No More Learning

Society had unconsciously caught the
tone of the venomous master detractor of Twickenham, whose
vendetta against Lady Mary is completely explained only by the
unhappy combination in him of bad heart and bad health.
Everyone in London agreed as to her preserved liveliness
and unimpaired faculties ; but it soon became known that the
intrepid 'female traveller' was suffering from cancer; and of this
disease she died, in her seventy-fourth year, at her house in
Great George street, 21 August 1762. She was buried in the
Grosvenor chapel in South Audley street, where Lord Chesterfield
was interred some ten years later. Her letters, collectively
regarded and interpreted, form the autobiography of a warm-
hearted, but disappointed, unloved and solitary woman.
When Lady Mary died, Walpole reports, in a letter to Mann,
that she left twenty-one large MS volumes, in prose and verse,
to her daughter Lady Bute. At least nineteen volumes were
actually left to Lady Bute; two, containing the letters during
her husband's embassy at Constantinople, had been given to
Mr Sowden of Rotterdam. There were duplicates of these and
they form the basis of the Letters given to the world in two
volumes in 1763. The miscellaneous correspondence in Lady
Bute's hands, or portions of it, were first edited by James Dallaway
(1803). The voluminous diary was always kept under lock and
key, and, although Lady Bute often read passages aloud to her
daughters and friends, she never trusted it out of her hands, with
the exception of the first five or six copy-books, which she once
permitted Lady Louisa to peruse alone, on condition that nothing
should be transcribed. When she felt her end drawing near, Lady
Bute burned the diary (1794), and the eighteenth century lost a
document which might have proved of unique interest.
Apart from Lady Mary's Letters, her other writings are in-
significant and unattractive. They include a translation of the
Enchiridion of Epictetus, written in 1710, at the time when her


## p. 247 (#271) ############################################

Lady Mary in Verse and Prose
247
6
>
marriage was in debate, and submitted to the taste and judgment
of her old friend and adviser Gilbert Burnet, bishop of Sarum? Her
Town Eclogues were written during the period of her friendly inti-
macy with Pope and owe something to his inspiration, if not to his
'correction. They fell by some 'mischance' into the hands of
Edmund Curll, who published them in 1716 (through his colleague
James Roberts), under the title Court Poems by a Lady of Quality.
Only three, 'The Basset-table, An Eclogue,''The Drawing-Room' and
'The Toilet,' were included in this thin quarto (misdated 1706),
'publish'd faithfully, as they were found in a Pocket-Book taken
up in Westminster-Hall, the Last Day of the Lord Winton's Tryal,'
and, upon a perusal at St James's coffeehouse, 'attributed by the
General Voice to be the Production of a Lady of Quality. The
eclogues numbered six, one for each week-day (1747). Their delicacy
and refinement is not conspicuous, and their metrical sprightliness
in no way remarkable; their only value, today, consists in the
little intimate touches that describe the social arcana of the period.
Lady Mary was certainly no poet. Her mind was the reverse
of poetical. All that can be said of her heroic verse is that it is
generally fluent, often lively and sometimes forcible. She is at
the best when, like Gay, she paints the manners of the times in
Town Eclogues. Her serious satires are far-away echoes of
Pope. The prose essays published with her other remains are
trite and show that her talent did not easily work in that form.
It is to the Letters, and to these alone, that she owes her niche
in the house of fame. Without being sympathetic or humourous,
and with no great store of wit or fancy, she is rich in descriptive
faculty, keen perception, good spirits and glorified common sense.
Her style, though correct and perspicuous, is unstudied, natural,
flowing, spirited; she never uses an unnecessary word, or a phrase
savouring of affectation. At the same time, she meant to write
well and was conscious of having succeeded. Before the Bible
society letters of George Borrow appeared, it is doubtful if any
traveller's letters have proved so generally entertaining, unless we
make exception of Smollett's Letters from France and Italy,
published in 17662 Lady Mary was almost the first to enter the
rich mine of eastern manners and colouring. The travellers of
the early seventeenth century wrote in an obsolete fashion and
employed an antiquated prose. The historians of Turkey, such as
Knollys and Rycaut,' are full of fabulous detail. She was one of
1 The learned prelate's corrections were printed in italics.
9 Cf. vol. , chap. II, post.


## p. 248 (#272) ############################################

248
Memoir-Writers, 1715460
the earliest (long before Pierre Loti) to make a plain tale of the
treatment of women in the east (Turkey was far more remote
then than Turkestan or Korea are now), and she did not waste
her opportunities. Entertaining, however, as Lady Mary was,
whether as a discerning traveller or as a writer with a relatively
modern style, her fame for a hundred years depended largely, if
not mainly, upon the supposed mystery of her life. That the
daughter of a duke, the wife of a millionaire and the mother of a
man so much talked of as Edward Wortley should be unhappy and
should seek refuge abroad in eccentric solitude and isolation from
her quality was, to the early eighteenth century, a thing incredible.
The malignity of Walpole and the vindictive line of Pope about the
lady who 'starved a sister' and 'denied a debt'stimulated fresh
curiosity concerning the cleverest woman of the day.
With the gradual decline of her notoriety and the eclipse, at
least in not a few ostensible ways, of her achievement, Lady
Mary's writings have received less and less attention, and are now,
perhaps, in danger of being as much undervalued as they are
generally admitted to have been at one time overrated. Frag-
ments of her criticism have survived the general wreck of her
descriptive writings, such as the wellknown division of the human
race into men, women and Herveys, her comparison of Fielding
and Steele, with her diagnosis of the happy temperament which
forgot everything over a venison pasty and a flask of champagne,
and her hearty contempt for Richardson, over whose novels she
confessed to sobbing in a most scandalous manner. Her Con-
stantinople Letters (of 1763) soon became popular and classical all
over Europe. They were reprinted in the successive editions of
Lady Mary's Letters and Works? , of which her great-grandson
Lord Wharncliffe's (1837) remained the standard edition till its
contents were considerably enriched, but not substantially altered,
in that of Moy Thomas (1861). His canon includes twelve letters to
Mrs Hewett, twelve in correspondence with Anne Wortley, thirty-
nine with Wortley Montagu, sixty dealing with the embassy of
1716—18, twenty from Pope to Lady Mary, dated 1716–21, fifty-
two letters to the countess of Mar 1721–7, twenty-four items
of miscellaneous correspondence, and two hundred and seventy-
five letters written between 1738 and 1762 to the countesses
of Pomfret, Oxford, Bute, Wortley Montagu and others.
There are, also, some sixty-four occasional poems and versions
besides Town Eclogues, the Enchiridion, four essays, two of
1 See bibliography,


## p. 249 (#273) ############################################

Lady Cowper's Diary
249
them in French, the second of which, 'On a maxim of La Roche-
a
foucauld about marriage,' is as humourous as anything Lady Mary
ever wrote, besides a rather interesting fragment upon the court
of George I at the time of his accession.
One of the most intimate pictures we possess of the court at the
beginning of the Brunswick dynasty is the work of another diarist
and letter-writer, Mary Clavering, of the Durham family, who
married, in 1706, William Cowper, lord and afterwards first earl
Cowper. She corresponded with the electoral princess of Han-
over, afterwards queen Caroline, whose household she entered in
October 1714, when she began to keep a diary. This extended,
originally, to 1720; the last four years of it were, however, all but
completely destroyed by the writer in 1722, when her husband
was under suspicion of complicity in the Jacobite plot.
Lady Cowper tells some amusing stories of her mistress, such
as that of the snub administered to Robinson, bishop of London :
This day (Dec. 23, 1714) the Bishop of London waited on my mistress and
desired Mrs Howard to go into the Princess and say he thought it his duty
to wait upon her, as he was Dean of the Chapel, to satisfy her in any Doubts
or Scruples she might have in regard to our Religion and to explain anything
to her which she did not comprehend. She was a little nettled when
Mrs Howard delivered this message to her, and said, 'Send him away
civilly; though he is very impertinent to suppose that I who refused to be
Empress for the sake of the Protestant Religion, don't understand it fully. '
The amount of bargaining and backstair dealing revealed in this
diary is astonishing; but the notes are too summary to aspire to
literary art, and there is little picturing, hardly any descriptive
energy. Lady Cowper naturally saw a good deal of the domestic
quarrels of the Hanoverian court; but she lets us hear little
about them. Very probably, this was the portion destroyed.
The mutilated diary was handed down with the other Cowper
manuscripts and edited by Spencer Compton in 1864. The
Mrs Howard to whom it refers, Henrietta Hobart, afterwards
Mrs Howard and countess of Suffolk, was, as is well known,
adored by the earl of Peterborough and became the mistress of
George II. Her husband anticipated coming events by paying
his court with her at Herrenhausen in 1712; and, after she
had been appointed bedchamber woman to the princess of
Wales, her rooms in St James's palace became the place of
reunion for the little court of the heir apparent. She cultivated
the society of men of letters, such as Gay and Arbuthnot, and was


## p. 250 (#274) ############################################

250
Memoir-Writers, 1715—60
the subject of Peterborough's lines 'I said to my heart, between
sleeping and waking' and of Pope's complimentary verses,
I knew a thing that's most uncommon
(Envy be silent and attend ! )
I knew a reasonable woman,
Handsome and witty, yet a friend.
Lady Hervey, Miss Bellenden, Pulteney, Pelham, Pitt, Horace
Walpole, Lord Chesterfield, Swift and Young were among her
correspondents, and most of them celebrate her wit and reason-
ableness, She wrote an often quoted Gulliverian letter to
Swift, which he professed to be unable to understand. George II
built her a house at Marble hill, Twickenham, where her literary
friends professed to act as chamberlains. Though she lacked suf-
ficient skill for prevailing against queen Caroline, her conciliatory
temper, not less than her position at court, made her the recipient
of many confidences from the intrigants about St James's. A
judicious selection from her correspondence entitled Letters to
and from Henrietta, countess of Suffolk, and her second husband,
the Hon. George Berkeley from 1712 to 1767 was edited anony-
mously by the editor of Lord Hervey's Memoirs (John Wilson
Croker), in 1824.
Precursor in chief of Horace Walpole as court gossip, scandal-
monger and memoir-writer was John Lord Hervey, ‘remorse-
less Hervey of the coffin face and painted cheeks, a miniature
St Simon at the early Hanoverian court, though, it must be
admitted, a St Simon rather lacking in the artistic precision and
measured science of his prototype. Lord Hervey's father and
grandfather (Sir Thomas Hervey, son-in-law of Sir Humphrey
May, who drew a touching portrait of Charles I's last hours) were
both great letter-writers; and their letters from 1651 to 1731
have now been published, in three volumes. The MS diary of John,
first earl of Bristol, ranging from 1688 to 1742, is largely a ledger
of payments and expenses; but the letters furnish an intimate and
attractive portrait of a noble family at the close of the seventeenth,
a
and beginning of the eighteenth, century. John had a half-brother,
Carr Hervey, whose mother was the earl's first wife; but he was
himself the eldest son of the second countess, a merry lady, who
was a correspondent of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu and lady of the
bedchamber to queen Caroline. Educated at Westminster under
Freind, and at Clare hall, Cambridge, he inherited from both
parents, but especially from his mother, a gift for repartee and a


## p. 251 (#275) ############################################

Lord Hervey
251
fondness for riming. After his return from Hanover, in a fine flush of
Hanoverian zeal, he declined hard labour and gravitated between
Ickworth, where he browsed on poetry, and the court at Richmond.
Early in 1720, when a handsome youth of twenty-four, he secretly
married the beauty of the younger court, Mary Lepell, ‘Youth's
youngest daughter, sweet Lepell,' who had charmed all the wits,
including Pope. The reciprocal devotion between the Herveys
and Lady Mary Wortley Montagu offended both Pope and Horace
Walpole, who suspected the ladies of scandal about his paternity.
Pope was jealous, with the result that, in the first of his imitations
of Horace, addressed to Fortescue, 'Lord Fanny' and 'Sappho '
were generally identified with Hervey and Lady Mary. Hervey
had already been attacked in The Dunciad and Bathos, and he
now retaliated. There is no doubt that he had a share (possibly
the sole share) in Verses to the Imitator of Horace (1732). In
Letters from a nobleman at Hampton Court to a Doctor of
Divinity (1733), he scoffed at Pope's deformity and humble birth.
Pope's reply was A Letter to a noble Lord, dated November 1733,
and the scathing portrait of Sporus in the Epistle to Dr Arbuth-
not (1735). Hervey also quarrelled fiercely with Pulteney over a
libel and was very nearly a victim to his adversary's rapier. He
also fell out with Frederick, prince of Wales, in the matter of an
amour with one of the queen's maids of honour, Anne Vane, who
became the prince's mistress. He was thus much exposed on every
side to the malice and detraction of declared enemies ; and this
fact helps to account for the cynicism and venom which overflow
in his Memoirs. Meanwhile, in 1723, by the death of his brother,
he became heir to the earldom of Bristol and assumed the title
by which he is rememberedt. In the new reign, his advancement
was assured, inasmuch as, with a strong feeling for self-preserva-
tion, he had made sure of all the approaches, and all the back-
stair exits, of the innermost court.
After a spell of Italian travel, in which he had engaged
partly for the sake of his health (which, according to the parental
view, had been undermined by that 'poisonous plant tea'),
he returned in 1729, and, having given in his adherence to the
victorious wing of the party in power, was promptly pensioned
and appointed vice-chamberlain, with the special purpose of serving
as Walpole's agent about the person of queen Caroline, whose
closest confidences he shared. Walpole employed his incisive
1 In June 1733, he was called to the House of Lords by writ in virtue of his father's
barony.


## p. 252 (#276) ############################################

252
Memoir-Writers, 1715460
>
>
pen to refute the libels contributed to The Craftsman by
Pulteney, whose barbed retorts suggested most of the ugly insinua-
tions which Pope worked up into his scarifying caricature of
'Sporus, that mere white curd of ass's milk. ' After the queen's
death in November 1737, Lord Hervey was admitted to the
cabinet as lord privy seal, but, much against his inclination, was
thrown out of office by the fall of Walpole. His pamphlets, such
as Miscellaneous Thoughts on the Present Posture of Foreign
and Domestic Affairs and his Three Speeches on the Gin Act
(1742–3), show that his mental vigour was unimpaired. His
health, however, was gradually failing ; and he died, in the life-
time of his father, on 5 August 1743, aged only 46, and was buried
in the family tomb at Ickworth. During the last fifteen years of his
life, he had been composing his both lifelike and highly polished,
but thoroughly cynical, Memoirs, which extend from his first coming
to court to the death of the queen. The manuscript of these
Memoirs, entirely in autograph, was left to his sons, by whom it
appears that several sheets referring to the more intimate dis-
sensions in the royal family were destroyed. Allusion was made
to them by Horace Walpole, who seems to have inspected them
in 1759; but Hervey's second son, the third earl, left strict in-
junctions, in his will, that the Memoirs were not to be published
until after the death of George III. They appeared, eventually,
as Memoirs of the reign of George the Second, edited from
the original manuscript at Ickworth by John Wilson Croker
(1848). They give a wonderfully vivid picture of the court
of the second George ; but the comedy presented is of the type
of classical Roman satire, in which the motive of avarice is over-
whelmingly predominant. The dramatis personae are the king,
the prince, Wilmington, Walpole, Pulteney, Wyndham, Bolingbroke,
Chesterfield-and the writer hates them all, sees all their characters
at their worst and depicts them with merciless satire. For the
queen alone and her daughter the princess Caroline, he had a
genuine respect and attachment; indeed, the princess's affection
for him was commonly said to be the reason for the close retire-
ment in which she lived after his death.
Apart from the queen and her daughter, Hervey's portraits are
all, without exception, of the Spagnoletto school; he systematically
blackens. How far his tendency to detraction may have been the
result of his epilepsy, of his vegetarian diet, of his habitual cast
of thought, or of his literary predilections, it would be impossible
to determine. His narrative was never meant to be scrutinised


## p. 253 (#277) ############################################

Character of Lord Hervey's Memoirs 253
by contemporaries; its confirmation, in many respects, by Horace
Walpole’s Memoirs must be regarded as somewhat ambiguous
evidence of accuracy, since it has never yet been tested minutely by
any modern critic. The elaborate structure of the periods reveals
Hervey as a careful student of the Latin historians of the empire.
It must be remembered that he occasionally composed Latin
epitaphs and letters. He was a useful patron to Conyers Middleton,
who showed his gratitude by dedicating to Hervey his famous Life
of Cicero. The panegyric earned for its victim the gibe, containing
an unkind allusion to Hervey's cadaverous complexion:
Narcissus, praised with all a parson's power,
Look'd a white lily sunk beneath a shower.
To whatever cause we may attribute the fact, there can be little
doubt that Hervey was a virtuoso in defamatory epithets and
studied forms of detraction. Akin to Horace Walpole in rancour,
the note-taking Hervey, warmed in the bosom of the court, stung
the king and nearly all around him to the full extent of his powers.
'A court,' says Lord Rosebery), 'is considered fair game by such reptiles.
But it is hard to see why princes who after all are human beings should not
be allowed to some extent the same sanctity of family life which humbler
human beings claim and maintain. Hervey was the intimate associate of the
King, the confidential friend of the Queen, the lover of one of their daughters,
he was the tame cat of the family circle. He thought it seemly to narrate
their secrets in so brutal a fashion that some more decent members of his
family tore out and destroyed the coarsest and bitterest passages. What
remains is coarse and bitter enough. It shows the King and Queen in a most
unfavorable light. But that aspect is fascinating, compared to that in which
he presents himself. '
Lord Rosebery justly concludes that it is most unwise to attribute
literal exactitude or even general veracity to such broken con-
fidences and chronicles, too amusing to be likely to be strictly
true, as those of Lord Hervey and his fellow cynic, the 'inimitable'
Horace.
Among the less important memoirs of the second quarter of
the eighteenth century, before the protagonist of memoir-writing
is reached—the great little Horace, whose name, as Sir Leslie
Stephen points out, is a synonym for the history of England from
1740 to 1790—a passing mention may be made of the Memoirs of
Lord Waldegrave and George Bubb Dodington. James, second
earl of Waldegrave, a great-grandson of James II, became a
favourite with George II, was nominated lord of the bedchamber
in 1743 and governor of the prince of Wales, afterwards George III,
by whom he was not liked. Though extremely 'unlovely' in
'
i Chatham, p. 197.


## p. 254 (#278) ############################################

254
Memoir-Writers, 1715460
both address and appearance, Waldegrave, who hated hard work,
set up for a man of gallantry and pleasure, and, a few years before
his death from small-pox in 1763 (when he was aged only forty-
eight), married Walpole's niece, the handsomest woman in England.
Waldegrave, though he was prime minister for five days only
(8—12 June 1757), had a close insight into the course of affairs
during the period of which he writes (1754–8). The real interest
of his Memoirs consists in the carefully weighed characters which
he draws of the chief actors, and in the strong contrast between
these portraits and the sinister silhouettes of the too clever and
far from scrupulous Hervey. Thus, in his portrait of George II,
Waldegrave insists, as upon the two really salient features in the
likeness, on the king's passion for business and his keen knowledge
(surpassing that of any of his ministers) of foreign affairs.
Among the Tapers and Tadpoles of the 'broad-bottom
administration, we are fortunate in possessing a three-quarter
length portrait of so typical a fortune-hunter as George Bubb
Dodington, who, by a long course of 'disagreeable compliances' and
grotesque contortions, raised himself to £5000 a year and a peerage
as baron Melcombe. He died at Hammersmith, aged seventy, on
28 July 1762. In the days of his splendour, he sought to become
a patron of letters and was accepted as such by Young, Thomson
and Fielding, but spurned by Johnson. A diligent student of
Tacitus, he compiled a large quantity of political papers and
memoranda, which he left to a distant cousin, Henry Penrud-
docke Wyndham, on condition that those alone should be published
which did honour to his memory. Wyndham published the Diary
in 1784, persuading himself, with judicious sophistry, that the
phrase in the will formed no barrier to such a proceeding.
The Diary presents, perhaps, the most curious illustration in
existence of the servile place-hunters of the age, with its unctuous
professions of virtuous sentiment and disgust at venality, which
serve only to heighten the general effect. It must be said, in
Bubb's honour, that he united with Chesterfield and Walpole in
trying to save Byng. His Diary, though carelessly compiled,
contains some curious historical information, especially as to the
prince and princess of Wales, during the period which it covers,
from 1748 to 1760. In his cynical self-complacency, he becomes
almost a humourous artist. But, from a literary point of view,
his is a dry light, which few readers of the present day will be
specially interested to rekindle.
* 1 Lord Walpole edited Lord Waldegrave's Memoirs in 1821.


## p. 255 (#279) ############################################

CHAPTER X
WRITERS OF BURLESQUE AND TRANSLATORS
As the seventeenth century drew to its close, there came into
being a strange underworld of letters, an inferno inhabited by
lettered vagabonds, who matched, in scholarship and scurrility,
the heroes of Petronius. Beggar students, tavern keepers, idlers
from the inns of court, adventurers who had trailed a pike in
Holland, flocked thither with spruce young squires who 'knew
the true manage of the hat,' and loungers fresh from the universities.
Thus, in the coffeehouses, there grew up a new public, for whose
amusement a new literature was invented. The old days of dignity
and leisure were passed. The wits of the town wrote, not to please
themselves, but to flatter the taste of their patrons, and many of
them succeeded so well as to echo in prose or verse the precise
accent of the tavern. A familiarity of speech and thought dis-
tinguished them all. They were ribald, they were agile, they were
fearless. They insolently attacked their great contemporaries.
They had, indeed, as little respect for high personages in life or
letters as for the English tongue, which they maltreated with light-
hearted ribaldry. The slang which they used—and they were all
masters in this kind—was not the curious slang of metaphor, such
as is enshrined in the pages of Cotgrave's Dictionary; rather, it
was composed of the catchwords which seemed worth a smile when
they were heard in the coffeehouse, but which instantly lost their
savour when they were put in print, and which today defy the
researches of the archaeologist. As they aimed, one and all, at
the same mark-popularity—they exhibit in their works no subtle
differences. The vanity of individual expression was not for them.
They admitted that the booksellers, who paid the piper, had
a perfect right to call the tune, and they sang and danced in loyal
obedience to the fashion of the moment. They wrote the slippered
doggerel, the easy prose, the flippant plays, that were asked of
them, and their names might be transposed on many title-pages
without any violation of justice or probability.
a


## p. 256 (#280) ############################################

256 Writers of Burlesque and Translators
In spirit and ambition, they were true cockneys. They readily
shook off the influences and associations of their childhood. Though
Tom Brown went to Christ Church from Shifnal, though Ned Ward
was a loyal son of Oxfordshire, though Peter Motteux first saw the
light at Rouen, London was their paradise. They saw through her
eyes, they spoke with her tongue. Most intimately at home in
Will's or Ned Ward's, they dragged their muse, as they would
still have called her, down to the level of sawdust and spilled wine.
Before all things, and at all times, they were anti-heroic. Their
jests never sparkled more brightly than when they were aimed at
authority. No poets, living or dead, were sacred in their careless
eyes. It seemed to them a legitimate enterprise to ridicule Vergil,
or to trick Homer out in the motley garments of the age. Aeneas
and Ulysses, esteemed heroes by many generations of men, were
for them no better than those who frequented Grub street or took
their pleasure in the Mall. And they found in travesty or burlesque
an admirable field for the exercise of their untidy talent.
In burlesque, Scarron was their openly acknowledged master.
They did not make any attempt to belittle the debt which they owed
to Le Virgile Travesti. They announced their obligation not merely
in their style, but in their titles, and, if this antic form of poetry
took some years in crossing the Channel, it flourished with amazing
energy after its passage. The success of Scarron himself is a
curiosity of literary history. The form was no new thing, when
Scarron made it his own. The reverse process, the exaltation of
paltry subjects by august treatment, such as was afterwards em-
ployed by John Philips in his Splendid Shilling, was not unknown
to the ancients. The trick of putting the gods and heroes of Greece
and Rome into dressing-gowns had been practised in Spain and
Italy before Scarron published, in 1648, the first book of his famous
Virgile. But, for France, and, so, for England, Scarron was a real
inventor. The artifice seemed simple enough when it was dis-
covered. It depended for its triumph upon nothing else than an
obvious contrast. To represent whatever had seemed sacred to
the tradition of the race as trivial and ludicrous was not a difficult
enterprise, while the anachronism which persuaded Vergil to speak
of oil-paintings and to quote Corneille was assured of a laugh.
The example of Scarron was quickly followed. Furetière, Dufresnoy,
d'Assoucy bastened to prove themselves possessed of this new
humour. Ovid, curled and barbered, was sent to pay his addresses
to the ladies of the court with M. de Boufflers. Not even Lucan
As to John Philips, cf. ante, p. 182.


## p. 257 (#281) ############################################

Scarron and his Imitators
257
or Juvenal escaped the outrage of parody. And the style of the
burlesques matched the irreverence of their thought. It was
familiar to baseness ; it flowed with the ease and swiftness of
a turbid stream. In brief, as Boileau said, Parnassus spoke the
language of the market, and Apollo, travestied, became a Tabarin.
The enthusiasm which Scarron's experiment aroused made an
easy conquest of courtier and scholar alike. From the capital,
it spread to the provinces, and, though none of his imitators is
worth remembrance, Scarron deserves his meed of praise. He did
an ill thing supremely well. In facility and suppleness, his Virgile
has never been surpassed. His humour, such as it is, is tireless
and inexhaustible. Moreover, if he be happy in his raillery, his
work, as French admirers have said, is not without some value as
a piece of criticism. He touches with a light hand the weakness of
the lachrymose hero. He turns the light of the prevailing ‘good
sense' upon Vergil's many simplicities, for which few will thank
him; and, even in the very act of burlesque, he pays his victim
the compliment of a scrupulously close adherence to his text.
The fashion was already overpast in France, when Charles
Cotton made his first experiment in English burlesque. In 1664,
was published under the title Scarronides, or Virgil Travestie,
a mock-poem on the first book of the Aeneid.
To this, Cotton
added the fourth book six years later, and, presently, put some of
Lucian's dialogues into ‘English fustian,' with the title Burlesque
upon Burlesque: or the Scoffer Scoff"d. Of these experiments in
the new craft, no more can be said than that they were better than
the base imitations which speedily followed. Cotton, at any rate,
was a man of letters, with a sense of style and variety, and if
he stooped to play the tune which the tavern-haunters demanded,
he played it with some skill and energy. He uses the artifices
which they all use. He mixes ancient and modern inextricably.
He measures the distance which Aeneas rowed by a familiar
standard, "twixt Parson's Dock and Billingsgate. ' As to Dido's
temple, 'I cannot liken any to it,' says he, 'unless 't be Pancras, if
you know it. ' The humour is forced and barren; but those French
critics are in the wrong, who declare that Cotton was content
merely to translate Scarron. If his theory of burlesque was
Scarron's, the application of it was all his own.
Cotton's success did not long remain unchallenged. Within a
year, one Monsey of Pembroke hall, Cambridge, gave to the world
his own Scarronides, a mock-poem, being the second and seventh
books of Vergil's Aeneid, which he dedicated, by what, no doubt,
17
E. L. IX.
CH. X.


## p. 258 (#282) ############################################

258 Writers of Burlesque and Translators
he thought a great stroke of humour, to ‘Lady Ann Dido, Countess
of Carthage. It is a work without character, scrupulously fashioned
according to the pattern of the hour; and a reference to James
Hind proves that this author also has learned the lesson of
anachronism. Then John Phillips, a true habitant of Grub street,
paraphrased, in bis Maronides, the fifth and sixth books of the
Aeneid. In a preface, he attempts a timid defence of his temerity.
'I leave the world to determine,' says he, 'whether it be not reason
that he that has caused us so often to cry when we were Boys,
ought not to make us laugh as much now we are men. ' As Phillips
travestied him, Vergil does not make us laugh, and the justification
fails. The experiment, in truth, differed little from the others,
save that its author, for the moment a zealous royalist, put the
puritans in hell. There they all lie, Haselrigge and Pym, Hugh
Peters, the chief of English rogues, Bradshaw,
in a Squarr
Of burning Canvas, lin'd with Tarr,
and Cromwell himself,
that Devil of a Devil,
Whose Noddle was the Mint of Evil.
The licence which John Phillips allowed himself in his treatment
of Vergil was vastly increased by the author of The Irish Hudibras,
or Fingallian Prince, who boldly adapted the sixth book of the
Aeneid to his own time, and turned it to a high encomium of
William III, 'this present Monarch, England's timely Redeemer,
whom Heaven long preserve. '
Nor was Vergil the only one of the poets attacked in England
with wanton insolence. In 1664, James Scudamore's Homer à
la Mode, A Mock Poem upon the first and second Books of Homer's
Iliads, came upon the town. The version is free from the brutality
which disgraced many of its rivals, and gives promise of better
things. The promise remained unfulfilled, for the author, who was
bred at Christ Church, had but just taken his degree when he was
drowned in the Wye, 'to the great reluctancy of all those who were
acquainted with his pregnant parts. The author of Homerides: or
Homer's First Book Moderniz'd, who, some fifty years later, essayed
Scudamore's task over again, need not awaken our curiosity. He
showed a spark of self-knowledge when he called himself Sir Iliad
Doggerell, and a complete ignorance of literary fitness, when he
regretted that Pope did not give Homer 'the English air as well
as tongue. ' Ovid, better suited to the methods of burlesque, did
but tempt the makers of travesties to a wilder extravagance.


## p. 259 (#283) ############################################

Hudibras and Hudibrastic Verse
259
'Naso Scarronomimus,' the writer of Ovidius Exulans, can scarcely
persuade the sorry tit of his humour to move for all his thwackings,
and even Alexander Radcliffe, a captain, an inns-of-court-man and
a poet, who, in The Ramble, An Anti-Heroic Poem, gave proof of
a rough vigour and freshness, fails to arouse a laugh by his Ovid
Travestie. To send Ulysses to Scotland as a volunteer, for the
suppression of rebellion, and to leave him loitering at an inn on the
homeward road, is an artifice which no literary fashion can justify.
In truth, the taste of the dying seventeenth century was not our
taste, and we can only wonder at the indiscretion of our ancestors.
Meanwhile, Samuel Butler had discovered in Hudibras the real
purpose of burlesque? If Scarron had done nothing else than to
inspire, at a distance, this work of genius, we should still owe him
a debt of gratitude. It was not for Butler to ridicule the ancient
mythologies; he saw before his eyes the follies and pretensions
of his own time and country awaiting castigation. And so, he
turned the travesty magnificently to the uses of satire. He
employed the artifices of contrast and anachronism beloved by
the imitators of Scarron to exhibit in the clear light of absurdity
the hypocrisy and meanness of presbyterians. He, too, expressed
the high in terms of the low.
he low. His work is the masterpiece
of its kind, unique and incomparable. It is idle to praise its
technical perfection. The resource and ingenuity of the author's
rimes, the tireless exuberance of his wit, his easy movement, his
bold extravagance are qualities unmatched elsewhere in literature.
Nor does his wisdom lag behind his wit. He concentrates into
aphorisms the fruit of his keen observation with so happy a skill
that a great part of his work has passed into the possession of all
Englishmen. Thousands quote him with assurance who have
never turned the pages of Hudibras, who would care not a fig
for his fable or his satire, even if they understood them. And,
though he won instant acceptance, he defied imitation. When he
had fashioned his masterpiece, he broke the mould; and, for that
very reason, perhaps, he became the prey of the parodists.
There is nothing that looks so easy as perfection, and the
coffeehouse poets, easily beguiled, thought it no shame to express
themselves and their politics in Hudibrastic verse. If they could
not rival the master, they could at least pretend to mimicry in
halting octosyllables. The boldest of them all was Ned Ward, who
combined the crafts of publican and poet. Born in Oxfordshire in
1667, he was, says his biographer, ‘of low extraction and little
1 Cf. ante, vol. VIII, chap. Ir.
17--2


## p. 260 (#284) ############################################

260 Writers of Burlesque and Translators
education. Whatever his extraction may have been, he cleverly
picked up his knowledge of letters as he went along. He did not
scruple to call one of his books Vulgus Britannicus, and he be-
lieved in the singularity of 'an Egyptian Magi. ' In his youth, he
had travelled in the West Indies, a fact commemorated by Pope,
'or shipp'd with Ward to Ape and Monkey Lands. ' But he early
settled to the professions which suited him best. His first experi-
ment in inn-keeping was made in Moorfields. He presently moved
to Fulwood rents, where he opened a punch-shop and tavern, “but in
a genteel way,' says Giles Jacob, “and with his wit, humour, and good
liquor, has afforded his guests pleasurable entertainment. ' Whatever
he did was, doubtless, done in a 'genteel way,' and the guests who
found pleasure in his entertainment were, one and all, sound tories
and high churchmen. A big, burly man, he showed a practical faith
in his own ale and his own punch, and, while he gossiped at the
fireside with his clients, never let a day pass without a verse :
So Ned, divided, writes and brews,
To try if darling gain accrues
More from his Mash-Tub than his Muse.
His mash-tub had the better of it. Not only did it fill his pocket;
it did not put him into the pillory. Twice, for his muse's sake, he
faced the angry mob at the Royal Exchange and at Charing Cross.
‘As thick as eggs at Ward in pillory,' says Pope; but his humour
carried him safely through the vicissitudes of politics, and he died
at his tavern, a prosperous potman and scurrile poet, in 1731.
He was a journalist in verse. His Hudibras Redivivus is a
gazette in rime, which was inspired by the moment, and was
published in parts. The ingenious Ward begins his preface with
an apology. "Tho' I have made bold,' he says, 'to borrow a Title
from one of the best poems that ever was published in the English
Tongue-yet I would not have the world expect me such a wizard
as to conjure up the spirit of the inimitable Butler. He need not
have been in doubt. He was no wizard, but a pedestrian jogtrot
writer of doggerel, whom criticism could not affright nor opposition
baulk. Yet his Hudibras is a wonderful achievement. Its facile
fluent ease marks the versifier who could write two hundred lines
standing on one foot. His language is common enough. Neither
Brown nor Motteux surpasses him in knowledge of the slang which
was heard in the tavern or at the street corner. Had he lived to-
day, he might have been an ornament of the sporting press. Living
when he did, he supported the cause of church and state in such
couplets as jingled in the brain, and tripped readily to the tongue.


## p. 261 (#285) ############################################

Ned Ward
261
For popular government he had a hearty contempt :
a
For he that will oblige the throng,
Must ne'er hold one opinion long,
But turn his doctrine and his creed,
As often as the Cause has need.
Among those upon whom he poured out his contempt are 'prophet
Dan' with 'the scoundrel Freedom of his Pen,' all whigs and all
dissenters. He believed, like an eminent statesman, that the
one object of the whigs was to make themselves ‘masters for life'
of England and all that it contained :
A man of sense, with half an Eye,
(Says he) may easily descry,
Thro' all their conscientious Cant,
What in reality they want;
Which is, believe me, in a word,
All that the Kingdom can afford.
Compromise he hated, and impartiality. He professed a deep
distrust of moderation, which was no better in his eye than a
‘modish cant;' with which fools disguise 'their spite, their venom,
and their lies. ' The book is tedious in its facility. It weighs upon
the reader's spirit with the heaviness of all dead controversies.
Even where he protests against the debtors' prison, where
men for poverty alone
Must wear these doublets made of stone,
he wins your reluctant approval. He is at his best when he describes
the taverns and shops of the town, their picturesque signs, and
the strange characters who throng the streets, the campaign
wenches and the ale-wives, the lame mumpers and the disabled
seamen. Here, he spoke with an authority which none of his
colleagues in Grub street could rival. If he had but a casual
acquaintance with the English tongue, he knew London and its
slang like the tavern keeper that he was. Whatever were his
shortcomings, his industry was prodigious. Vulgus Britannicus
rivalled his Hudibras in dulness and prolixity. The Republican
Procession, in which, among others, he ridicules Marlborough,
'a great Pretender to the trick of State,' is merry only on the
title-page. He poured forth broadsides, satires, prose and verse
with an equal hand. Impartially, he sang the praises of a Derby-
Ale-House and the New Tunbridge Wells at Islington. The love
of good living and high principles breathes in all that he wrote.
The pity is that a sound inspiration found so poor and graceless
an expression. Now and then, he could sing a song in the true


## p. 262 (#286) ############################################

262 Writers of Burlesque and Translators
Rabelaisian strain, as in his Wine and Wisdom: or the Tipling
Philosophers:
Wise Thales the Father of all
The Greek Philosophicall Crew,
Ere he gaz'd at the Heavens, would call
For a chirruping Bottle or two.
In fifty stanzas, he thus extolled what was, assuredly, the more
profitable of his two trades, and, for the moment, endowed his
doggerel with a rollicking sincerity.
It is, as has been said, by his sketches of London and its streets
that Ned Ward saves his Hudibrastic experiments from dulness,
and there, in the sights and sounds about him, he found the
material best suited to his talent. Whatever disloyalty the hacks
of Grub street may have shown to the English language, they were
constant in their devotion to the London, which was their world.
Ned Ward, in his London Spy, and Tom Brown, in his Amusements
Serious and Comical, have bequeathed to us a picture of the
town whose merit is wholly independent of literature. They are
the true descendants of Dekker and Nashe, from whom they are
separated by less than a century of time. Between them are many
centuries of style and thought. The London which Dekker and
Nashe describe is enwrapped in an atmosphere of dark mystery and
impenetrable gloom. They see the seven deadly sins ever before
them, and deplore the iniquity of their city with the solemn
eloquence of prophets. Satire is their lightest weapon. They
condemn even where they admire. It is in no spirit of flippancy
that Dekker denounces the cruelty of this ‘now once-againe New-
reared-Troy. ' Nashe's voice is the voice of a sincerely repentant
sinner. 'London,' he cries, 'lay off thy gorgeous attire and cast
downe thy selfe before God in contrition and prayer, least hee cast
thee downe in his indignation into hell-fire. '
Ned Ward and Tom Brown could not look upon the life about
them with the grave eyes of their predecessors. It was not for
them to be censorious or to hope for better things. If only the
city of their habitation were a place of pleasant resort, they cared
not for its morals. And they wrote of it in the easy style of
the trained reporter. Their temperament in no sense diminishes
the value of their sketch. They have shown us a London infinitely
more supple, infinitely commoner and, at the same time, far closer
to our own than the London of Dekker and Nashe. The cockney
with his nimbler wit and paltrier ideals had intervened, and fixed for
all time certain lineaments of the city. No longer is it dominated


## p. 263 (#287) ############################################

The London Spy.
Tom Brown 263
2
a
>
by gallant or beau or gull. Those who throng the taverns of the
time are either impostors, such as Radcliffe paints in The Ramble,
or mere citizens meanly ambitious of cutting a dash. In brief, it
seems perfectly consonant with the prevailing manners that Ned
Ward should keep an ale-house, or that Motteux, the translator of
Rabelais, should desert literature for the selling of China goods.
The London Spy is, undoubtedly, Ward's masterpiece. After
two centuries, it still keeps the fresh stamp of truth. Its design,
if design it may be called, is of the simplest. A citizen, who,
'after a tedious confinement in a country Hutt,' breaking loose from
'the scholar's gaol, his study,' revisits London. There he meets an old
schoolfellow, who shows him the sights, and especially the taverns,
of the town. It is a Gulls Horn-book of another age, written with
a plain simplicity, and with scarce a touch of satire. The two friends
range from Billingsgate, where they observe the 'oars' and ‘scullers,'
who tout by the waterside, and note 'the stink of sprats and the
unteneable clamours of the wrangling society,' to Hummun’sTurkish
bath. They wander from the Quaker's tavern in Fish lane to
that hideous inferno the Poultry compter, from the Wits' coffee-
house, where the cockney sketches for his friend a character of the
modern poets, to Bartholomew Fair, now stripped of its glory. By
the way, they encounter many strange personages, such as the
highwayman, who has good friends in Newgate,' and is 'well
acquainted with the ostlers about Bishopsgate and Smithfield, and
gains from them intelligence of what booties go out that are
worth attempting. The book is written with a directness and
simplicity which command belief, and ends, as in duty bound,
with a description of the death and funeral of Dryden, who was
the master of them all, and who impressed his laws upon his liege
subjects, like the dictator that he was.
Tom Brown followed hard upon the heels of Ned Ward, and,
in his Amusements Serious and Comical Calculated for the
Meridian of London, pictured the London that he saw, with less
truth than Ward, and greater wit. London he recognises to be
.
a world by itself, and he imagines 'what an Indian would think
of such a motley herd of people, thus anticipating Macaulay’s
imagined New Zealander. He sketches the city, and those whom
he and his Indian encounter-the alderman, the usurer, the broker
and the rest—with a good-humoured enthusiasm. For him, the
playhouse is ‘an enchanted island. When they walk in the Mall,
'
he persuades his Indian to exclaim 'I never beheld in my life so
great a flight of birds. ' Much of the book is the comedy of the


## p. 264 (#288) ############################################

264 Writers of Burlesque and Translators
age translated into a light-fingered prose. Tom Brown finds it as
bard as Ned Ward finds it to keep away from the taverns and
gaming-houses, and, in his exposure of the many rascals who lay in
waiting for the unwary traveller, he sets a fashion speedily followed
in The Cheats of London and a vast library of similar chapbooks.
He was, in truth, well fitted by character and training to do the
work of Grub street. Educated at Christ Church, he won an
instant fame by a pleasant trick of writing Latin verse, and it is
said that many pieces were extant of his composition, bearing
other names. Even in his youth, his cynic temper preferred money to
fame, and no sooner had he left the university for London than he
was ready to hire himself out to the highest bidder. Nothing came
amiss to his facile brain. To show his touch with the classics, he
translated Persius and mimicked Horace. The example of Rabelais
was ever before him, and he followed John Phillips in imitating the
prognostications of Pantagruel. His epigrams, in Latin or English,
are rather coarse than witty. The best of his work is journalism,
illuminated always by the light of scholarship. There is no topic
so bare that he will not embroider it with tags from the classics.
His favourite artifice was to indite letters from the dead to the
living, an artifice which gave him the chance to ridicule ‘Tom'
D'Urfey, ‘Joe' Harris the player, and even the great Dryden himself.
The death of ‘tbe gallant Dundee' inspired him to imitate Cowley's
pindarics, though, as he said himself, he was ill acquainted with
that kind of writing. He suffered at once from excessive praise
and ill-deserved blame. “Without partiality, we may say,' wrote
Sam Briscoe, his bookseller, ‘for satyrical Prose or Verse, Mr Brown
was not inferior to Petronius, Martial, or any other of the witty
ancients. ' These were his models, truly; but his works testify how
far he fell short of their performance. On the other hand, a grave
injustice was done to him, as it has been to many another, by the
thoughtless, who fathered upon him ‘all the pamphlets good and bad,
Lampoons, Trips, London Spies, and the like insignificant Trifles. '
His lively humour won him the name of 'Tom Brown the facetious'
and the epithet, not wholly complimentary, still clings to him.
The enemy, who said of him that he had less the Spirit of a Gentle-
man than the rest, and more of a Scholar,' spiced his malice with
the truth. What, indeed, had a gentleman to make in Grub
street? However, with all his faults, Tom Brown was a real man of
letters, who, had he not been 'too lazy in his temper to write much
would have builded himself a better monument. ' In character, he
was careless and independent. He did his best to live by his pen,


## p. 265 (#289) ############################################

The New Art of Translation 265
and, when his pen failed him, he turned pedagogue. At no time
would he rely upon the caprices of a patron. 'I am one of the first
of the Suburban class,' he boasted, 'that has ventur'd out without
making an application to a nobleman's porter, and tiring him out
with showing him his master's name. ' For the rest, he wrote the
famous epigram upon Dr Fell, and died, at last, repentant and
absolved. He confessed on his death-bed that he had 'complied
too much with the Libertinism of the time,' and extorted a promise
from his bookseller, who speedily went back upon his word, to
expunge 'all prophane, undecent passages' from his works, when
he came to reprint them.
The career of Tom Brown is characteristic of Grub street and
of his age. From one-incomparably the best-you may learn all.
But, by a curious irony, neither poverty nor the bottle impaired
the tireless industry of the hacks. Though the standard of style
which they set up for themselves was not a high one, they never
feared to put their talent to the test. They fought for causes
good or evil with a kind of ferocity. None of them disdained the
weapons of the wits. We have seen how Ned Ward expressed his
opinions and his prejudices in Hudibrastic verse. The gathered
pamphlets of Roger L'Estrange, written, for the most part, in
defence of himself and the high church party, would fill a shelf.
John Phillips, whom Milton trained for wiser purposes, disgraced
himself for ever by selling a hireling pen to Titus Oates. If there
is nothing so transient as dead controversy, it must yet be admitted
that these writers were artists in their own style. Their skill in
invective, their assumption of passionate conviction, their out-
spoken contempt for the enemy of the moment, cannot but claim
our admiration. But in nothing did they display their marvellous
energy so clearly as in the task of translation. Here, again, they
recall the enterprise of the Elizabethans. They do not challenge
comparison with their predecessors. They recognised that each
age must look at the classics through its own eyes. They knew,
also, that the France and Spain of their time had provided a
treasure-house of masterpieces, which their skill and knowledge
could unlock. And, when they had taken these masterpieces from
their treasure-house, they did not scruple to trick them out in
the familiar, parti-coloured style of their own Grub street. It
seems, indeed, as though the fashion of translation changed as
rapidly as the fashion of hats and coats. Though the Plutarch
of North and Holland, the Montaigne of Florio, the Seneca of
Lodge were less than a century old, they appeared fantastic, if not


## p. 266 (#290) ############################################

266 Writers of Burlesque and Translators
unintelligible, to the contemporaries of Dryden. The 'several
hands,' the 'persons of quality,' who presumed to do again the tasks
valiantly performed by their grandsires, aimed less at a splendour
of effect than at a uniform neatness. The one licence they permitted
themselves, as we shall see, was an incorrigible licence of slang.
They thought that their habit of speech was perfectly suited to the
heroes and gods of antiquity. They clipped their words in trans-
lating the classics, as they clipped them in an insolent pamphlet.
They possessed not the smallest sense of propriety, and believed
that there was no writer, ancient or modern, whose meaning could
not be adequately expressed in their vernacular. Thus, it mattered
not who gazed in their mirror; it gave back always the same
reflection.