Our chief subject, however, is the English poems proper, sacred and profane. In almost all of these there is noticeable an extraordinary inequality, the same in kind, if not in degree, as that on which we have commented in the case of _The Flaming Heart_. Crashaw is never quite so great as there; but he is often quite as small. His exasperating lack of self-criticism has sometimes led selectors to make a cento out of his poems--notably in the case of the exceedingly pretty "Wishes to His Unknown Mistress," beginning, "Whoe"er she be, That not impossible she, That shall command my heart and me"--a poem, let it be added, which excuses this dubious process much less than most, inasmuch as nothing in it is positively bad, though it is rather too long. Here is the opening, preceded by a piece from another poem, "A Hymn to Saint Theresa":--
"Those rare works, where thou shalt leave writ Love"s n.o.ble history, with wit Taught thee by none but him, while here They feed our souls, shall clothe thine there Each heavenly word by whose hid flame Our hard hearts shall strike fire, the same Shall flourish on thy brows and be Both fire to us and flame to thee: Whose light shall live bright, in thy face By glory, in our hearts by grace.
"Thou shalt look round about, and see Thousands of crown"d souls throng to be Themselves thy crown, sons of thy vows: The virgin births with which thy spouse Made fruitful thy fair soul; go now And with them all about thee, bow To Him, "Put on" (He"ll say) "put on, My rosy love, that thy rich zone, Sparkling with the sacred flames, Of thousand souls whose happy names Heaven heaps upon thy score, thy bright Life brought them first to kiss the light That kindled them to stars." And so Thou with the Lamb thy Lord shall go, And whereso"er He sets His white Steps, walk with Him those ways of light.
Which who in death would live to see Must learn in life to die like thee."
"Whoe"er she be, That not impossible she, That shall command my heart and me;
"Where"er she lie, Lock"d up from mortal eye, In shady leaves of destiny;
"Till that ripe birth Of studied Fate stand forth, And teach her fair steps to our earth:
"Till that divine Idea take a shrine Of crystal flesh, through which to shine:
"Meet you her, my wishes Bespeak her to my blisses, And be ye call"d, my absent kisses."
The first hymn to Saint Theresa, to which _The Flaming Heart_ is a kind of appendix, was written when Crashaw was still an Anglican (for which he did not fail, later, to make a characteristic and very pretty, though quite unnecessary, apology). It has no pa.s.sage quite up to the Invocation--Epiphonema, to give it the technical term--of the later poem.
But it is, on the contrary, good almost throughout, and is, for uniform exaltation, far the best of Crashaw"s poems. Yet such uniform exaltation must be seldom sought in him. It is in his little bursts, such as that in the stanza beginning, "O mother turtle dove," that his charm consists.
Often, as in verse after verse of _The Weeper_, it has an unearthly delicacy and witchery which only Blake, in a few s.n.a.t.c.hes, has ever equalled; while at other times the poet seems to invent, in the most casual and unthinking fashion, new metrical effects and new jewelries of diction which the greatest lyric poets since--Coleridge, Sh.e.l.ley, Lord Tennyson, Mr. Swinburne--have rather deliberately imitated than spontaneously recovered. Yet to all this charm there is no small drawback. The very maddest and most methodless of the "Metaphysicals" cannot touch Crashaw in his tasteless use of conceits. When he, in _The Weeper_ just above referred to, calls the tears of Magdalene "Wat"ry brothers," and "Simpering sons of those fair eyes," and when, in the most intolerable of all the poet"s excesses, the same eyes are called "Two waking baths, two weeping motions, Portable and compendious oceans," which follow our Lord about the hills of Galilee, it is almost difficult to know whether to feel most contempt or indignation for a man who could so write. It is fair to say that there are various readings and omissions in the different editions which affect both these pa.s.sages. Yet the offence is that Crashaw should ever have written them at all. Amends, however, are sure to be made before the reader has read much farther. Crashaw"s longest poems--a version of Marini"s _Sospetto d"Herode_, and one of the rather overpraised "Lover and Nightingale" story of Strada--are not his best; the metre in which both are written, though the poet manages it well, lacks the extraordinary charm of his lyric measures. It does not appear that the "Not impossible she" ever made her appearance, and probably for a full half of his short life Crashaw burnt only with religious fire. But no Englishman has expressed that fire as he has, and none in his expression of any sentiment, sacred and profane, has dropped such notes of ethereal music. At his best he is far above singing, at his worst he is below a very childish prattle. But even then he is never coa.r.s.e, never offensive, not very often actually dull; and everywhere he makes amends by flowers of the divinest poetry. Mr. Pope, who borrowed not a little from him, thought, indeed, that you could find nothing of "The real part of poetry" (correct construction and so forth) in Crashaw; and Mr. Hayley gently rebukes Cowley (after observing that if Pope borrowed from Crashaw, it was "as the sun borrows from the earth") for his "glowing panegyrick." Now, if the real part of poetry is anywhere in Hayley, or quintessentially in Pope, it certainly is not in Crashaw.
The group or school (for it is not easy to decide on either word, and objections might be taken to each) at the head of which Herrick, Carew, and Crashaw must be placed, and which included Herbert and his band of sacred singers, included also not a few minor groups, sufficiently different from each other, but all marked off sharply from the innovating and cla.s.sical school of Waller and his followers, which it is not proposed to treat in this volume. All, without exception, show the influence in different ways of Ben Jonson and of Donne. But each has its own peculiarity. We find these peculiarities, together with antic.i.p.ations of post-Reformation characteristics, mixed very curiously in the miscellanies of the time.
These are interesting enough, and may be studied with advantage, if not also with pleasure, in the princ.i.p.al of them, _Wit"s Recreations_ (1640).
This, with certain kindred works (_Wit Restored_, and the very unsavoury _Musarum Deliciae_ of Sir John Mennis and Dr. Smith), has been more than once republished. In these curious collections, to mention only one instance, numerous pieces of Herrick"s appeared with considerable variants from the text of the _Hesperides_; and in their pages things old and new, charming pastoral poems, _vers de societe_ of very unequal merit, ballads, satires, epigrams, and a large quant.i.ty of mere scatology and doggerel, are heaped together pell-mell. Songs from the dramatists, especially Fletcher, make their appearance, sometimes with slight variants, and there are forms of the drinking song in _Gammer Gurton"s Needle_ long after, and of Sir John Suckling"s "Ballad on a Wedding," apparently somewhat before, their respective publication in their proper places. Here is the joke about the wife and the almanack which reckless tradition has told of Dryden; printed when Lady Elizabeth Howard was in the nursery, and Dryden was not yet at Westminster. Here we learn how, probably about the second or third decade of the century, the favourite authors of learned ladies were "Wither, Draiton, and Balzack" (Guez de Balzac of the _Letters_), a very singular trio; and how some at least loved the "easy ambling" of Heywood"s prose, but thought that he "grovelled on the stage," which it must be confessed he not uncommonly did. _Wit Restored_ contains the charming "Phillida flouts Me," with other real "delights." Even Milton makes his appearance in these collections, which continued to be popular for more than a century, and acquired at intervals fresh vogue from the great names of Dryden and Pope.
Neglecting or returning from these, we may cla.s.s the minor Caroline poets under the following heads. There are belated Elizabethans like Habington, sacred poets of the school of Herbert, translators like Stanley, Sherburne, and Quarles, philosophico-theological poets like Joseph Beaumont and More, and poets of society, such as Lovelace and Suckling, whose cla.s.s degenerated into a cla.s.s of boon companion song-writers, such as Alexander Brome, and, at the extremity of our present period, Charles Cotton, in whose verse (as for the matter of that in the famous muses of Lovelace and Suckling themselves) the rapidly degenerating prosody of the time is sometimes painfully evident. This is also apparent (though it is compensated by much exquisite poetry, and on the strictly lyric side rarely offends) in the work of Randolph, Corbet, Cartwright, Chamberlayne of the _Pharonnida_, Sidney G.o.dolphin, Shakerley Marmion, Cleveland, Benlowes, Kynaston, John Hall, the enigmatic Chalkhill, Patrick Carey, Bishop King.
These about exhaust the list of poets who must be characterised here, though it could be extended. Cowley, Marvell, and Waller fall outside our limits.
George Herbert, the one popular name, if we except Lovelace and Suckling, of the last paragraph, was born at Montgomery Castle in 1593, of the great house now represented in the English peerage by the holders of the t.i.tles of Pembroke, Carnarvon, and Powis. George was the younger brother of the equally well-known Lord Herbert of Cherbury; and after being for some years public orator at Cambridge, turned, it is said, on some despite or disappointment, from secular to sacred business, accepted the living of Bemerton, and, after holding it for a short time, died in 1633. Walton"s _Life_ was hardly needed to fix Herbert in the popular mind, for his famous volume of sacred poems, _The Temple_, would have done so, and has done so far more firmly. It was not his only book by any means; he had displayed much wit as quite a boy in counter-lampooning Andrew Melville"s ponderous and impudent _Anti-Tami-Cami-Categoria_, an attack on the English universities; and afterwards he wrote freely in Greek, Latin, and English, both in prose and verse. Nothing, however, but _The Temple_ has held popular estimation, and that has held it firmly, being as much helped by the Tractarian as by the Romantic movement. It may be confessed without shame and without innuendo that Herbert has been on the whole a greater favourite with readers than with critics, and the reason is obvious. He is not prodigal of the finest strokes of poetry. To take only his own contemporaries, and undoubtedly pupils, his gentle moralising and devotion are tame and cold beside the burning glow of Crashaw, commonplace and popular beside the intellectual subtlety and, now and then, the inspired touch of Vaughan. But he never drops into the flatness and the extravagance of both these writers, and his beauties, a.s.suredly not mean in themselves, and very constantly present, are both in kind and in arrangement admirably suited to the average comprehension. He is quaint and conceited; but his quaintnesses and conceits are never beyond the reach of any tolerably intelligent understanding. He is devout, but his devotion does not transgress into the more fantastic regions of piety. He is a mystic, but of the more exoteric school of mysticism. He expresses common needs, common thoughts, the everyday emotions of the Christian, just sublimated sufficiently to make them attractive. The fashion and his own taste gave him a pleasing quaintness, which his good sense kept from being ever obscure or offensive or extravagant. The famous "Sweet day so cool, so calm, so bright," and many short pa.s.sages which are known to every one, express Herbert perfectly. The thought is obvious, usual, in no sense far fetched. The morality is plain and simple. The expression, with a sufficient touch of the daintiness of the time, has nothing that is extraordinarily or ravishingly felicitous whether in phrasing or versing.
He is, in short, a poet whom all must respect; whom those that are in sympathy with his vein of thought cannot but revere; who did England an inestimable service, by giving to the highest and purest thoughts that familiar and abiding poetic garb which contributes so much to fix any thoughts in the mind, and of which, to tell the truth, poetry has been much more prodigal to other departments of thought by no means so well deserving. But it is impossible to call him a great poet even in his own difficult cla.s.s. The early Latin hymn writers are there to show what a great religious poet must be like. Crashaw, if his genius had been less irregular and jaculative, might have been such. Herbert is not, and could not have been. With him it is an almost invariable custom to cla.s.s Vaughan the "Silurist," and a common one to unite George Sandys, the traveller, translator of Ovid, and paraphrast of the Psalms and other parts of the Bible. Sandys, an older man than Herbert by fifteen, and than Vaughan by more than forty years, published rather late, so that he came as a sacred poet after Herbert, and not long before Vaughan. He was son of the Archbishop of York, and brother of that Edwin Sandys who was a pupil of Hooker, and who is said to have been present on the melancholy occasion when the judicious one was "called to rock the cradle." He is interesting for a singular and early mastery of the couplet, which the following extract will show:--
"O Thou, who all things hast of nothing made, Whose hand the radiant firmament displayed, With such an undiscerned swiftness hurled About the steadfast centre of the world; Against whose rapid course the restless sun, And wandering flames in varied motions run.
Which heat, light, life infuse; time, night, and day Distinguish; in our human bodies sway: That hung"st the solid earth in fleeting air Veined with clear springs which ambient seas repair.
In clouds the mountains wrap their h.o.a.ry heads; Luxurious valleys clothed with flowery meads; Her trees yield fruit and shade; with liberal b.r.e.a.s.t.s All creatures she, their common mother, feasts."
Henry Vaughan was born in 1622, published _Poems_ in 1646 (for some of which he afterwards expressed a not wholly necessary repentance), _Olor Isca.n.u.s_ (from Isca Silurum) in 1651, and _Silex Scintillans_, his best-known book, in 1650 and 1655. He also published verses much later, and did not die till 1695, being the latest lived of any man who has a claim to appear in this book, but his aftergrowths were not happy. To say that Vaughan is a poet of one poem would not be true. But the universally known
"They are all gone into the world of light"
is so very much better than anything else that he has done that it would be hardly fair to quote anything else, unless we could quote a great deal.
Like Herbert, and in pretty obvious imitation of him, he set himself to bend the prevailing fancy for quips and quaintnesses into sacred uses, to see that the Devil should not have all the best conceits. But he is not so uniformly successful, though he has greater depth and greater originality of thought.
Lovelace and Suckling are inextricably connected together, not merely by their style of poetry, but by their advocacy of the same cause, their date, and their melancholy end. Both (Suckling in 1609, Lovelace nine years later) were born to large fortunes, both spent them, at least partially, in the King"s cause, and both died miserably,--Suckling, in 1642, by his own hand, his mind, according to a legend, unhinged by the tortures of the Inquisition; Lovelace, two years before the Restoration, a needy though not an exiled cavalier, in London purlieus. Both have written songs of quite marvellous and unparalleled exquisiteness, and both have left doggerel which would disgrace a schoolboy. Both, it may be suspected, held the doctrine which Suckling openly champions, that a gentleman should not take too much trouble about his verses. The result, however, was in Lovelace"s case more disastrous than in Suckling"s. It is not quite true that Lovelace left nothing worth reading but the two immortal songs, "To Lucasta on going to the Wars" and "To Althea from Prison;" and it is only fair to say that the corrupt condition of his text is evidently due, at least in part, to incompetent printing and the absence of revision. "The Gra.s.shopper" is almost worthy of the two better-known pieces, and there are others not far below it. But on the whole any one who knows those two (and who does not?) may neglect Lovelace with safety. Suckling, even putting his dramatic work aside, is not to be thus treated. True, he is often careless in the bad sense as well as in the good, though the doggerel of the "Sessions" and some other pieces is probably intentional. But in his own vein, that of c.o.xcombry that is not quite cynical, and is quite intelligent, he is marvellously happy. The famous song in _Aglaura_, the Allegro to Lovelace"s Penseroso, "Why so pale and wan, fond lover?" is scarcely better than ""Tis now since I sat down before That foolish fort a heart," or "Out upon it! I have loved Three whole days together." Nor in more serious veins is the author to be slighted, as in "The Dance;" while as for the "Ballad on a Wedding," the best parts of this are by common consent incomparable. Side by side by these are to be found, as in Lovelace, pieces that will not even scan, and, as _not_ in Lovelace (who is not seldom loose but never nasty), pieces of a dull and disgusting obscenity. But we do not go to Suckling for these; we go to him for his easy grace, his agreeable impudence, his scandalous mock-disloyalty (for it is only mock-disloyalty after all) to the "Lord of Terrible Aspect," whom all his elder contemporaries worshipped so piously. Suckling"s inconstancy and Lovelace"s constancy may or may not be equally poetical,--there is some reason for thinking that the lover of Althea was actually driven to something like despair by the loss of his mistress. But that matters to us very little. The songs remain, and remain yet unsurpa.s.sed, as the most perfect celebrations, in one case of chivalrous devotion, in the other of the c.o.xcomb side of gallantry, that literature contains or is likely ever to contain. The songwriting faculty of the English, which had broken out some half century before, and had produced so many masterpieces, was near its death, or at least near the trance from which Burns and Blake revived it more than a century later, which even Dryden"s superhuman faculty of verse could only galvanise. But at the last it threw off by the mouths of men, who otherwise seem to have had very ordinary poetical powers, this little group of triumphs in song, to which have to be added the raptures--equally strange and sweet, equally unmatched of their kind, but n.o.bler and more masculine--of the "Great Marquis," the few and wonderful lines of Montrose. To quote "My dear and only love, I pray," or "Great, good, and just, could I but rate," would be almost as much an insult to the reader as to quote the above-mentioned little masterpieces of the two less heroic English cavaliers.
Quarles, More, and Joseph Beaumont form, as it were, a kind of appendix to the poetry of Herbert and Vaughan--an appendix very much less distinguished by poetical power, but very interesting as displaying the character of the time and the fashion (strange enough to us moderns) in which almost every interest of that time found its natural way into verse. The enormous popularity of Francis Quarles"s _Emblems_ and _Enchiridion_ accounts to some extent for the very unjust ridicule which has been lavished on him by men of letters of his own and later times. But the silly ant.i.thesis of Pope, a writer who, great as he was, was almost as ignorant of literary history as his model, Boileau, ought to prejudice no one, and it is strictly true that Quarles"s enormous volume hides, to some extent, his merits. Born in 1592 at Romford, of a gentle though not very distinguished family, which enters into that curious literary genealogy of Swift, Dryden, and Herrick, he was educated at Cambridge, became cup-bearer to the ill-fated and romantically renowned "Goody Palsgrave," held the post which Middleton and Jonson had held, of chronologer to the city of London, followed the King to Oxford to his loss, having previously had losses in Ireland, and died early in 1644, leaving his memory to be defended in a rather affecting doc.u.ment by his widow, Ursula. Quarles was a kind of journalist to whom the vehicle of verse came more easily than the vehicle of prose, and the dangers of that state of things are well known. A mere list of his work (the _Enchiridion_ is in prose, and a good thing too) would far exceed any s.p.a.ce that can be given to him here. All Quarles"s work is journey-work, but it is only fair to note the frequent wealth of fancy, the occasional felicity of expression, which ill.u.s.trate this wilderness.
More and Beaumont were not, like Quarles, poetical miscellanists and periodical writers; but they seem to have shared with him the delusion that poetry is an instrument of all work. Henry More, a man well connected and who might have risen, but who preferred to pa.s.s the greater part of a long and studious life as a fellow of Christ"s College, Cambridge, is best known as a member of the theological school, indifferently called the Cambridge Platonists and the Cambridge Lat.i.tudinarians. His chief work in verse is a great philosophical poem, ent.i.tled the _Song of the Soul_, with such engaging sub-t.i.tles as _Psychozoia_, _Psychathanasia_, _Antipsychopannychia_, and _Antimonopsychia_. I shall not, I hope, be suspected of being ignorant of Greek, or disinclined to metaphysics, if I say that the _Song of the Soul_ appears to me a venerable mistake. A philosophical controversy carried on in this fashion--
"But contradiction, can that have place In any soul? Plato affirms ideas; But Aristotle, with his pugnacious race, As idle figments stiffly them denies,"
seems to me to be a signal instance of the wrong thing in the wrong place.
It is quite true that More has, as Southey says, "lines and pa.s.sages of sublime beauty." A man of his time, actuated by its n.o.ble thought, trained as we know More to have been in the severest school of Spenser, and thus habituated to the heavenly harmonies of that perfect poet, could hardly fail to produce such. But his muse is a chaotic not a cosmic one.
Something the same may be said of Joseph Beaumont, a friend of Crashaw, and like him ejected from Peterhouse, son-in-law of Bishop Wren, and, later, head of Jesus College. Beaumont, a strong cavalier and an orthodox churchman, was a kind of adversary of More"s, whose length and quaintness he has exceeded, while he has almost rivalled his learning in _Psyche_ or _Love"s Mystery_, a religious poem of huge dimensions, first published in 1648 and later in 1702. Beaumont, as both fragments of this vast thing and his minor poems show, had fancy, taste, and almost genius on opportunity; but the prevailing mistake of his school, the idea that poetry is a fit vehicle for merely prosaic expression, is painfully apparent in him.
First, for various reasons, among the nondescripts of the Caroline school, deserves to be mentioned William Habington, a Roman Catholic gentleman of good upper middle-cla.s.s station, whose father was himself a man of letters, and had some trouble in the Gunpowder Plot. He was born at Hindlip Hall, near Worcester, in the year of the plot itself, courted and married Lucy Herbert, daughter of his neighbour, Lord Powis, and published her charms and virtues in the collection called _Castara_, first issued in 1634.
Habington also wrote a tragic comedy, _The Queen of Aragon_, and some other work, but died in middle life. It is upon _Castara_ that his fame rests. To tell the truth it is, though, as had been said, an estimable, yet a rather irritating work. That Habington was a true lover every line of it shows; that he had a strong infusion of the abundant poetical inspiration then abroad is shown by line after line, though hardly by poem after poem, among its pieces. His series of poems on the death of his friend Talbot is full of beauty. His religion is sincere, fervent, and often finely expressed; though he never rose to Herbert"s pure devotion, or to Crashaw"s flaming poetry. One of the later _Castara_ poems may be given:--
"We saw and woo"d each other"s eyes, My soul contracted then with thine, And both burnt in one sacrifice, By which our marriage grew divine.
"Let wilder youths, whose soul is sense, Profane the temple of delight, And purchase endless penitence, With the stolen pleasure of one night.
"Time"s ever ours, while we despise The sensual idol of our clay, For though the sun do set and rise, We joy one everlasting day.
"Whose light no jealous clouds obscure, While each of us shine innocent, The troubled stream is still impure; With virtue flies away content.
"And though opinions often err, We"ll court the modest smile of fame, For sin"s black danger circles her, Who hath infection in her name.
"Thus when to one dark silent room Death shall our loving coffins thrust: Fame will build columns on our tomb, And add a perfume to our dust."
But _Castara_ is a real instance of what some foreign critics very unjustly charge on English literature as a whole--a foolish and almost canting prudery. The poet dins the chast.i.ty of his mistress into his readers" heads until the readers in self-defence are driven to say, "Sir, did any one doubt it?" He protests the freedom of his own pa.s.sion from any admixture of fleshly influence, till half a suspicion of hypocrisy and more than half a feeling of contempt force themselves on the hearer. A relentless critic might connect these unpleasant features with the uncharitable and more than orthodox bigotry of his religious poems. Yet Habington, besides contributing much agreeable verse to the literature of the period, is invaluable as showing the counterside to Milton, the Catholic Puritanism which is no doubt inherent in the English nature, and which, had it not been for the Reformation, would probably have transformed Catholicism in a very strange fashion.
There is no Puritanism of any kind in a group--it would hardly be fair to call them a school--of "Heroic" poets to whom very little attention has been paid in histories of literature hitherto, but who lead up not merely to Davenant"s _Gondibert_ and Cowley"s _Davideis_, but to _Paradise Lost_ itself. The "Heroic" poem was a kind generated partly by the precepts of the Italian criticism, including Ta.s.so, partly by the practice of Ta.s.so himself, and endeavouring to combine something of the unity of Epic with something and more of the variety of Romance. It may be represented here by the work of Chalkhill, Chamberlayne, Marmion, and Kynaston. John Chalkhill, the author of _Thealma and Clearchus_, was, with his work, introduced to the public in 1683 by Izaak Walton, who styles him "an acquaintant and friend of Edmund Spenser." If so, he must have been one of the first of English poets to adopt the very loose enjambed decasyllabic couplet in which his work, like that of Marmion and still more Chamberlayne, is written. His poem is unfinished, and the construction and working-up of the story are looser even than the metre; but it contains a great deal of charming description and some very poetical phrase.
Much the same may be said of the _Cupid and Psyche_ (1637) of the dramatist Shakerley Marmion (_v. inf._), which follows the original of Apuleius with alternate closeness and liberty, but is always best when it is most original. The _Leoline and Sydanis_ (1642) of Sir Francis Kynaston is not in couplets but in rhyme royal--a metre of which the author was so fond that he even translated the _Troilus and Cressida_ of Chaucer into Latin, retaining the seven-line stanza and its rhymes. Kynaston, who was a member of both universities and at one time proctor at Cambridge, was a man interested in various kinds of learning, and even started an Academy or _Museum Minervae_ of his own. In _Leoline and Sydanis_ he sometimes comes near to the mock heroic, but in his lyrics called _Cynthiades_ he comes nearer still to the best Caroline cry. One or two of his pieces have found their way into anthologies, but until the present writer reprinted his works[60] he was almost unknown.
[60] In _Minor Caroline Poets_, vols. i. and ii. (Oxford, 1905-6). An important addition to the religious verse of the time was made by Mr.
Dobell with the _Poems_ (London, 1903) of Thomas Traherne, a follower of Herbert, with some strange antic.i.p.ations of Blake.
The most important by far, however, of this group is William Chamberlayne, a physician of Shaftesbury, who, before or during the Civil War, began and afterwards finished (publishing it in 1659) the very long heroic romance of _Pharonnida_, a story of the most involved and confused character but with episodes of great vividness and even sustained power: a piece of versification straining the liberties of _enjambement_ in line and want of connection in syntax to the utmost; but a very mine of poetical expression and imagery. Jewels are to be picked up on every page by those who will take the trouble to do so, and who are not offended by the extraordinary nonchalance of the composition.
The _Theophila_ of Edward Benlowes (1603?-1676) was printed in 1652 with elaborate and numerous engravings by Hollar, which have made it rare, and usually imperfect when met with. Benlowes was a Cambridge man (of St.
John"s College) by education, but lived latterly and died at Oxford, having been reduced from wealth to poverty by the liberality which made his friends anagrammatise his name into "Benevolus." His work was abused as an awful example of the extravagant style by Butler (_Character of a Small Poet_), and by Warburton in the next century; but it was never reprinted till the date of the collection just noted. It is a really curious book, displaying the extraordinary _diffusion_ of poetical spirit still existing, but in a hectic and decadent condition. Benlowes--a Cleveland with more poetry and less cleverness, or a very much weaker Crashaw--uses a monorhymed triplet made up of a heroic, an octosyllable, and an Alexandrine which is as wilfully odd as the rest of him.
Randolph, the youngest and not the least gifted of the tribe of Ben, died before he was thirty, after writing some noteworthy plays, and a certain number of minor poems, which, as it has been well observed, rather show that he might have done anything, than that he did actually do something.
Corbet was Bishop first of Oxford and then of Norwich, and died in 1635.
Corbet"s work is of that peculiar cla.s.s which is usually, though not always, due to "University Wits," and which only appeals to people with a considerable appreciation of humour, and a large stock of general information. It is always occasional in character, and rarely succeeds so well as when the treatment is one of distinct _persiflage_. Thus the elegy on Donne is infinitely inferior to Carew"s, and the mortuary epitaph on Arabella Stuart is, for such a subject and from the pen of a man of great talent, extraordinarily feeble. The burlesque epistle to Lord Mordaunt on his journey to the North is great fun, and the "Journey into France,"
though, to borrow one of its own jokes, rather "strong," is as good. The "Exhortation to Mr. John Hammond," a ferocious satire on the Puritans, distinguishes itself from almost all precedent work of the kind by the force and directness of its attack, which almost antic.i.p.ates Dryden. And Corbet had both pathetic and imaginative touches on occasion, as here:--
"What I shall leave thee none can tell, But all shall say I wish thee well, I wish thee, Vin, before all wealth, Both bodily and ghostly health; Nor too much wealth, nor wit, come to thee, So much of either may undo thee.
I wish thee learning, not for show, Enough for to instruct and know; Not such as gentlemen require To prate at table, or at fire.
I wish thee all thy mother"s graces, Thy father"s fortunes, and his places.
I wish thee friends, and one at court, Not to build on, but support To keep thee, not in doing many Oppressions, but from suffering any.
I wish thee peace in all thy ways, Nor lazy nor contentious days; And when thy soul and body part As innocent as now those art."
Cartwright, a short-lived man but a hard student, shows best in his dramas.
In his occasional poems, strongly influenced by Donne, he is best at panegyric, worst at burlesque and epigram. In "On a Gentlewoman"s Silk Hood" and some other pieces he may challenge comparison with the most futile of the metaphysicals; but no one who has read his n.o.ble elegy on Sir Bevil Grenvil, unequal as it is, will think lightly of Cartwright. Sir Edward Sherburne was chiefly a translator in the fashionable style. His original poems were those of a very inferior Carew (he even copies the name Celia), but they are often pretty. Alexander Brome, of whom very little is known, and who must not be confounded with the dramatist, was a lawyer and a cavalier song-writer, who too frequently wrote mere doggerel; but on the other hand, he sometimes did not, and when he escaped the evil influence, as in the stanzas "Come, come, let us drink," "The Trooper," and not a few others, he has the right anacreontic vein.