this writer's unique strength. He understood that only distressed virtue can deeply move us with pity, and so, in this play, to make us feel more sympathy for the conspirators, he has Pierre discuss correcting injustices and echo all the usual complaints of discontent.
To see the sufferings of my fellow-creatures,
And own myself a man: to see our senators
Cheat the deluded people with a shew
Of Liberty, which yet they ne'er must taste of!
They say by them our hands are free from fetters,
Yet whom they please they lay in basest bonds;
Bring whom they please to infamy and sorrow;
[330]
Drive us like wrecks down the rough tide of power
Whilst no hold's left, to save us from destruction:
All that bear this are villains, and I one,
Not to rouse up at the great call of nature,
And check the growth of these domestic spoilers,
Who make us slaves, and tell us 'tis our charter.
To witness the suffering of my fellow humans,
And recognize my own humanity: to see our senators
Deceive the misled public with a facade
Of Liberty, which they will never truly experience!
They claim that through them we are free from chains,
Yet whenever they choose, they ensnare others in the worst bonds;
They bring whoever they want to shame and grief;
[330]
They push us along like wreckage in the harsh flow of power
While there’s nothing left to save us from ruin:
Anyone who tolerates this is a villain, and so am I,
If I do not respond to the urgent call of nature,
And curb the rise of these homegrown oppressors,
Who make us slaves and claim it’s our right.
Jaffier's wants and distresses, make him prone enough to any desperate resolution, yet says he in the language of genuine tenderness,
Jaffier's wants and struggles make him vulnerable enough to any desperate decision, yet he speaks in the language of true tenderness,
But when I think what Belvidera feels,
The bitterness her tender spirit tastes of,
I own myself a coward: bear my weakness,
If throwing thus my arms about thy neck,
I play the boy, and blubber in thy bosom.
But when I think about what Belvidera feels,
The bitterness her sensitive spirit experiences,
I admit I’m a coward: accept my weakness,
If by throwing my arms around your neck,
I act like a child and cry in your embrace.
Jaffier's expostulation afterwards, is the picture of all who are partial to their own merit, and generally think a relish of the advantages of life is pretence enough to enjoy them.
Jaffier's plea later on represents everyone who is biased towards their own worth and usually believes that just enjoying the benefits of life is reason enough to take pleasure in them.
Tell me, why good Heaven
Thou mad'st me what I am, with all the spirit,
Aspiring thoughts, and elegant desires
That fill the happiest man? ah rather why
Didst thou not form me, sordid as my fate,
Base minded, dull, and fit to carry burdens.
Tell me, why good Heaven
Did you make me who I am, with all the spirit,
Aspirational thoughts, and elegant desires
That fill the happiest person? Ah, rather why
Didn’t you make me, as unfortunate as my fate,
Mundane, dull, and just suitable for carrying burdens?
How dreadful is Jaffier's soliloquy, after he is engaged in the conspiracy.
How awful is Jaffier's soliloquy after he gets involved in the conspiracy.
I'm here; and thus the shades of night surround me,
I look as if all hell were in my heart,
And I in hell. Nay surely 'tis so with me;
For every step I tread, methinks some fiend
Knocks at my breast, and bids it not be quiet.
I've heard how desperate wretches like myself
Have wandered out at this dead time of night
[331]
To meet the foe of mankind in his walk:
Sure I'm so curst, that though of Heaven forsaken,
No minister of darkness, cares to tempt me.
Hell, hell! why sleep'st thou?
I'm here; and so the shadows of night surround me,
I feel like there’s all kinds of turmoil in my heart,
And I’m trapped in despair. No, it really is like that for me;
For with every step I take, it seems like some demon
Is banging at my chest, urging it to stay restless.
I've heard how desperate souls like mine
Have roamed out at this dead hour of night
[331]
To confront the enemy of humanity on his path:
I’m sure I’m so cursed that even though forsaken by Heaven,
No force of darkness cares to lead me astray.
Hell, hell! why are you so silent?
The above is the most awful picture of a man plunged in despair, that ever was drawn by a poet; we cannot read it without terror: and when it is uttered as we have heard it, from the late justly celebrated Booth, or those heart-affecting actors Garrick, and Barry, the flesh creeps, and the blood is chilled with horror.
The above is the most terrible image of a man engulfed in despair that has ever been created by a poet; we can’t read it without feeling terrified. When it's performed, as we've seen from the recently celebrated Booth, or those deeply moving actors Garrick and Barry, it sends shivers down our spine and chills our blood with fear.
In this play Otway catches our hearts, by introducing the episode of Belvidera. Private and public calamities alternately claim our concern; sometimes we could wish to see a whole State sacrificed for the weeping Belvidera, whose character and distress are so drawn as to melt every heart; at other times we recover again, in behalf of a whole people in danger. There is not a virtuous character in the play, but that of Belvidera, and yet so amazing is the force of the author's skill in blending private and public concerns, that the ruffian on the wheel, is as much the object of pity, as if he had been brought to that unhappy fate by some honourable action.
In this play, Otway grabs our hearts by introducing the story of Belvidera. We alternate between feeling sorry for personal tragedies and public disasters; at times, we might wish to see an entire state sacrificed for the grieving Belvidera, whose character and suffering are portrayed so poignantly that they touch everyone. Other times, we focus on the plight of a whole community in danger. The only virtuous character in the play is Belvidera, yet the author's incredible ability to intertwine personal and public issues makes even the villain on the wheel evoke sympathy, as if he had met that unfortunate end through some noble deed.
Though Mr. Otway possessed this astonishing talent of moving the passions, and writing to the heart, yet he was held in great contempt by some cotemporary poets, and was several times unsuccessful in his dramatic pieces. The merits of an author are seldom justly estimated, till the next age after his decease; while a man lives in the world, he has passion, prejudice, private and public malevolence to combat; his enemies are industrious to obscure his fame, by drawing into light his private follies; and personal malice is up in arms against every man of genius.
Though Mr. Otway had this incredible ability to stir emotions and write from the heart, he was often looked down upon by some of his contemporary poets and faced multiple failures with his plays. An author’s true worth is rarely recognized until the next generation after they’re gone; while someone is alive, they have to fight against passion, bias, and both private and public animosity. Their enemies work hard to tarnish their reputation by highlighting their personal shortcomings, and personal spite targets every talented individual.
[332] Otway was exposed to powerful enemies, who could not bear that he should acquire fame, amongst whom Dryden is the foremost. The enmity between Dryden and Otway could not proceed from jealousy, for what were Otway's, when put in the ballance with the amazing powers of Dryden? like a drop to the ocean: and yet we find Dryden declared himself his open enemy; for which, the best reason that can be assigned is, that Otway was a retainer to Shadwell, who was Dryden's aversion. Dryden was often heard to say, that Otway was a barren illiterate man, but 'I confess, says he, he has a power which I have not;' and when it was asked him, what power that was? he answered, 'moving the passions.' This truth was, no doubt, extorted from Dryden, for he seems not to be very ready in acknowledging the merits of his cotemporaries. In his preface to Du Fresnoy's Art of Painting, which he translated, he mentions Otway with respect, but not till after he was dead; and even then he speaks but coldly of him. The passage is as follows, 'To express the passions which are seated on the heart by outward signs, is one great precept of the painters, and very difficult to perform. In poetry the very same passions, and motions of the mind are to be expressed, and in this consists the principal difficulty, as well as the excellency of that art. This (says my author) is the gift of Jupiter, and to speak in the same Heathen language, is the gift of our Apollo, not to be obtained by pains or study, if we are not born to it; for the motions which are studied, are never so natural, as those which break out in the heighth of a real passion. Mr. Otway possessed this part as thoroughly as any of either the ancients or moderns. I will not defend every thing in his Venice Preserved, but I must bear this testimony to his memory, that the passions [333] are truly touched in it, though, perhaps, there is somewhat to be desired, both in the grounds of them, and the heighth and elegance of expression; but nature is there, which is the greatest beauty.' Notwithstanding our admiration of Dryden, we cannot, without some indignation, observe, how sparing he is in the praises of Otway, who, considered as a tragic writer, was surely superior to himself. Dryden enchants us indeed with flow'ry descriptions, and charms us with (what is called) the magic of poetry; but he has seldom drawn a tear, and millions of radiant eyes have been witnesses for Otway, by those drops of pity which they have shed. Otway might be no scholar, but that, methinks, does not detract from the merit of a dramatist, nor much assist him in succeeding. For the truth of this we may appeal to experience. No poets in our language, who were what we call scholars, have ever written plays which delight or affect the audience. Shakespear, Otway and Southern were no scholars; Ben Johnson, Dryden and Addison were: and while few audiences admire the plays of the latter, those of the former are the supports of the stage.
[332] Otway faced powerful enemies who couldn’t stand the idea of him becoming famous, with Dryden being the most prominent among them. The rivalry between Dryden and Otway wasn’t due to jealousy, because what could Otway achieve compared to Dryden’s incredible talent? It was like comparing a drop to an ocean. Yet, Dryden openly declared himself an enemy of Otway, likely because Otway was aligned with Shadwell, whom Dryden disliked. Dryden was often heard saying that Otway was a barren, uneducated man, but he also admitted, “I confess he has a power that I don’t have.” When asked what that power was, he replied, “moving the passions.” This acknowledgment from Dryden was probably forced, as he didn’t seem inclined to praise his contemporaries. In his preface to Du Fresnoy’s Art of Painting, which he translated, he mentions Otway respectfully, but only after he had died, and even then, he speaks of him somewhat coldly. The passage states, "To express the passions that reside in the heart through outward signs is a crucial and challenging principle for painters. In poetry, the same passions and movements of the mind need to be conveyed, which presents both the main difficulty and the excellence of that art. This (my author says) is the gift of Jupiter, and to use the same classical language, it is the gift of our Apollo, not something that can be attained through effort or study if one isn't born with it; for the feelings cultivated through study are never as natural as those that emerge from genuine passion. Mr. Otway possessed this ability as thoroughly as any of the ancients or moderns. I won’t defend everything in his Venice Preserved, but I must give credit to his memory that the passions are genuinely portrayed in it, although there might be room for improvement in their foundations and in the height and elegance of expression; but nature is present, which is the greatest beauty." Despite our admiration for Dryden, it’s frustrating to see how stingy he is with his praise for Otway, who, as a tragic writer, was certainly superior to him. Dryden captivates us with flowery descriptions and charms us with what is known as the magic of poetry, but he rarely brings us to tears, while millions of shining eyes have witnessed the pity shed for Otway’s work. Otway may not have been a scholar, but that doesn’t take away from a dramatist's merit, nor does it significantly help him succeed. We can look to experience for confirmation of this. No poets in our language who were considered scholars have ever written plays that truly delight or affect the audience. Shakespeare, Otway, and Southerne were not scholars; Ben Jonson, Dryden, and Addison were. And while few audiences appreciate the plays of the latter, the works of the former are the pillars of the stage. [333]
After suffering many eclipses of fortune, and being exposed to the most cruel necessities, poor Otway died of want, in a public house on Tower-hill, in the 33rd year of his age, 1685. He had, no doubt, been driven to that part of the town, to avoid the persecution of his creditors and as he durst not appear much abroad to sollicit assistance, and having no means of getting money in his obscure retreat, he perished. It has been reported, that Mr. Otway, whom delicacy had long deterred from borrowing small sums, driven at last to the most grievous necessity ventured out of his lurking place, almost naked and shivering, and went into a coffee-house on Tower-hill, [334] where he saw a gentleman, of whom he had some knowledge, and of whom he sollicited the loan of a shilling. The gentleman was quite shocked, to see the author of Venice Preserved begging bread, and compassionately put into his hand a guinea.
After going through many ups and downs and facing extreme hardships, poor Otway died from lack of resources in a pub on Tower Hill at the age of 33 in 1685. He had likely gone to that part of town to escape his creditors and, since he couldn’t go out much to ask for help and had no way of getting money in his hidden spot, he ended up dying. It's been said that Mr. Otway, who had long been too proud to borrow small amounts, was finally pushed to desperate measures. He ventured out from his hiding place, almost bare and shivering, and entered a coffee house on Tower Hill, [334] where he recognized a gentleman and asked him for a shilling. The gentleman was quite taken aback to see the author of Venice Preserved begging for help and kindly handed him a guinea.
Mr. Otway having thanked his benefactor, retired, and changed the guinea to purchase a roll; as his stomach was full of wind by excess of fasting, the first mouthful choaked him, and instantaneously put a period to his days.
Mr. Otway thanked his benefactor, then left and exchanged a guinea to buy a roll. Since his stomach was upset from fasting too much, the first bite choked him and instantly ended his life.
Who can consider the fate of this gentleman, without being moved to pity? we can forgive his acts of imprudence, since they brought him to so miserable an end; and we cannot but regret, that he who was endowed by nature with such distinguished talents, as to make the bosom bleed with salutary sorrow, should himself be so extremely wretched, as to excite the same sensations for him, which by the power of his eloquence and poetry, he had raised for imaginary heroes. We know, indeed, of no guilty part of Otway's life, other than those fashionable faults, which usually recommend to the conversation of men in courts, but which serve for excuses for their patrons, when they have not a mind to provide for them. From the example of Mr. Otway, succeeding poets should learn not to place any confidence in the promises of patrons; it discovers a higher spirit, and reflects more honour on a man to struggle nobly for independance, by the means of industry, than servilely to wait at a great man's gate, or to sit at his table, meerly to afford him diversion: Competence and independence have surely more substantial charms, than the smiles of a courtier, which are too frequently fallacious. But who can read Mr Otway's story, without indignation at those idols of greatness, who demand worship from men of genius, and yet can suffer them to live miserably, and die neglected?
Who can think about the fate of this gentleman without feeling pity? We can overlook his reckless actions since they led him to such a tragic end; and we can’t help but regret that he, who was naturally gifted with such remarkable talents that could evoke genuine sorrow, should himself be so deeply unhappy that he inspires the same feelings in us that he once aroused for fictional heroes through his eloquence and poetry. Indeed, we know of no wrongdoing in Otway's life, apart from those typical flaws that often endear people to those in power, yet serve as excuses for their benefactors when they choose not to support them. From Mr. Otway's example, future poets should learn not to trust the promises of patrons; it shows a greater spirit and brings more honor to a person to fight bravely for independence through hard work than to wait submissively at a powerful person's door or sit at their table just to entertain them. Financial stability and independence truly have more genuine appeal than the smiles of a courtier, which are too often deceptive. But who can read Mr. Otway’s story without feeling anger towards those figures of power who demand admiration from talented individuals and yet allow them to live in misery and die forgotten?
- Alcibiades, a Tragedy, acted at the Duke of York's Theatre, 1675, dedicated to Charles, Earl of Middlesex. The story of this play is taken from Cor. Nepos, and Plutarch's Life of Alcibiades.
- Titus and Berenice, a Tragedy, acted at the Duke's Theatre, 1677, dedicated to John, Earl of Rochester. This play consists of but three Acts, and is a translation from M. Racine into heroic verse; for the story see Suetonius, Dionysius, Josephus; to which is added the Cheats of Scapin, a Farce, acted the same year. This is a translation from Moliere, and is originally Terence's Phormio.
- Friendship in Fashion, a Comedy, acted at the Duke's Theatre, 1678, dedicated to the Earl of Dorset and Middlesex. This play was revived at the Theatre-Royal in Drury-Lane, 1749, and was damned by the audience, on account of the immorality of the design, and the obscenity of the dialogue.
- Don Carlos, Prince of Spain, a Tragedy, acted at the Duke of York's Theatre, 1679. This play, which was the second production of our author, written in heroic verse, was acted with very great applause, and had a run of thirty nights; the plot from the Novel called Don Carlos.
- The Orphan, or the Unhappy Marriage, a Tragedy, acted at the Duke of York's Theatre, 1680, dedicated to her Royal Highness the Duchess. It is founded on the History of Brandon, and a Novel called the English Adventurer. Scene Bohemia.
- The History and Fall of Caius Marius, a Tragedy, acted at the Duke's Theatre, 1680, dedicated to Lord Viscount Falkland. The characters [336] of Marius Junior and Lavinia, are borrowed literally from Shakespear's Romeo and Juliet, which Otway has acknowledged in his Prologue.
- The Soldier's Fortune, a Comedy, acted at the Duke's Theatre, 1681. This play is dedicated to Mr. Bentley his Bookseller; for the copy money, as he tells us himself, see Boccace's Novels, Scarron's Romances.
- The Atheist, or the Second Part of the Soldier's Fortune, a Comedy, acted at the Duke of York's Theatre, 1684, dedicated to Lord Eland, the eldest son to the Marquis of Hallifax.
- Venice Preserved, or a Plot Discovered, a Tragedy, acted at the Duke's Theatre, 1685, dedicated to the Duchess of Portsmouth. Of this we have already given some account, and it is so frequently acted, that any enlargement would be impertinent. It is certainly one of the most moving plays upon the English stage; the plot from a little book, giving an account of the Conspiracy of the Spaniards against Venice.
Besides his plays, he wrote several poems, viz.
Besides his plays, he wrote several poems, namely.
The Poet's Complaint to his Muse, or a Satire against Libels, London; 1680, in 4to.
The Poet's Complaint to his Muse, or a Satire against Libels, London; 1680, in 4to.
Windsor Castle, or a Monument to King Charles the Second.
Windsor Castle, or a Tribute to King Charles the Second.
Miscellany Poems, containing a New Translation of Virgil's Eclogues, Ovid's Elegies, Odes of Horace, London 1864. He translated likewise the Epistle of Phædra to Hyppolitus, printed in the Translation of Ovid's Epistles, by several hands. He wrote the Prologue to Mrs. Bhon's City Heiress. Prefixed to Creechis Lucretius, there is a copy of verses written by Mr. Otway, in praise of that translation.
Miscellany Poems, featuring a New Translation of Virgil's Eclogues, Ovid's Elegies, and Horace's Odes, London 1864. He also translated the Epistle of Phaedra to Hippolitus, which was included in the Translation of Ovid's Epistles, done by various contributors. He wrote the Prologue for Mrs. Bhon's City Heiress. At the beginning of Creech's Lucretius, there's a poem written by Mr. Otway, praising that translation.
John Oldham.
This eminent satyrical poet, was the son of the reverend Mr. John Oldham, a nonconformist minister, and grandson to Mr. John Oldham, rector of Nun-Eaton, near Tedbury in Gloucestershire. He was born at Shipton (where his father had a congregation, near Tedbury, and in the same county) on the 9th of August 1653. He was educated in grammar learning, under the care of his father, till he was almost fitted for the university; and to be compleatly qualified for that purpose, he was sent to Tedbridge school, where he spent about two years under the tuition of Mr. Henry Heaven, occasioned by the earnest request of alderman Yeats of Bristol, who having a son at the same school, was desirous that Mr. Oldham should be his companion, which he imagined would much conduce to the advancement of his learning. This for some time retarded Oldham in the prosecution of his own studies, but for the time he lost in forwarding Mr. Yeat's son, his father afterwards made him an ample amends. Mr. Oldham being sent to Edmund Hall in Oxford, was committed to the care of Mr. William Stephens: of which hall he became a bachelor in the beginning of June 1670. He was soon observed to be a good latin scholar, and chiefly addicted himself to the study of poetry, and other polite acquirements[1]. In the year 1674, he took the degree of bachelor of arts, but left the university before [338] he compleated that degree by determination, being much against his inclination compelled to go home and live for some time with his father. The next year he was very much afflicted for the death of his dear friend, and constant companion, Mr. Charles Mervent, as appears by his ode upon that occasion. In a short time after he became usher to the free-school at Croyden in Surry. Here it was, he had the honour of receiving a visit from the earl of Rochester, the earl of Dorset, Sir Charles Sedley, and other persons of distinction, meerly upon the reputation of some verses which they had seen in manuscript. The master of the school was not a little surprized, at such a visit, and would fain have taken the honour of it to himself, but was soon convinced that he had neither wit nor learning enough to make a party in such company. This adventure was no doubt very happy for Mr. Oldham, as it encreased his reputation and gained him the countenance of the Great, for after about three years continuance at Croyden school, he was recommended by his good friend Harman Atwood, Esq; to Sir Edward Thurland, a judge, near Rygate in the same county, who appointed him tutor to his two grandsons. He continued in this family till 1680. After this he was sometime tutor to a son of Sir William Hicks, a gentleman living within three or four miles of London, who was intimately acquainted with a celebrated Physician, Dr. Richard Lower, by whose peculiar friendship and encouragement, Mr. Oldham at his leisure hours studied physic for about a year, and made some progress in it, but the bent of his poetical genius was too strong to become a proficient in any school but that of the muses. He freely acknowledges this in a letter to a friend, written in July 1678.
This well-known satirical poet was the son of the Reverend Mr. John Oldham, a nonconformist minister, and the grandson of Mr. John Oldham, rector of Nun-Eaton, near Tedbury in Gloucestershire. He was born in Shipton (where his father had a congregation, close to Tedbury, and in the same county) on August 9, 1653. He was educated in grammar under his father's guidance until he was almost ready for university; to fully prepare for that, he was sent to Tedbridge school, where he spent about two years under Mr. Henry Heaven, due to the earnest request of Alderman Yeats from Bristol, who wanted Mr. Oldham to be a companion for his son at the same school, believing it would greatly benefit his son's education. This temporarily delayed Oldham's own studies, but his father later made up for the time lost while helping Mr. Yeat's son. Mr. Oldham was sent to Edmund Hall in Oxford and placed in the care of Mr. William Stephens, where he became a bachelor in early June 1670. He was soon recognized as a good Latin scholar, mainly focusing on poetry and other refined subjects. In 1674, he earned his bachelor of arts degree but left the university before completing that degree, as he was reluctantly compelled to go home and live with his father for a while. The following year, he was deeply affected by the death of his dear friend and constant companion, Mr. Charles Mervent, as evident in his ode written for that occasion. Shortly after, he became an usher at the free school in Croydon, Surrey. It was here that he had the honor of receiving a visit from the Earl of Rochester, the Earl of Dorset, Sir Charles Sedley, and other distinguished individuals, purely because of some verses they had seen in manuscript. The school's master was quite surprised by such a visit and wished to take credit for it himself, but quickly realized he lacked the wit and knowledge to hold his own in such company. This incident undoubtedly greatly benefited Mr. Oldham, as it boosted his reputation and earned him the attention of high-ranking individuals. After about three years at Croydon school, he was recommended by his good friend Harman Atwood, Esq., to Sir Edward Thurland, a judge near Rygate in the same county, who appointed him as a tutor to his two grandsons. He remained with this family until 1680. After this, he was briefly a tutor to a son of Sir William Hicks, a gentleman living three or four miles from London, who was closely connected with a celebrated physician, Dr. Richard Lower. Thanks to Dr. Lower's friendship and encouragement, Mr. Oldham studied medicine in his spare time for about a year and made some progress, but his strong poetic inclination prevented him from fully pursuing any other field but that of the muses. He openly acknowledged this in a letter to a friend written in July 1678.
[339]
While silly I, all thriving arts refuse, And all my hopes, and all my vigour lose, In service of the worst of jilts a muse. * * * * * Oft I remember, did wise friends dissuade, And bid me quit the trifling barren trade. Oft have I tryed (heaven knows) to mortify This vile and wicked bent of poetry; But still unconquered it remains within, Fixed as a habit, or some darling sin. In vain I better studies there would sow; Oft have I tried, but none will thrive or grow. All my best thoughts, when I'd most serious be, Are never from its foul infection free: Nay God forgive me when I say my prayers, I scarce can help polluting them with verse. The fab'lous wretch of old revers'd I seem, Who turn whatever I touch to dross of rhime. |
} } } |
Our author had not been long in London, before he was found out by the noblemen who visited him at Croyden, and who now introduced him to the acquaintance of Mr. Dryden. But amongst the Men of quality he was most affectionately caressed by William Earl of Kingston, who made him an offer of becoming his chaplain; but he declined an employment, to which servility and dependence are so necessarily connected. The writer of his life observes, that our author in his satire addressed to a friend, who was about to quit the university, and came abroad into the world, lets his friend know, that he was frighted from the thought of such an employment, by the scandalous sort of treatment which often accompanies it. This usage deters men of generous minds from placing themselves in such a station of life; and hence persons of quality are frequently excluded from the improving, agreeable [340] conversation of a learned and obsequious friend. In this satire Mr. Oldham writes thus,
Our author hadn’t been in London for long before the noblemen who visited him in Croydon discovered him and introduced him to Mr. Dryden. Among the men of high status, he was particularly favored by William, Earl of Kingston, who offered him the position of chaplain. However, he turned down the job, which he felt was tied too closely to servitude and dependence. The biographer notes that in his satire addressed to a friend about to leave university and enter the world, our author expressed his fear of such a position due to the scandalous treatment that often comes with it. This kind of treatment discourages people with noble minds from accepting such roles, leading to a situation where quality individuals are often excluded from the enriching and enjoyable [340] conversations with a knowledgeable and devoted friend. In this satire, Mr. Oldham writes:
Some think themselves exalted to the sky, If they light on some noble family. Diet and horse, and thirty-pounds a year, Besides the advantage of his lordship's ear. The credit of the business and the state, Are things that in a youngster's sense found great. Little the unexperienced wretch does know, What slavery he oft must undergo; Who tho' in silken stuff, and cassoc drest, Wears but a gayer livery at best. When diner calls, the implement must wait, With holy words to consecrate the meat; But hold it for a favour seldom known, If he be deign'd the honour to sit down. Soon as the tarts appear, Sir Crape withdraw, Those dainties are not for a spiritual maw. Observe your distance, and be sure to stand Hard by the cistern, with your cap in hand: There for diversion you may pick your teeth, Till the kind voider comes for your relief, For meer board wages, such their freedom sell, Slaves to an hour, and vassals to a bell: And if th' employments of one day be stole, They are but prisoners out upon parole: Always the marks of slavery remain, And they tho' loose, still drag about their chain. And where's the mighty prospect after all, A chaplainship serv'd up, and seven years thrall? The menial thing, perhaps for a reward, Is to some slender benefice prefer'd, With this proviso bound that he must wed, My lady's antiquated waiting maid, In dressing only skill'd, and marmalade. Let others who such meannesses can brook, Strike countenance to ev'ry great man's look: [341] Let those, that have a mind, turn slave to eat, And live contented by another's plate: I rate my freedom higher, nor will I, For food and rayment track my liberty. But if I must to my last shift be put, To fill a bladder, and twelve yards of gut, Richer with counterfeited wooden leg, And my right arm tyed up, I'll choose to beg. I'll rather choose to starve at large, than be, The gaudiest vassal to dependancy. |
} } } |
The above is a lively and animated description of the miseries of a slavish dependance on the great, particularly that kind of mortification which a chaplain must undergo. It is to be lamented, that gentlemen of an academical education should be subjected to observe so great a distance from those, over whom in all points of learning and genius they may have a superiority. Tho' in the very nature of things this must necessarily happen, yet a high spirit cannot bear it, and it is with pleasure we can produce Oldham, as one of those poets who have spurned dependence, and acted consistent with the dignity of his genius, and the lustre of his profession.
The above is a lively and animated description of the struggles of being dependent on the powerful, especially the kind of humiliation that a chaplain must endure. It's unfortunate that men with an academic background have to maintain such a great distance from those they may surpass in knowledge and talent. Although this is a natural occurrence, it’s something that a proud person can't accept. We take pleasure in highlighting Oldham as a poet who rejected dependence and remained true to the dignity of his talent and the prestige of his profession.
When the earl of Kingston found that Mr. Oldham's spirit was too high to accept his offer of chaplainship, he then caressed him as a companion, and gave him an invitation to his house at Holmes-Pierpont, in Nottinghamshire. This invitation Mr. Oldham accepted, and went into the country with him, not as a dependant but friend; he considered himself as a poet, and a clergyman, and in consequence of that, he did not imagine the earl was in the least degraded by making him his bosom companion. Virgil was the friend of Mæcenas, and shone in the court of Augustus, and if it should be observed that Virgil was a greater poet than Oldham, it may be answered, Mæcenas was a greater man than [342] the Earl of Kingston, and the court of Augustus much more brilliant than that of Charles II.
When the Earl of Kingston realized that Mr. Oldham's pride was too high to accept his offer for the chaplain position, he instead treated him like a friend and invited him to his home in Holmes-Pierpont, Nottinghamshire. Mr. Oldham accepted this invitation and traveled to the countryside with him, not as a subordinate but as a friend; he saw himself as both a poet and a clergyman, and because of that, he didn't think the earl was lesser for making him his close companion. Virgil was a friend of Mæcenas and thrived in the court of Augustus, and if anyone points out that Virgil was a greater poet than Oldham, it can be noted that Mæcenas was a more significant figure than the Earl of Kingston, and the court of Augustus was much more illustrious than that of Charles II.
Our author had not been long at the seat of this Earl, before, being seized with the small pox, he died December 9, 1683, in the 30th year of his age, and was interred with the utmost decency, his lordship attending as chief mourner, in the church there, where the earl soon after erected a monument to his memory.—Mr. Oldham's works were printed at London 1722, in two volumes 12mo. They chiefly consist of Satires, Odes, Translations, Paraphrases of Horace, and other authors; Elegiac Verses, Imitations, Parodies, Familiar Epistles, &c.—Mr. Oldham was tall of stature, the make of his body very thin, his face long, his nose prominent, his aspect unpromising, and satire was in his eye. His constitution was very tender, inclined to a consumption, and it was not a little injured by his study and application to learned authors, with whom he was greatly conversant, as appears from his satires against the Jesuits, in which there is discovered as much learning as wit. In the second volume of the great historical, geographical, and poetical Dictionary, he is stiled the Darling of the Muses, a pithy, sententious, elegant, and smooth writer: "His translations exceed the original, and his invention seems matchless. His satire against the Jesuits is of special note; he may be justly said to have excelled all the satirists of the age." Tho' this compliment in favour of Oldham is certainly too hyperbolical, yet he was undoubtedly a very great genius; he had treasured in his mind an infinite deal of knowledge, which, had his life been prolonged, he might have produced with advantage, for his natural endowments seem to have been very great: But he is not more to be reverenced as a Poet, than for that gallant spirit of Independence he discovered, and that magnanimity which scorned to stoop to any servile submissions for patronage: He had [343] many admirers among his contemporaries, of whom Mr. Dryden professed himself one, and has done justice to his memory by some excellent verses, with which we shall close this account.
Our author hadn't been at the Earl's estate for long before he contracted smallpox and died on December 9, 1683, at the age of 30. He was buried with great respect, with the Earl as the chief mourner, in the church there, where the Earl later built a monument in his honor. Mr. Oldham's works were published in London in 1722, in two volumes of 12mo. They mostly consist of Satires, Odes, Translations, Paraphrases of Horace, and other authors; Elegiac Verses, Imitations, Parodies, Familiar Epistles, etc. Mr. Oldham was tall and very thin, with a long face and a prominent nose, looking unassuming, with satire evident in his eyes. His health was fragile, prone to consumption, and it was worsened by his intense study and engagement with learned authors, which is evident from his satires against the Jesuits, where he displayed as much learning as wit. In the second volume of the extensive historical, geographical, and poetical Dictionary, he is called the Darling of the Muses, noted for being a concise, insightful, elegant, and smooth writer: "His translations surpass the original, and his creativity seems unmatched. His satire against the Jesuits is particularly noteworthy; he can truly be said to surpass all the satirists of his time." Though this praise for Oldham may be somewhat exaggerated, he was undoubtedly a remarkable talent; he had amassed a wealth of knowledge in his mind, which, had he lived longer, he could have utilized to great effect, as his natural abilities appeared to be quite significant. However, he should be revered not only as a Poet but also for the courageous spirit of independence he showed, along with the magnanimity that refused to compromise for patronage. He had [343] many admirers among his peers, including Mr. Dryden, who acknowledged him as such and paid tribute to his memory with some excellent verses, with which we will conclude this account.
Farewel too little, and too lately known, Whom I began to think, and call my own; For sure our souls were near allied, and thine Cast in the same poetic mould with mine. One common note on either lyre did strike, And knaves and tools were both abhorred alike. To the same goal did both our studies drive, The last set out, the soonest did arrive, Thus Nisus fell upon the slippery place, While his young friend perform'd and won the race. O early ripe! to thy abundant store, What could advancing age have added more? It might, what nature never gives the young, Have taught the numbers of thy native tongue. But satire needs not those, and wit will shine, Thro' the harsh cadence of a rugged line: A noble error, and but seldom made, When poets are by too much force betray'd. Thy gen'rous fruits, tho' gather'd e'er their prime, Still shewed a quickness; and maturing time But mellows what we write to the dull sweets of rhime. Once more, hail and farewel: Farewel thou young, But ah! too short, Marcellus of our tongue; Thy brows with ivy, and with laurels bound, But fate, and gloomy night encompass thee around. |
} } } |
(Dillon) (Wentworth) Earl of Roscommon,
This nobleman was born in Ireland during the lieutenancy of the earl of Strafford, in the reign of King Charles I. Lord Strafford was his godfather, and named him by his own surname. He passed some of his first years in his native country, till the earl of Strafford imagining, when the rebellion first broke out, that his father who had been converted by archbishop Usher to the Protestant religion, would be exposed to great danger, and be unable to protect his family, sent for his godson, and placed him at his own seat in Yorkshire, under the tuition, of Dr. Hall, afterwards bishop of Norwich; by whom he was instructed in Latin, and without learning the common rules of grammar, which he could never retain in his memory, he attained to write in that language with classical elegance and propriety, and with so much ease, that he chose it to correspond with those friends who had learning sufficient to support the commerce. When the earl of Strafford was prosecuted, lord Roscommon went to Caen in Normandy, by the advice of bishop Usher, to continue his studies under Bochart, where he is said to have had an extraordinary impulse of his father's death, which is related by Mr. Aubrey in his miscellany, 'Our author then a boy of about ten years of age, one day was as it were madly extravagant, in playing, getting over the tables, boards, &c. He was wont to be sober enough. They who observed him said, God grant [345] this proves no ill luck to him. In the heat of this extravagant fit, he cries out my father is dead. A fortnight after news came from Ireland, that his father was dead. This account I had from Mr. Knowles who was his governor, and then with him, since secretary to the earl of Strafford; and I have heard his Lordship's relations confirm the same.'
This nobleman was born in Ireland during the time the Earl of Strafford was in charge, under King Charles I. Lord Strafford was his godfather and named him after his own last name. He spent part of his early years in his home country until the Earl of Strafford, fearing that his father—who had converted to Protestantism under Archbishop Usher—would face significant danger when the rebellion broke out and wouldn’t be able to protect his family, called for his godson and took him to his estate in Yorkshire. There, he was educated by Dr. Hall, who later became the Bishop of Norwich. Under his guidance, he learned Latin without mastering the usual grammar rules, which he could never quite remember. Still, he was able to write in that language with classical elegance and precision, doing so effortlessly enough that he chose it to correspond with friends who had enough knowledge to maintain that exchange. When the Earl of Strafford faced prosecution, Lord Roscommon went to Caen in Normandy, on the advice of Bishop Usher, to continue his studies under Bochart. It’s said he had a profound sense of his father's death, which Mr. Aubrey recounts in his miscellany: "Our author, then about ten years old, one day was wildly extravagant in his play, climbing over tables, boards, etc. He was usually quite sober. Those who watched him remarked, 'God grant this proves no ill luck for him.' In the midst of this wild fit, he cried out, 'My father is dead.' Two weeks later, news arrived from Ireland that his father had indeed passed away. I received this account from Mr. Knowles, who was his tutor at the time and later became the secretary to the Earl of Strafford, and I have heard his lordship's relatives confirm the same."
The ingenious author of lord Roscommon's life, publish'd in the Gentleman's Magazine for the month of May, 1748, has the following remarks on the above relation of Aubrey's.
The clever writer of Lord Roscommon's life, published in the Gentleman's Magazine for May 1748, has the following comments on Aubrey's account.
'The present age is very little inclined to favour any accounts of this sort, nor will the name of Aubrey much recommend it to credit; it ought not however to be omitted, because better evidence of a fact is not easily to be found, than is here offered, and it must be, by preserving such relations, that we may at least judge how much they are to be regarded. If we stay to examine this account we shall find difficulties on both sides; here is a relation of a fact given by a man who had no interest to deceive himself; and here is on the other hand a miracle which produces no effect; the order of nature is interrupted to discover not a future, but only a distant event, the knowledge of which is of no use to him to whom it is revealed. Between these difficulties what way shall be found? Is reason or testimony to be rejected? I believe what Osborne says of an appearance of sanctity, may be applied to such impulses, or anticipations. "Do not wholly slight them, because they may be true; but do not easily trust them, because they may be false."'
The current age is not very inclined to favor accounts like this, and the name Aubrey doesn't do much to lend it credibility. However, it shouldn't be ignored because it's hard to find better evidence for a fact than what's presented here. By keeping such accounts, we can at least form an opinion on how much they should be valued. If we take the time to examine this account, we'll find challenges on both sides; here we have a report of a fact from a man with no reason to deceive himself, and on the other side, we have a miracle that has no real impact. The natural order is disrupted to reveal not a future event, but just a distant one, knowledge of which is of no practical use to the person it’s shown to. Amidst these challenges, how can we find a solution? Should we reject reason or testimony? I believe what Osborne says about an appearance of sanctity can apply to such feelings or premonitions: "Don’t dismiss them completely, because they might be true; but don’t trust them too readily, because they might be false."
Some years after he travelled to Rome, where he grew familiar with the most valuable remains of antiquity, applying himself particularly to the knowledge [346] of medals, which he gained in great perfection, and spoke Italian with so much grace and fluency, that he was frequently mistaken there for a native. He returned to England upon the restoration of King Charles the IId, and was made captain of the band of pensioners, an honour which tempted him to some extravagancies. In the gaieties of that age (says Fenton) he was tempted to indulge a violent passion for gaming, by which he frequently hazarded his life in duels, and exceeded the bounds of a moderate fortune. This was the fate of many other men whose genius was of no other advantage to them, than that it recommended them to employments, or to distinction, by which the temptations to vice were multiplied, and their parts became soon of no other use, than that of enabling them to succeed in debauchery.
Some years after he visited Rome, where he became familiar with the most valuable remnants of ancient times, he focused particularly on the study of medals, which he mastered perfectly. He spoke Italian with such grace and fluency that he was often mistaken for a local. He returned to England with the restoration of King Charles II, and was appointed captain of the band of pensioners, an honor that led him to some extravagant behavior. In the lively atmosphere of that time (says Fenton), he was drawn into a dangerous passion for gambling, which often put his life at risk in duels and pushed him to exceed his moderate wealth. This was the fate of many other men whose talents served them no better than to lead them to positions of prominence, where the temptations of vice multiplied, and their abilities soon became useful only in the pursuit of debauchery.
A dispute about part of his estate, obliging him to return to Ireland, he resigned his post, and upon his arrival at Dublin, was made captain of the guards to the duke of Ormond.
A disagreement over a portion of his estate that required him to go back to Ireland led him to give up his position. When he got to Dublin, he was appointed captain of the guards for the duke of Ormond.
When he was at Dublin he was as much as ever distempered with the same fatal affection for play, which engaged him in one adventure, which well deserves to be related. 'As he returned to his lodgings from a gaming table, he was attacked in the dark by three ruffians, who were employed to assassinate him. The earl defended himself with so much resolution, that he dispatched one of the aggressors, while a gentleman accidentally passing that way interposed, and disarmed another; the third secured himself by flight. This generous assistant was a disbanded officer of a good family and fair reputation; who by what we call partiality of fortune, to avoid censuring the iniquities of the times, wanted even a plain suit of clothes to make a decent appearance at the castle; but his lordship on this occasion presenting him to the duke of Ormond, with great importunity prevailed [347] with his grace that he might resign his post of captain of the guards to his friend, which for about three years the gentleman enjoyed, and upon his death, the duke returned the commission to his generous benefactor.'[1]
When he was in Dublin, he was just as troubled as ever by the same dangerous love for gambling, which led him into an adventure worth telling. As he was returning to his lodgings from a gambling table, he was ambushed in the dark by three thugs hired to kill him. The earl fought back with such determination that he killed one of the attackers, while a gentleman who happened to be passing by intervened and disarmed another; the third one escaped. This brave helper was a discharged officer from a good family and respected background; however, due to what we call the unfairness of fortune and to avoid condemning the wrongs of the time, he lacked even a simple suit of clothes to look presentable at the castle. But on this occasion, his lordship introduced him to the duke of Ormond and insisted that his grace allow him to resign his position as captain of the guards to his friend, a position the gentleman held for about three years, and after his death, the duke returned the commission to his generous benefactor. [347]
His lordship having finished his affairs in Ireland, he returned to London, was made master of the horse to the dutchess of York, and married the lady Frances, eldest daughter of the earl of Burlington, and widow of colonel Courtnay.
His lordship finished his business in Ireland, returned to London, became the master of the horse to the Duchess of York, and married Lady Frances, the eldest daughter of the Earl of Burlington and widow of Colonel Courtnay.
About this time, in imitation of those learned and polite assemblies, with which he had been acquainted abroad; particularly one at Caen, (in which his tutor Bochartus died suddenly while he was delivering an oration) he began to form a society for refining and fixing the standard of our language. In this design, his great friend Mr. Dryden was a particular assistant; a design, says Fenton, of which it is much more easy to conceive an agreeable idea, than any rational hope ever to see it brought to perfection. This excellent design was again set on foot, under the ministry of the earl of Oxford, and was again defeated by a conflict of parties, and the necessity of attending only to political disquisitions, for defending the conduct of the administration, and forming parties in the Parliament. Since that time it has never been mentioned, either because it has been hitherto a sufficient objection, that it was one of the designs of the earl of Oxford, by whom Godolphin was defeated; or because the statesmen who succeeded him have not more leisure, and perhaps less taste for literary improvements. Lord Roscommon's attempts were frustrated by the commotions which were produced by King James's endeavours to introduce alterations [348] in religion. He resolved to retire to Rome, alledging, 'it was best to sit next the chimney when the chamber smoaked.'
Around this time, inspired by the scholarly and refined gatherings he had experienced abroad, especially one in Caen (where his tutor Bochartus passed away unexpectedly while giving a speech), he started to create a group aimed at improving and establishing a standard for our language. His close friend Mr. Dryden played a key role in this effort; as Fenton noted, it's much easier to imagine a pleasant idea than to genuinely believe it could be achieved. This admirable project was revived under the leadership of the Earl of Oxford but was once again hindered by political conflicts and the need to focus solely on defending the administration's actions and building alliances in Parliament. Since then, it hasn’t been mentioned, partly because it was associated with the Earl of Oxford, who was ousted by Godolphin, and partly because the politicians who came after him have had less time and possibly less interest in promoting literary advancements. Lord Roscommon’s efforts were derailed by the unrest caused by King James’s attempts to introduce changes in religion. He decided to go to Rome, claiming, “It's best to sit next to the chimney when the room is smoky.”
It will, no doubt, surprize many of the present age, and be a just cause of triumph to them, if they find that what Roscommon and Oxford attempted in vain, shall be carried into execution, in the most masterly manner, by a private gentleman, unassisted, and unpensioned. The world has just reason to hope this from the publication of an English Dictionary, long expected, by Mr. Johnson; and no doubt a design of this sort, executed by such a genius, will be a lasting monument of the nation's honour, and that writer's merit.
It will surely surprise many people today and be a valid reason for them to feel triumphant if they see that what Roscommon and Oxford tried unsuccessfully will be accomplished, in an impressive way, by an independent gentleman, without any help or financial support. The world has good reason to be hopeful about this with the upcoming release of an English Dictionary, long awaited, by Mr. Johnson; and without a doubt, a project like this, carried out by such a talented individual, will stand as a lasting tribute to the nation's pride and that writer's achievement.
Lord Roscommon's intended retreat into Italy, already mentioned, on account of the troubles in James the IId's reign, was prevented by the gout, of which he was so impatient, that he admitted a repellent application from a French empyric, by which his distemper was driven up into his bowels, and put an end to his life, in 1684.
Lord Roscommon's planned getaway to Italy, previously mentioned, due to the troubles during James II's reign, was stopped by gout. He was so desperate to relieve the pain that he tried a harsh treatment from a French quack, which pushed his illness into his bowels and ultimately caused his death in 1684.
Mr. Fenton has told us, that the moment in which he expired, he cried out with a voice, that expressed the most intense fervour of devotion,
Mr. Fenton told us that at the moment he passed away, he shouted with a voice that expressed the deepest intensity of devotion,
My God! my father, and my friend!
Do not forsake me, at my end.
My God! My father, and my friend!
Don't abandon me at the end.
Two lines of his own version of the hymn, Dies iræ, Dies illa.
Two lines from his own version of the hymn, Dies iræ, Dies illa.
The same Mr. Fenton, in his notes upon Waller, has given Roscommon a character too general to be critically just. 'In his writings, says he, we view the image of a mind, which was naturally serious and solid, richly furnished, and adorned with all the ornaments of art and science; and those ornaments [349] unaffectedly disposed in the most regular and elegant order. His imagination might have probably been fruitful and sprightly, if his judgment had been less severe; but that severity (delivered in a masculine, clear, succinct stile) contributed to make him so eminent in the didactical manner, that no man with justice can affirm he was ever equalled by any of our nation, without confessing at the same time, that he is inferior to none. In some other kinds of writing his genius seems to have wanted fire to attain the point of perfection: but who can attain it?'
The same Mr. Fenton, in his notes on Waller, has given Roscommon a description that's too broad to be critically fair. "In his writings, he says, we see the reflection of a mind that was naturally serious and solid, well-equipped and enhanced with all the decorations of art and science; and those decorations [349] are placed in a regular and elegant way. His imagination could have likely been vibrant and lively if his judgment had been less strict; but that strictness (expressed in a masculine, clear, and concise style) helped make him so distinguished in teaching that no one can fairly claim he was ever matched by anyone in our nation without simultaneously admitting that he is second to none. In some other types of writing, his talent seems to have lacked the spark to reach perfection: but who can truly achieve it?"
From this account of the riches of his mind, who would not imagine that they had been displayed in large volumes, and numerous performances? Who would not, after the perusal of this character, be surprized to find, that all the proofs of this genius, and knowledge and judgment, are not sufficient to form a small volume? But thus it is, that characters are generally written: We know somewhat, and we imagine the rest. The observation that his imagination would have probably been more fruitful and sprightly, if his judgment had been less severe; might, if we were inclined to cavil, be answer'd by a contrary supposition, that his judgment would have been less severe, if his imagination had been more fruitful. It is ridiculous to oppose judgment and imagination to each other; for it does not appear, that men have necessarily less of the one, as they have more of the other.
From this description of his mental wealth, who wouldn’t think it was shown in big books and many works? Who wouldn’t be surprised after reading this character to discover that all the evidence of this talent, knowledge, and judgment isn’t enough to fill a small book? But that’s how character sketches are usually made: we know some things, and we imagine the rest. The point that his imagination might have been more lively and productive if his judgment had been less strict could, if we wanted to nitpick, be countered with the idea that his judgment might have been less strict if his imagination had been more productive. It’s silly to pit judgment against imagination; it doesn’t seem like people necessarily have less of one when they have more of the other.
We must allow, in favour of lord Roscommon, what Fenton has not mentioned so distinctly as he ought, and what is yet very much to his honour, That he is perhaps the only correct writer in verse before Addison; and that if there are not so many beauties in his composition, as in those of some of his contemporaries, there are at least fewer faults. Nor is this his highest praise; for [350] Mr. Pope has celebrated him as the only moral writer in Charles the IId's reign.
We should acknowledge, in favor of Lord Roscommon, what Fenton hasn’t pointed out as clearly as he should have, and which also greatly honors him: he is possibly the only accurate poet before Addison. And while his work may not have as many beautiful elements as some of his contemporaries, it certainly has fewer flaws. But that’s not his greatest achievement; [350] Mr. Pope has praised him as the only moral writer during the reign of Charles II.
Unhappy Dryden—in all Charles's days,
Roscommon only boasts unspotted lays.
Unhappy Dryden—in all of Charles's reign,
Roscommon is the only one with flawless verses.
Mr. Dryden speaking of Roscommon's essay on translated verse, has the following observation: 'It was that, says he, that made me uneasy, till I tried whether or no I was capable of following his rules, and of reducing the speculation into practice. For many a fair precept in poetry, is like a seeming demonstration in mathematics: very specious in the diagram, but failing in mechanic operation. I think I have generally observed his instructions. I am sure my reason is sufficiently convinced both of their truth and usefulness; which in other words is to confess no less a vanity, than to pretend that I have at least in some places made examples to his rules.'
Mr. Dryden, discussing Roscommon's essay on translated verse, makes the following comment: "That was what made me uneasy until I tried to see if I could actually follow his rules and put the theory into practice. Many nice principles in poetry are like seemingly sound proofs in mathematics: they look good on paper but don’t work in real life. Overall, I believe I have followed his guidelines. I'm sure my reasoning is clearly convinced of their truth and usefulness; which, frankly, is just admitting a kind of vanity in saying that I have, at least in some cases, created examples that align with his rules."
This declaration of Dryden will be found no more than one of those cursory civilities, which one author pays to another; and that kind of compliment for which Dryden was remarkable. For when the sum of lord Roscommon's precepts is collected, it will not be easy to discover how they can qualify their reader for a better performance of translation, than might might have been attained by his own reflexions.
This statement from Dryden can be seen as just one of those brief polite gestures that authors often exchange, and it reflects the type of compliments Dryden was known for. When you look at the overall advice from Lord Roscommon, it becomes difficult to see how it better prepares the reader for translating than what could be achieved through Dryden's own thoughts.
They are however here laid down:
They're stated here, though:
'Tis true composing is the nobler part, But good translation is no easy art: For tho' materials have long since been found, Yet both your fancy and your hands are bound; [351] And by improving what was writ before, Invention labours less, but judgment more. Every poet writes with their own unique talent, One praises, one instructs, another bites. Horace did ne'er aspire to epic bays Nor lofty Maro stoop to lyric lays. Examine how your humour is inclin'd, And watch the ruling passion of your mind. Then seek a poet, who your way does bend. And chuse an author, as you chuse a friend. United by this sympathetic bond, You grow familiar, intimate, and fond; Your thoughts, your words, your stiles, your souls agree, No longer his interpreter, but he. Choose a topic that's suitable for discussion. * * * * * But moral, great, and worth a poet's voice, For men of sense, despise a trivial choice: And such applause, it must expect to meet As would some painter busy in the street; To copy bulls, and bears, and every sign That calls the staring sots to nasty wine. Take pains the genuine meaning to explore, There sweat, there strain, tug the laborious oar: Search every comment, that your care can find. Some here, some there, may hit the poet's mind. Yet, be not blindly guided by the throng, The multitude is always in the wrong. When things appear unnatural, or hard, Consult your author, with himself compar'd. Who knows what blessings Phæbus may bestow, And future ages to your labours owe? Such secrets are not easily found out, But once discovered leave no room for doubt. Truth stamps conviction in your ravish'd breast, And peace and joy attend the glorious guest. [352] Those who insist too rigidly on names; Rather create, than dissipate the mist: And grow unjust by being over nice, (For superstition, virtue turns to vice) Let Crassus ghost, and Labienus tell How twice in Parthian plains their legions fell, Since Rome hath been so jealous of her fame, That few know Pacorus, or Monæses name. It's much safer to leave things out than to add them. * * * * * Abstruse and mystic thoughts, you must express, With painful care, but seeming easiness; For truth shines brightest, thro' the plainest dress, Your author always will the best advise, Fall when he falls, and when he rises, rise. |
} } } |
Nothing could have induced us to have laboured thro' so great a number of cold unspirited lines, but in order to shew, that the rules which my lord has laid down are meerly common place, and must unavoidably occur to the mind of the most ordinary reader. They contain no more than this; that the author should be suitable to the translator's genius; that he should be such as may deserve a translation; that he who intends to translate him, should endeavour to understand him; that perspicuity should be studied, and unusual or uncouth names, sparingly inserted; and that the stile of the original should be copied in its elevation and depression. These are the common-place rules delivered without elegance, or energy, which have been so much celebrated, but how deservedly, let our unprepossess'd readers judge.
Nothing could have made us go through so many dull, lifeless lines, except to show that the rules my lord has laid out are merely basic and would naturally come to the mind of any average reader. They state nothing more than this: the author should match the translator's style; he should be worthy of a translation; anyone planning to translate him should strive to understand him; clarity should be prioritized, with unusual or awkward names used sparingly; and the style of the original should be mirrored in both its high and low points. These are the standard rules presented without elegance or energy, which have been so highly praised, but let our unbiased readers decide how deserving that praise is.
Roscommon was not without his merit; he was always chaste, and sometimes harmonious; but the grand requisites of a poet, elevation, fire, and invention, were not given him, and for want [353] of these, however pure his thoughts, he is a languid unentertaining writer.
Roscommon had his merits; he was consistently virtuous and occasionally melodic; however, he lacked the essential qualities of a poet—elevation, passion, and creativity. Because he was missing these, no matter how pure his thoughts were, he comes off as a dull and uninteresting writer.
Besides this essay on translated verse, he is the author of a translation of Horace's Art of poetry; with some other little poems, and translations published in a volume of the minor poets.
Besides this essay on translated verse, he is the author of a translation of Horace's Art of Poetry, along with some other short poems and translations published in a collection of minor poets.
Amongst the MSS. of Mr. Coxeter, we found lord Roscommon's translation of Horace's Art of Poetry, with some sketches of alterations he intended to make; but they are not great improvements; and this translation, of all his lordship's pieces, is the most unpoetical.
Among the manuscripts of Mr. Coxeter, we found Lord Roscommon's translation of Horace's Art of Poetry, along with some notes on changes he planned to make; however, they aren’t major improvements, and this translation, out of all his lordship's works, is the least poetic.
End of the Second Volume.
Download ePUB
If you like this ebook, consider a donation!