No More Learning

iv. He adds that still less could this presumed coincidence arise from
"my conversation," as he had "_repeatedly declined an introduction to me
while in Italy_. "

Who this person may be I know not;[491] but he must have been deceived
by all or any of those who "repeatedly offered to introduce" him, as I
invariably refused to receive any English with whom I was not previously
acquainted, even when they had letters from England. If the whole
assertion is not an invention, I request this person not to sit down
with the notion that he could have been introduced, since there has been
nothing I have so carefully avoided as any kind of intercourse with his
countrymen,--excepting the very few who were for a considerable time
resident in Venice, or had been of my previous acquaintance. Whoever
made him any such offer was possessed of impudence equal to that of
making such an assertion without having had it. The fact is, that I hold
in utter abhorrence any contact with the travelling English, as my
friend the Consul General Hoppner and the Countess Benzoni (in whose
house the Conversazione mostly frequented by them is held), could amply
testify, were it worth while. I was persecuted by these tourists even to
my riding ground at Lido, and reduced to the most disagreeable circuits
to avoid them. At Madame Benzoni's I repeatedly refused to be introduced
to them;--of a thousand such presentations pressed upon me, I accepted
two, and both were to Irish women.

* * * * *

I should hardly have descended to speak of such trifles publicly, if the
impudence of this "sketcher" had not forced me to a refutation of a
disingenuous and gratuitously impertinent assertion; so meant to be, for
what could it import to the reader to be told that the author "had
repeatedly declined an introduction," even if it had been true, which,
for the reasons I have above given, is scarcely possible. Except Lords
Lansdowne, Jersey, and Lauderdale, Messrs. Scott, Hammond, Sir Humphry
Davy, the late M. Lewis, W. Bankes, Mr. Hoppner, Thomas Moore, Lord
Kinnaird, his brother, Mr. Joy, and Mr. Hobhouse, I do not recollect to
have exchanged a word with another Englishman since I left their
Country; and almost all these I had known before. The others,--and God
knows there were some hundreds, who bored me with letters or visits, I
refused to have any communication with, and shall be proud and happy
when that wish becomes mutual.


FOOTNOTES:

[483] {462}Mr. Francis Cohen, afterwards Sir Francis Palgrave
(1788-1861), the author of the _Rise and Progress of the English
Constitution, History of the Anglo-Saxons_, etc. , etc.

[483a][In the earlier editions (1821-1825) Francis Cohen's translation
(Appendix II. ) is preceded by an Italian version (Appendix I. ), taken
directly from Muratori's edition of Marin Sanudo's _Vite dei Dogi_
(_Rerum Italicarum Scriptores_, 1733, xii. 628-635). The two versions
are by no means identical. Cohen's "translation" is, presumably an
accurate rendering of Sanudo's text, and must have been made either from
the original MS. or from a transcript sent from Italy to England.
Muratori's Italian is a _rifacimento_ of the original, which has been
altered and condensed with a view to convenience or literary effect.
Proper names of persons and places are changed, Sanudo's Venetian
dialect gives place to Muratori's Italian, and notes which Sanudo added
in the way of illustration and explanation are incorporated in the text.
In the _Life of Marino Faliero_, pp. 199, 200 of the original text are
omitted, and a passage from an old chronicle, which Sanudo gives as a
note, is made to appear part of the original narrative. (See Preface to
_Le Vite dei Dogi di Marin Sanudo_, by G. Monticolo, 1900; _Marino
Faliero, La Congiura_, by V. Lazzarino; _Nuovo Archivio Veneto_, 1897,
vol. xiii. pt. i. p. 15, note 1. )]

[484] {463}["_Marin Faliero dalla bella moglie: altri la gode, ed egli
la mantien. _" According to Andrea Navagero (_It. Rer. Script. _, xxiii.
1038), the writing on the chair ran thus: "_Becco Marino Falier dalla
bella mogier_" (_vide ante_, p. 349). Palgrave has bowdlerized Steno's
lampoon. ]

[485] {468}["Had a copy taken of an extract from Petrarch's Letters,
with reference to the conspiracy of the Doge Marino Faliero, containing
the poet's opinion of the matter. "--_Diary_, February 11, 1821,
_Letters_, 1901, v. 201. ]

[486] {470}Correspondence of M. Schlick, French charge d'affaires.
Despatch of 24th August, 1782.

[487] _Ibid_. Despatch, 31st August.

[488] _Ibid_. Despatch of 3d September, 1785.

[489] The decree for their recall designates them as _nostre benemerite
meretrici_: a fund and some houses, called _Case rampane_, were assigned
to them; hence the opprobrious appellation of _Carampane_. [The writer
of the Preface to _Leggi e memorie Venete sulla Prostituzione_, which
was issued from Lord Orford's private press in 1870, maintains that the
designation is mythical. "Tale asserzione che non ha verum fondamento,
salvo che nella imaginazione di chi primo la scrisse lo storico francese
Daru non si fece scrupolo di ripetuta ciecamente. Fu altresi ripetuta da
Lord Byron e da altri," etc. The volume, a sumptuous folio, prints a
series of rescripts promulgated by the Venetian government against
_meretrici_ and other disagreeable persons. ]

[490] Meyer, Description of Venice, vol. ii. ; and M. de Archenholtz,
Picture of Italy, vol. i. sect. 2, pp. 65, 66. [_Voyage en Italie_, par
F. J. L. Meyer, An X. cap. iii. ]

[491] {471}[In a letter to Murray, September 11, 1820 (_Letters_, 1901,
v. 75, 84), Byron writes, "Last post I sent you a note fierce as Faliero
himself, in answer to a trashy tourist, who pretends that he could have
been introduced to me;" but at the end of the month, September 29, 1820,
he withdraws his animadversions: "I open my letter to say, that on
reading more of the 4 volumes on Italy [_Sketches descriptive of Italy
in the Years_ 1816, 1817, etc. , by Miss Jane Waldie] . . . I perceive
(_horresco referens_) that it is written by a WOMAN! ! ! In that case you
must suppress my note and answer. . . . I can only say that I am sorry that
a Lady should say anything of the kind. What I would have said to one of
the other sex you know already. " Nevertheless, the note was appended to
the first edition, which appeared April 21, 1821. ]






THE VISION OF JUDGMENT.

BY

QUEVEDO REDIVIVUS.


SUGGESTED BY THE COMPOSITION SO ENTITLED BY THE AUTHOR
OF "WAT TYLER. "

"A Daniel come to judgment! yea, a Daniel!
I thank thee, Jew, for teaching me that word. "

[_Merchant of Venice_, act iv. sc. 1, lines 218, 336. ]




INTRODUCTION TO _THE VISION OF JUDGMENT_.


Byron's _Vision of Judgment_ is a parody of Southey's _Vision of
Judgement_.

The acts or fyttes of the quarrel between Byron and Southey occur in the
following order. In the summer of 1817 Southey, accompanied by his
friends, Humphrey Senhouse and the artist Edward Nash, passed some weeks
(July) in Switzerland. They visited Chamouni, and at Montanvert, in the
travellers' album, they found, in Shelley's handwriting, a Greek
hexameter verse, in which he affirmed that he was an "atheist," together
with an indignant comment ("fool! " also in Greek) superadded in an
unknown hand (see _Life of Shelley_, by E. Dowden, 1886, ii. 30, note).
Southey copied this entry into his note-book, and "spoke of the
circumstance on his return" (circ. August 12, 1817). In the course of
the next year some one told Byron that a rumour had reached England that
he and Shelley "had formed a league of incest with two sisters," and
that Southey and Coleridge were the authors of the scandal. There is
nothing to show through what channel the report of the rumour reached
Byron's ears, but it may be inferred that it was in his mind (see Letter
to Murray, November 24, 1818, _Letters_, 1900, iv. 272) when he assailed
Southey in the "Dedication" ("in good, simple, savage verse") to the
First Canto of _Don Juan_, which was begun September 6, 1818. Shelley,
who was already embittered against Southey (see the account of a dinner
at Godwin's, November 6, 1817, _Diary of H. C. Robinson_, 1869, ii. 67),
heard Byron read this "Dedication," and, in a letter to Peacock (October
8, 1818), describes it as being "more like a mixture of wormwood and
verdigrease than satire. "

When _Don Juan_ appeared (July 15, 1819), the "Dedication" was not
forthcoming, but of its existence and character Southey had been
informed. "Have you heard," he asks (Letter to the Rev. H. Hill,
_Selections from the Letters, etc. _, 1856, iii. 142), "that _Don Juan_
came over with a Dedication to me, in which Lord Castlereagh and I . . .
were coupled together for abuse as the 'two Roberts'? A fear of
persecution (_sic_) from the _one_ Robert is supposed to be the reason
why it has been suppressed. Lord Byron might have done well to remember
that the other can write dedications also; and make his own cause good,
if it were needful, in prose or rhyme, against a villain, as well as
against a slanderer. "

When George III. died (January 29, 1820), it became the duty of the
"laurel-honouring laureate" to write a funeral ode, and in composing a
Preface, in vindication of the English hexameter, he took occasion
"incidentally to repay some of his obligations to Lord Byron by a few
comments on _Don Juan_" (Letter to the Rev. H. Hill, January 8, 1821,
_Selections, etc. _, iii. 225). He was, no doubt, impelled by other and
higher motives to constitute himself a _censor morum_, and take up his
parable against the spirit of the age as displayed and fostered in _Don
Juan_ (see a letter to Wynne, March 23, 1821, _Selections, etc. _, iii.
238), but the suppressed "Dedication" and certain gibes, which had been
suffered to appear, may be reckoned as the immediate causes of his
anathema.

Southey's _Vision of Judgement_ was published April 11, 1821--an
undivine comedy, in which the apotheosis of George III. , the
beatification of the virtuous, and the bale and damnation of such
egregious spirits as Robespierre, Wilkes, and Junius, are "thrown upon
the screen" of the showman or lecturer. Southey said that the "Vision"
ought to be read aloud, and, if the subject could be forgotten and
ignored, the hexameters might not sound amiss, but the subject and its
treatment are impossible and intolerable. The "Vision" would have "made
sport" for Byron in any case, but, in the Preface, Southey went out of
his way to attack and denounce the anonymous author of _Don Juan_.

"What, then," he asks (ed. 1838, x. 204), "should be said of those for
whom the thoughtlessness and inebriety of wanton youth can no longer be
pleaded, but who have written in sober manhood, and with deliberate
purpose? . . . Men of diseased hearts and depraved imaginations, who,
forming a system of opinions to suit their own unhappy course of
conduct, have rebelled against the holiest ordinances of human society,
and hating that revealed religion which, with all their efforts and
bravadoes, they are unable entirely to disbelieve, labour to make others
as miserable as themselves, by infecting them with a moral virus that
eats into the soul! The school which they have set up may properly be
called the Satanic school; for, though their productions breathe the
spirit of Belial in their lascivious parts, and the spirit of Moloch in
those loathsome images of atrocities and horrors which they delight to
represent, they are more especially characterized by a Satanic pride and
audacious impiety, which still betrays the wretched feeling of
hopelessness wherewith it is allied. "

Byron was not slow to take up the challenge. In the "Appendix" to the
_Two Foscari_ (first ed. , pp. 325-329), which was written at Ravenna,
June-July, but not published till December 11, 1821, he retaliates on
"Mr. Southey and his 'pious preface'" in many words; but when it comes
to the point, ignores the charge of having "published a lascivious
book," and endeavours by counter-charges to divert the odium and to
cover his adversary with shame and confusion. "Mr. S. ," he says, "with a
cowardly ferocity, exults over the anticipated 'death-bed repentance' of
the objects of his dislike; and indulges himself in a pleasant 'Vision
of Judgment,' in prose as well as verse, full of impious impudence. . . . I
am not ignorant," he adds, "of Mr. Southey's calumnies on a different
occasion, knowing them to be such, which he scattered abroad on his
return from Switzerland against me and others. . . . What _his_ 'death-bed'
may be it is not my province to predicate; let him settle it with his
Maker, as I must do with mine. There is something at once ludicrous and
blasphemous in this arrogant scribbler of all works sitting down to deal
damnation and destruction upon his fellow-creatures, with Wat Tyler, the
Apotheosis of George the Third, and the Elegy on Martin the regicide,
all shuffled together in his writing-desk. "

Southey must have received his copy of the _Two Foscari_ in the last
week of December, 1821, and with the "Appendix" (to say nothing of the
Third Canto of _Don Juan_) before him, he gave tongue, in the pages of
the _Courier_, January 6, 1822. His task was an easy one. He was able to
deny, _in toto_, the charge of uttering calumnies on his return from
Switzerland, and he was pleased to word his denial in a very
disagreeable way. He had come home with a stock of travellers' tales,
but not one of them was about Lord Byron. He had "sought for no staler
subject than St. Ursula. " His charges of "impiety," "lewdness,"
"profanation," and "pollution," had not been answered, and were
unanswerable; and as to his being a "scribbler of all work," there were
exceptions--works which he had _not_ scribbled, the _nefanda_ which
disfigured the writings of Lord Byron. "Satanic school" would stick.

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

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

There was a truth in Lamb's jest, that it was Southey's _Vision of
Judgement_ which was worthy of prosecution; that "Lord Byron's poem was
of a most good-natured description--no malevolence" (_Diary of H. C.
Robinson_, 1869, ii. 240). Good-natured or otherwise, it awoke
inextinguishable laughter, and left Byron in possession of the field.

The _Vision of Judgment_, begun May 7 (but probably laid aside till
September 11), was forwarded to Murray October 4, 1821. "By this post,"
he wrote to Moore, October 6, 1821 (_Letters_, 1901, v. 387), "I have
sent my nightmare to balance the incubus of Southey's impudent
anticipation of the Apotheosis of George the Third. " A chance perusal of
Southey's letter in the _Courier_ (see Medwin's _Conversations_, 1824,
p. 222, and letters to Douglas Kinnaird, February 6, 25, 1822) quickened
his desire for publication; but in spite of many appeals and suggestions
to Murray, who had sent Byron's "copy" to his printer, the decisive step
of passing the proofs for press was never taken. At length Byron lost
patience, and desired Murray to hand over "the corrected copy of the
proof with the Preface" of the _Vision of Judgment_ to John Hunt (see
letters to Murray, July 3, 6, 1822, _Letters_, 1901, vi. 92, 93).
Finally, a year after the MS. had been sent to England, the _Vision of
Judgment_, by Quevedo Redivivus, appeared in the first number (pp. 1-39)
of the _Liberal_, which was issued October 15, 1822. The Preface, to
Byron's astonishment and annoyance, was not forthcoming (see letter to
Murray, October 22, 1822, _Letters_, 1901, vi. 126, and _Examiner_,
Sunday, November 3, 1822, p. 697), and is not prefixed to the first
issue of the _Vision of Judgment_ in the first number of the _Liberal_.
The _Liberal_ was severely handled by the press (see, for example, the
_Literary Gazette_ for October 19, 26, November 2, 1822; see, too, an
anonymous pamphlet entitled _A Critique on the "Liberal"_ (London,
1822, 8vo, 16 pages), which devotes ten pages to an attack on the
_Vision of Judgment_). The daily press was even more violent. The
_Courier_ for October 26 begins thus: "This _scoundrel-like_ publication
has at length made its appearance. "

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

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

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

* * * * *

NOTE.

The following excerpt from H. C. Robinson's _Diary_ is printed from the
original MS. , with the kind permission of the trustees of Dr. Williams'
Theological Library (see "Diary," 1869, ii. 437):--

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

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

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

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

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

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

"August 16.

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




PREFACE

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

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

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

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

So much for his poem--a word on his preface. In this preface it has
pleased the magnanimous Laureate to draw the picture of a supposed
"Satanic School," the which he doth recommend to the notice of the
legislature; thereby adding to his other laurels the ambition of those
of an informer. If there exists anywhere, except in his imagination,
such a School, is he not sufficiently armed against it by his own
intense vanity? The truth is that there are certain writers whom Mr. S.
imagines, like Scrub, to have "talked of _him_; for they laughed
consumedly. "[492]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUEVEDO REDIVIVUS.

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

Q. R.

* * * Mr. Southey being, as he says, a good Christian and vindictive,
threatens, I understand, a reply to this our answer. It is to be hoped
that his visionary faculties will in the meantime have acquired a little
more judgment, properly so called: otherwise he will get himself into
new dilemmas. These apostate jacobins furnish rich rejoinders. Let him
take a specimen. Mr. Southey laudeth grievously "one Mr. Landor,"[498]
who cultivates much private renown in the shape of Latin verses; and
not long ago, the poet laureate dedicated to him, it appeareth, one of
his fugitive lyrics, upon the strength of a poem called "_Gebir_. " Who
could suppose, that in this same Gebir the aforesaid Savage Landor (for
such is his grim cognomen) putteth into the infernal regions no less a
person than the hero of his friend Mr. Southey's heaven,--yea, even
George the Third! See also how personal Savage becometh, when he hath a
mind. The following is his portrait of our late gracious sovereign:--

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

"'Aroar, what wretch that nearest us? what wretch
Is that with eyebrows white and slanting brow?
Listen! him yonder who, bound down supine,
Shrinks yelling from that sword there, engine-hung;
He too amongst my ancestors! [I hate
The despot, but the dastard I despise.
Was he our countryman? '
'Alas,][499] O king!
Iberia bore him, but the breed accurst
Inclement winds blew blighting from north-east. '
'He was a warrior then, nor fear'd the gods? '
'Gebir, he feared the Demons, not the gods,
Though them indeed his daily face adored;
And was no warrior, yet the thousand lives
Squandered, as stones to exercise a sling,
And the tame cruelty and cold caprice--
Oh madness of mankind! addressed, adored! '"

_Gebir_ [_Works, etc. _, 1876, vii. 17].

I omit noticing some edifying Ithyphallics of Savagius, wishing to keep
the proper veil over them, if his grave but somewhat indiscreet
worshipper will suffer it; but certainly these teachers of "great moral
lessons" are apt to be found in strange company.




THE VISION OF JUDGMENT. [500]

I.

Saint Peter sat by the celestial gate:
His keys were rusty, and the lock was dull,
So little trouble had been given of late;
Not that the place by any means was full,
But since the Gallic era "eighty-eight"
The Devils had ta'en a longer, stronger pull,
And "a pull altogether," as they say
At sea--which drew most souls another way.

II.

The Angels all were singing out of tune,
And hoarse with having little else to do,
Excepting to wind up the sun and moon,
Or curb a runaway young star or two,[fz]
Or wild colt of a comet, which too soon
Broke out of bounds o'er the ethereal blue,
Splitting some planet with its playful tail,
As boats are sometimes by a wanton whale.

III.

The Guardian Seraphs had retired on high,
Finding their charges past all care below;[ga]
Terrestrial business filled nought in the sky
Save the Recording Angel's black bureau;
Who found, indeed, the facts to multiply
With such rapidity of vice and woe,
That he had stripped off both his wings in quills,
And yet was in arrear of human ills.

IV.

His business so augmented of late years,
That he was forced, against his will, no doubt,
(Just like those cherubs, earthly ministers,)
For some resource to turn himself about,
And claim the help of his celestial peers,[gb]
To aid him ere he should be quite worn out
By the increased demand for his remarks:[gc]
Six Angels and twelve Saints were named his clerks.

V.

This was a handsome board--at least for Heaven;
And yet they had even then enough to do,
So many Conquerors' cars were daily driven,
So many kingdoms fitted up anew;
Each day, too, slew its thousands six or seven,
Till at the crowning carnage, Waterloo,
They threw their pens down in divine disgust--
The page was so besmeared with blood and dust. [gd]

VI.

This by the way; 'tis not mine to record
What Angels shrink from: even the very Devil
On this occasion his own work abhorred,
So surfeited with the infernal revel:
Though he himself had sharpened every sword,[ge]
It almost quenched his innate thirst of evil.
(Here Satan's sole good work deserves insertion--
'Tis, that he has both Generals in reversion. )[gf][501]

VII.

Let's skip a few short years of hollow peace,
Which peopled earth no better, Hell as wont,
And Heaven none--they form the tyrant's lease,
With nothing but new names subscribed upon't;
'Twill one day finish: meantime they increase,[gg]
"With seven heads and ten horns," and all in front,
Like Saint John's foretold beast; but ours are born
Less formidable in the head than horn. [gh]

VIII.

In the first year of Freedom's second dawn[502]
Died George the Third; although no tyrant, one
Who shielded tyrants, till each sense withdrawn[gi]
Left him nor mental nor external sun:[503]
A better farmer ne'er brushed dew from lawn,[gj]
A worse king never left a realm undone!
He died--but left his subjects still behind,
One half as mad--and t'other no less blind. [gk][504]

IX.

He died! his death made no great stir on earth:
His burial made some pomp; there was profusion
Of velvet--gilding--brass--and no great dearth
Of aught but tears--save those shed by collusion:
For these things may be bought at their true worth;
Of elegy there was the due infusion--
Bought also; and the torches, cloaks and banners,
Heralds, and relics of old Gothic manners,[505]

X.

Formed a sepulchral melodrame. Of all
The fools who flocked to swell or see the show,
Who cared about the corpse? The funeral
Made the attraction, and the black the woe,
There throbbed not there a thought which pierced the pall;
And when the gorgeous coffin was laid low,
It seemed the mockery of hell to fold
The rottenness of eighty years in gold. [506]


XI.

So mix his body with the dust! It might
Return to what it _must_ far sooner, were
The natural compound left alone to fight
Its way back into earth, and fire, and air;
But the unnatural balsams merely blight
What Nature made him at his birth, as bare
As the mere million's base unmummied clay--
Yet all his spices but prolong decay. [507]

XII.

He's dead--and upper earth with him has done;
He's buried; save the undertaker's bill,
Or lapidary scrawl, the world is gone
For him, unless he left a German will:[508]
But where's the proctor who will ask his son?
In whom his qualities are reigning still,[gl]
Except that household virtue, most uncommon,
Of constancy to a bad, ugly woman.

XIII.

"God save the king! " It is a large economy
In God to save the like; but if he will
Be saving, all the better; for not one am I
Of those who think damnation better still:[509]
I hardly know too if not quite alone am I
In this small hope of bettering future ill
By circumscribing, with some slight restriction,
The eternity of Hell's hot jurisdiction.

XIV.

I know this is unpopular; I know
'Tis blasphemous; I know one may be damned
For hoping no one else may e'er be so;
I know my catechism; I know we're crammed
With the best doctrines till we quite o'erflow;
I know that all save England's Church have shammed,
And that the other twice two hundred churches
And synagogues have made a _damned_ bad purchase.

XV.

God help us all! God help me too! I am,
God knows, as helpless as the Devil can wish,
And not a whit more difficult to damn,
Than is to bring to land a late-hooked fish,
Or to the butcher to purvey the lamb;
Not that I'm fit for such a noble dish,
As one day will be that immortal fry
Of almost every body born to die.

XVI.

Saint Peter sat by the celestial gate,
And nodded o'er his keys: when, lo! there came
A wondrous noise he had not heard of late--
A rushing sound of wind, and stream, and flame;
In short, a roar of things extremely great,
Which would have made aught save a Saint exclaim;
But he, with first a start and then a wink,
Said, "There's another star gone out, I think! "[gm]

XVII.

But ere he could return to his repose,
A Cherub flapped his right wing o'er his eyes--
At which Saint Peter yawned, and rubbed his nose:
"Saint porter," said the angel, "prithee rise! "
Waving a goodly wing, which glowed, as glows
An earthly peacock's tail, with heavenly dyes:
To which the saint replied, "Well, what's the matter?
"Is Lucifer come back with all this clatter? "

XVIII.

"No," quoth the Cherub: "George the Third is dead. "
"And who _is_ George the Third? " replied the apostle:
"_What George? what Third? _" "The King of England," said
The angel. "Well! he won't find kings to jostle
Him on his way; but does he wear his head?
Because the last we saw here had a tustle,
And ne'er would have got into Heaven's good graces,
Had he not flung his head in all our faces.

XIX.

"He was--if I remember--King of France;[510]
That head of his, which could not keep a crown
On earth, yet ventured in my face to advance
A claim to those of martyrs--like my own:
If I had had my sword, as I had once
When I cut ears off, I had cut him down;
But having but my _keys_, and not my brand,
I only knocked his head from out his hand.

XX.

"And then he set up such a headless howl,
That all the Saints came out and took him in;
And there he sits by Saint Paul, cheek by jowl;[gn]
That fellow Paul--the parvenu! The skin[511]
Of Saint Bartholomew, which makes his cowl
In heaven, and upon earth redeemed his sin,
So as to make a martyr, never sped
Better than did this weak and wooden head.

XXI.

"But had it come up here upon its shoulders,
There would have been a different tale to tell:
The fellow-feeling in the Saint's beholders
Seems to have acted on them like a spell;
And so this very foolish head Heaven solders
Back on its trunk: it may be very well,
And seems the custom here to overthrow
Whatever has been wisely done below. "

XXII.

The Angel answered, "Peter! do not pout:
The King who comes has head and all entire,
And never knew much what it was about--
He did as doth the puppet--by its wire,
And will be judged like all the rest, no doubt:
My business and your own is not to inquire
Into such matters, but to mind our cue--
Which is to act as we are bid to do. "

XXIII.