1825.] Remarks on the subject of Poetry. his Hudibras, introduced aches as a rhyme to catches; and it can hardly be imagined that he, however small the restraint which he usually places upon his Pegasus, would have ventured upon so extravagant a neglect of consonance, had there not been in his day some authority or other for the pronunciation which he seems to have adopted. Yours, &c. Mr. URBAN, ON W. C. D. Exeter, Sept. 6, N reading your last Supplement, p. 579, I felt much surprised at the remarks on the subject of poetry, from your Taunton correspondent T. In the first place T. ascribes the origin of poetry to the "ancient Hebrew," and to its being "so exactly calculated for that fine and poetical language." Hebrew poems are certainly the finest as well as the earliest in existence; but this is a very different thing from Hebrew's giving birth to poetry. The original cause of poetry is much more remote. It is to be found in the very nature of man. Constituted as he every where is, whether, the language he speaks be a poetical one or not, he will occasionally, in every region of the earth, break forth into poetical effusions. Poetry is universally the natural language of intense feeling, whether that feeling be. Hebrew or English, Italian or Indian, Spanish or African. This, and not the structure of the language, was the cause of its "becoming the medium of prophecy and religious instruction." Here we see the reason why a plentiful crop of poets depends in a great measure upon external causes; upon national institutions that restrain or give the rein to nature, upon climate, upon local situation, or other similar causes, suited to excite or deaden feeling, to raise or lull asleep sentiment or fancy. For instance, the fine tract of Asia Minor, how plentifully did it produce great men of every sort? and how was it that it did so? The purity and benignity of the air, the varieties of the fruits and fields, the beauty and number of the rivers, and the constant gales from the happy isles of the Western Sea, all conspire to bring its productions of every kind to the highest perfection; they inspire that mildness of temper and flow of fancy, which favour the most extensive views, and give the finest conceptions of nature and truth. Good sense is indeed said to be the pro duct of every country, but the richest growths and fairest shoots of it, spring like other plants, from the happiest exposition and most friendly soil." "In the early times of liberty," ac cordingly, "the first and greatest number of philosophers, historians, and poets, were natives of the Asiatic coast, and adjacent islands. And after an interval of slavery, when the influences of the Roman freedom and of their mild government had reached that happy country, it repaid them with men of virtue and learning in such numbers as to fill their schools and the houses of the great; to be companions for their princes, and to leave some noble monuments for posterity." (Life of Homer.) To mention but a few, Homer and Hesiod, Archilochus and Tyrtæus, Sappho and Alcæus, Simonides and Phocylides, were natives of this happy region. Surely this is quite sufficient to establish our proposition. Nature and Poetry are found in perfection together; and where every thing contributes to warm the heart and kindle the feelings, there is heard the voice of melody in its greatest sweetness. How ridiculous is it then to ascribe the universality of poetry to the dispersion of "the Jews over most of the Countries of the earth?" Positively, Mr. Urban, when I had read thus far T.'s letter, I little expected to find him a scholar as well as a critic. Wide as the dispersion of the Jews has been, there have been poets in nations that had never heard of the name of Jew, and had never had any intercourse with civilized nations. I confess myself in the next place at a loss to comprehend what T. means by saying that few modern pieces of poetry meet the applause of the public, except they be in a style that differs not materially from that of the ancients. It must indeed happen that men of a liberal education often in their writings refer to things they have met with in by-gone days, and even sometimes, imperceptibly perhaps, introduce in them the beauties of the ancient writers. But I take it that Scott, Byron, Moore, Crabbe, with the majority of our popular bards, would be rather surprised to be taken for servile imitators of the style of the classic authors, except in those cases where they have avowed themselves to be so. But T. tells us "few but imitators of the classics enjoy at 222 On Poetry-William the Conqueror. at present the honours of the greatest poets of Britain." I, for one, as a lover of curiosities, should feel much indebted to T.'s kindness for a few instances in proof of his assertion. We surely have nothing to do now-a-days with Dryden, Pope, and Gray, when discoursing of the present state of English poetry. une He next wonders how it is that poetry has not kept pace with other arts and sciences, and "remains unimproved, unaltered, and even qualled by the moderns." For the sake of argument let us grant this to be the case. T. seems to consider poetry as one of those arts or sciences (which he pleases) that may by repeated labour and application be fagged up to perfection. But here he is mistaken. Poetry is a natural talent. It is never acquired to any degree of excellence. "Poeta nascitur non fit," is a very old observation. Innumerable instances may be adduced to shew how little the cultivation of the mind originates the spirit of poetry. And in some how little it improves it. A first-rate poem is never to be expected till the world is blessed with a first-rate naturally poetical genius. And when he is given, it is not as T. supposes "patronage and support," that will set him a writing, nor is it the want of these that will keep him from it. Our own Milton is an example of this. Perhaps T. never heard how little he obtained for his divine poem. Milton's name by the way reminds me, that the reason why the ancient poets have never been surpassed is, that "the power of nature could no farther go," though indeed T. says there is ample room for improvement." And likewise he may be brought forward as an example of the complete failure of labour to make a poet. Where Milton gives himself up to nature and original feeling, there he is unequalled. Where he labours to shew his acquired forces, there he is almost laughable. To return. T. re-echoes this oft repeated strain that there is a want of patronage of merit. He owns indeed that the idea is " hackneyed." It may, I fancy, to go a step further, be said now-a-days to be unfounded. However we may fall short of the ancients in other matters, in this we are with rapid strides following them, namely, the encouragement given to merit in every department of the Arts and Sciences. [Sept. The complaint, however, probably will never cease to be made. It is indeed almost constitutional in poets. "Nunc hederæ sine honore jacent," and also, Heu miseram sortem, duramque a sidere vitam, Quam dat doctiloquis vatibus ipse Deus! were laments of a poet even of the Augustan age. With regard to T.'s quotation from Horace, Ep. I. 1. 109, I have to observe, that I never before knew that "dives" in this place meant the sage's being wealthy in worldly riches, "dives pictai vestis et auri, (Et. Lat. Gram.) I have been accustomed to take it to signify his possessing, what truly is the best of wealth, such satisfaction in abundant stores of mind that he looks with neglect on external riches. Yours, &c. Mr. URBAN, P. Lake House, near Amesbury, Wilts, Sept. 13. N an attentive consideration to the subject of the Letter of J.D. (p. 103), I cannot but arrive at the conclusion, that England was not (in the modern acceptation of the word) conquered by William I. It is true he obtained a decisive victory over the forces of his rival Harold, who was slain at the close of the engagement; yet he gained this victory with great numerical loss; it was fought at an angle of the kingdom, against forces hastily drawn together, whilst the strength of the most distant parts of the realm was still unimpaired; and he manifested his sense of his great insecurity by the caution with which he pursued his subsequent measures. Had Harold survived, flushed as he must have felt with his recent success against the Norwegians, and entrenched as he was in the love and affection of his subjects, we may well presume that the issue of this important contest would have been in his favour. William, however, was more indebted to a concatenation of fortunate circumstances which assisted him to reach the throne to which he aspired, than to his own exertions. In addition to this union of causes, which operated powerfully, and against all reasonable expectation, in the aid of his wishes; we must recollect also, that he invaded England under the pretence, and perhaps the semblance of right, that he claimed the throne, hæreditario jure, and 1825.] England not conquered by King William I. and under the alleged will of Edward the Confessor, with the accompanied assertion, that Harold had by oath to him personally renounced his claims. Whether the Confessor really did make a will in favour of his illegitimate relative William, is doubted by historians; the presumption is, that he did not, as it was never produced, which would probably have been eagerly done, if it had existence: he may, however, have been orally named by him as his successor. The death of Edward took place during the extreme youth of Edgar Atheling, his great nephew and rightful heir; but the people set him aside, and, under the influence of the power and abilities of Harold, elected him as their King, although possessing no hereditary right to the throne. In this situation of affairs the Duke of Normandy appealed to the Pope, who, flattered by the reference made to him, decided in favour of his claim, and sanctioned his subsequent invasion. The accidental death of Harold impressed the minds of the English, superstitious as they were in those early ages, that the designs of his rival was favoured by Divine Providence, and they were the more reluctant to uphold a vigorous opposition. William, pursuing a wily policy, approached London, and by his conduct intimated his intention of besieging it, justly concluding that the possession of the capital, whether by siege or voluntary surrender, would be followed by the submission of the whole kingdom. The cautious fear by which he was actuated, was balanced by a similar cautions and prudent timidity in the opposite party. The result was, that the Citizens of London, unsanctioned by the State, proffered him the Crown, which he accepted as a gift, and the example of the Metropolis was followed by a general and silent submission. The Coronation of William took place shortly afterwards; and, so far from taking on himself, as a victor, to dispense with the accustomed oaths, or, on the other hand, binding himself to govern his newly-organized possessions by the laws of his own country, he confirmed the laws then in existence, the code of Edward the Confessor. It is very true we call him, by way of contra-distinction, William the Conqueror, and for ages he has borne that appellation; but he never so denomi 223 nated himself, nor was he so called very For the further satisfaction of your Correspondent, J. D. I beg leave to refer him to a scarce work on this subject, which is attributed, and I think duly so, to the illustrious Sir Bulstrode Whitlocke. It is a small 8vo of 164 pages, marked with Roman numerals, and is dated "London, printed by John Darby, 1682." It is adorned with a curious frontispiece; in the distance is depicted the battle between the English and Normans, and the death of Harold; in the foreground is represented the Coronation of William. He is seated on a chair surmounted on two steps; the Archbishop of York is in the act of placing the Crown on his head, while the Bishop of Constance tenders to him the Coronation Oath, and he at the same instant is receiving the code of King Edward's laws from the hands of Britannia, surmounted on a still higher seat. You will permit me, Mr. Urban, to quote the title-page, and then the conclusion, to which, after a laboured research and discussion, the author arrives. The title-page runs thus: "Argumentum Anti-Normannicum; or an Argument proving from ancient Histories and Records, that William, Duke of Normandy, made no absolute Conquest of Eugland by the Sword in the sense of our modern Writers, being an Answer to these four Questions, viz.1.WhetherWilliam the First made an absolute conquest of this nation at his first entrance; 2. Whether he cancelled and abolished all the Confessor's Laws; 3. Whether he 1 224 England not conquered by King William I. he divided all our estates and fortunes between himself and nobles; 4. Whether it be not a grand error to affirm that there were no Englishmen in the Common Council of the whole kingdom."-The conclusion to which he arrives respectively as to these questions are these, that 1. William the First, vulgarly called William the Conqueror, did not get the Imperial Crown of England by the sword, nor made an absolute Conquest of the nation at his first entrance. 2. Nor that he abolished all the English Laws, or changed the whole frame and constitution of the Saxon Government; but, 3. That the English had still estates aud fortunes continued to them; and that it was a great mistake in any to affirm, that the King and his Normans divided and shared them all among them; as likewise, 4. In the fourth place, it has been a grand error to ascertain that there were no Englishmen in the Common Council of the whole kingdom in the reign of William the Conqueror." To the foregoing conclusions I cannot but cordially assent; and I think there is no doubt but that William gained the throne, not from absolute conquest, but by mutual compact, arising from mutual fear. On the part of the English, they had set Edgar Atheling, the rightful heir, aside, on account of his youth and slender mental abilities. Harold himself, although elected by them, had no hereditary right. This circumstance, united with their Aight into Ireland, precluded them from turning their attention to his sons. The invader, although illegitimate, was yet connected by relationship to the Confessor; and a want of unanimity pervaded their domestic councils, as the Clergy, who bore a great sway, were in favour of the Duke of Normandy, he having received the sanction of the Pope to his invasion. On the other hand, William, by the proffer of the Crown, must have felt pleased at the probably unexpected and easy success after only one battle, and prudently resolved to accept the conditions of the English, rather than to continue a contest uncertain in its issue, and calamitous in its failure. The authenticity of the anecdoté referred to by your Correspondent, relative to the meeting between William and the Men of Kent, the latter having each a bough in his hand, has been strongly doubted by the best [Sept. historians. Indeed in his recorded history it is difficult to separate truth from error and purposed misrepresentation; the more early writers penned their memorials under the influence of prejudice, they were usually descendants of the Anglo-Saxons, and were not disinclined to lower the character of William in the eyes of posterity, to attribute to him arbitrary actions, of which he was never guilty, and to give even to his good deeds the semblance of evil. In illustration of this remark, you will permit me, Sir, to revert to the origin of the New Forest, and the institution of the Curfew. It has been generally represented by historians, and as generally believed, that William, passionately fond of hunting, depopulated a whole district for the formation of the New Forest, having destroyed numerous churches, and dispossessed the inhabitants of their lands and houses. So far from this being the case, we have every reason to believe that the site of the New Forest was primevally a woody region, known under the appellation of Ytene, ever very thinly inhabited; and that being first afforested by William, it then, by way of contradistinction alone, received the name of New Forest.—With regard to the Curfew, the assertion that at the sound of a certain bell in every district at eight o'clock in the evening, all the inhabitants were under the obligation of putting out their lights and of covering their fires. Intermixed as the inhabitants of both countries must have becume, both as to residence and intercourse, the execution of this mandate must have been of general inconvenience. It is no where asserted that the order was restricted to the English. It was assuredly the interest and policy of William to produce an amalgamation of national manners and customs; and it is hardly to be supposed that he would have hazarded a general insurrection against him by the institution of an arbitrary and useless measure levelled at the English, and át the same time oppressive to the Normans. The Curfew was in use on the Continent prior to the era of William, and may have had its origin in religious influence. Many barbarous nations even now hail the rising of the Sun, and in like manner, by some expression of their feelings, deplore the departure of the light of Heaven; and it seems to me that Gray thus ele gantly 1925.] Effigy of Bp. Shepey discovered at Rochester. gantly alludes to this religious memorial: "The Curfew tolls the knell of parting day." In the prevalence of superstition, the extinguishment of artificial light may have been superadded, from the supposition that it was irreligious to supply that light which the God of Nature had withdrawn. The etymology of the word Curfew, which is a corruption from Couvre-feu, proves it to be of Normanic origin; and I am strongly inclined to think that William introduced it as an usage incumbent on both Normans and English to observe, and that it was tortured by the subsequent Monkish historians into an arbitrary mandate, with the view of harassing the English, although they none of them assert that its practice was not of general injunction. Yours, &c. Mr. URBAN, EDWARD DUKE. Sept. 17. YOU have already recorded (Part i. p. Cathedral, of the Effigy of Bishop John de Shepey, who died in 1360. Splendid indeed must have been the monument to which the effigy and the disjointed fragments discovered with it belonged (though I entertain great doubts whether the last-mentioned are at all connected with the effigy). There is a finely preserved statue of Moses holding the tables of the law, on which are singularly enough inscribed the name of the law-giver himself MOYSES. The remains of the group next this statue appear to have been formed for a holy family, containing reliefs of the Virgin, Joseph, St. Anne, and an angel crowning the former; the whole of this group is dreadfully mutilated. Some beautiful mouldings in frieze, &c. remain in high preservation, and the care taken of them reflects the highest credit on the Dean and Chapter. The tomb on which this effigy now lies, is of inferior workmanship, and differs in length from the effigy. The robes, titre, and other habiliments of the prelate are superbly coloured, and afford a splendid specimen of the state of the fine arts in that magnificent æra, the 14th century. The discoveries at St. Stephen's Chapel are alone worthy to compete with it. The face is finely coloured; the close shaved beard a most correct GENT. MAG. September, 1825. Yu7by the discovery in Rochester 225 imitation of nature, supposing the effigy to be a likeness.. The Prelate may be imagined to have been a man about forty, with a dark complexion, and handsome features. He held the see about eight years. In the aile, North of the choir, there is a monument affixed in the wall, which separates it from the choir; it has a lofty single-arched canopy, in which may be seen the remains of foliage closely resembling the mouldings discovered; and though this monument has suffered very much from wilful dilapidations, still the remaining carvings are of the most elegant description. An angel on the wall at the back, in high relief, is nearly perfect, and from the uneven surface of the wall appears 10 have formed part of a group. The altar tomb has been broken; the present covering is quite rough and uneven. There is little doubt an effigy was once laid upon it. This tomb was pointed out to me by the verger, in his conjecture, that the effigy beand I think there is great probability longed to it. The triple stalls in the South side of the altar have been assigned as a monument to this prelate. They are posterior, in point of date, by many years; and our increased knowledge will at this time inform us that they were never intended for a sepulchral monument. The fragments of sculpture now discovered probably formed the decoration of a splendid altar in some part of the Cathedral. The old and ugly oaken altar-screen is removed for ever, and with it a picture of two angels bearing their message to the shepherds on pieces of paper in their hands, the work, I believe, of Benjamin West. One of the angels appears to be of the masculine, the other of the feminine gender; an absurdity too common in angelic representations. It was worthy of the screen it decorated, and it will, I trust, in future occupy an humbler place. The wall which was concealed by the old altar, shows three pointed arches resting on clustered columns in relief attached to the wall, and sustaining a gallery even with the sill of the upper East window fronted with a parapet of pierced quatrefoils. In the intercolumniations are windows, and below each is a cross in a circle painted on the wall. The windows are re-glazed in plain glass, the design of |