Walter Savage Landor

WALTE RSAVAG E LANDOR

C RITIC AL ST! D!

EDWARD W TERM A EVANS J R. A N ,

! IV R I ! F L L W PRI C N E S T E O , N ETON

P P! T A M ’ G . S SO S . N N N E W ! ORK LOND ON W e s t T w e n t -th i r d t y St . 24 B e d fo r d S . , Str a n d $132 E nizkzrhuzkzx $3 23 5 1 892 C P! RI G H 1 8 2 O T , 9 B !

A S R E DW A RD W A TE RM A N E V N J .

Pr in te d a n d B o u n d by t h e k nickerbochec pr ess, mew mat h ’ P P! A M S G . . TN S ONS A M S RM SB M ! RRA ! LL D J E O EE . .

E! E M PLA R

O F T H E PERS! A SIVENESS A N D D I G NIT! OF C! LT! RE TH IS B OOK 1 5 D EDICA TED

C N ONT E TS .

PA G E PREFA C E

L A N DOR A S A M A N OF LE T TERS

’ LA N DOR s POE T R!

’ LA N D OR S PROSE WRI T I N G S

’ L A N D O R S P L A C E IN LI TERA T ! RE 1 8 1

APPEN D I !

PR E FAC E .

ONL! those b o o k s endure as living m m presences , and not as ere ortuary w tablets , herein there is a vital coa l e sc e n c e O f of sense and thought , na m m a ture and spirit . Other volu es y possess a relative longev ity , as links d m in a historical evelop ent , or as affordin g suggestive m aterial which shall subsequently be transm uted into artistic form but their m ortality

. w is inevitable Scientiﬁc kno ledge , w ith its classiﬁcation O f phenom ena and its discovery O f their necessary c o - existences and sequences in tim e H and space , is ever expanding . ence the latest book in science is usually

. m r e the best It has assi ilated , and in w produced fuller gro th , all pre Vi o u s works pertaining to its depart m ent . Ideas , on the other hand , that are form ed in the crucible o f art— ideas that suffuse the appear a n c e s O f nature with the free soul Of — m a n have an absolute value . And the book e m bodying them is a spir itu a l m w organis , hose end is focused o wn m in itself, in its delightful , i agi native m arriage O f idea and expres w O f w sion . The ork art gro s not . It “ is a wavering apparition ﬁxed in its place with thoughts that stand ’ fo r e v e r ﬁ N o w the productions Of Walter Savage Landor are em inently artis wh o m tic Hence , as those ad ire h im keep noting with approval the “ ‘ RE O f w recent reprints his several orks , an d the eulogistic references at pres ent so Often made to this m aster of E nglish ; they cannot withhold their belief in his much - doubted predic e e ix Prf ac .

w tion , that he, as an author , ould dine late surrounded by a choice — c o m pany O f kindred spirits they cannot withhold their belief that l he b e o n gs/aw i m m ortals . ’ Th o u gh hi s lettered co ntemporaries fro m Southey to Swinburne were alm ost unanim ous in acknowledging the distinction and charm Of Lan ’ w dor s ritings , his audience , at least n o m until recently, has been by eans proportionate to his com m anding worth as a literary artist . While there have appeared two m biographies Of Landor, a cu ber m so e one by John Forster, his liter o n e ary executor, and a Judicious

“ by Mr . Colvin in the En glish Men Of t e Let ers series , no gritiquw t onc i adequately exclusive “ inclusive , V al d b w iii l e e ffo r t to has een ritten m tiijf x

m e “l and p l a c e a n d deter in a g w m rjs p func

tion in literature . ! nlike a biog ra h i w p y, such a cr tique o uld have x Preface .

to be exclusive , passing over all de tails O f outward history not insep ’ a ra bly linked with the author s inner life and writings ; and it would w have to be inclusive , tracing ith m ore coherencethan could w ell be done in a biography the relation O f ’ the author s works to his a ge and to his personality , and then bringing the canons O f criticism to bear con c r e te ly upon his several c o n tr ib u tions in poetry or prose . This has m w been the ethod pursued , ho ever w tentatively , in the follo ing critical study . ’ In treating O f L a n d o r s attitude w to ard the scientiﬁc , philosophical , and religious conceptions O f the w m period , as also to ard criticis and wa s politics , it found hard to charac h i te riz e m other than negatively . w His positive qualities , ho ever, hav in g thus been provided with a ne ga tive background , can , it is hoped , be e a e Prf c . thereupon brought o u t in clearer relief . Thou gh th e i m m ediate pu r pose in w ritin g this critique , and also the L a n d o r ia n idyl contained in the A p e n dix wa s m p , to co pete for college — m prizes , one in criticis , the other — O f in poetry , the aspirations the writer continued to go out toward a wider audience . And though the actual co m position w a s undertaken and co m pleted am idst the press and d istraction of undergraduate duties , these essays are the record O f a ’ O f L a nd o r s w previous study orks , at once careful , prolonged , and enthusiastic .

PRINCE TON COLLE G E ,

u 1 1 8 2 Jan ary 3 , 9 .

LANDOR A MAN OF LETTERS

O S M N E TTE S LAND R A A A O F L R .

A ! NIVE RSAL library has three alcoves The ﬁrst contains the reli n w gio s books, those hich relate man

to Deity . The deepest question in th e hu m an soul is the wh y O f its e x iste n c e and the only answer to this riddle Of the sphinx is God . More

w -m over, hile the clear inded Greek may conceive Of Divinity as pure m intelligence unperturbed by e otion , a m passionless force in itself un oral , because in it duty and inclination are one ; whilethe vehem ent Hebrew may picture Jehovah as fro wning in righteous anger at the sins Of his o — Oc c i pe ple , both Oriental and e e d 4 Walt r Savag Lan or. dental alike must ever be feeling after the guardian hand Of God and those wh o m o f seers, have caught a gli pse t w his trailing garmen s , are al ays to be regarded as the rarest benefactors N r Of m ankind . o dare w e suppose that the Deity has revealed himself once fo r all far back in the immuta bl e past , that long since the book ’ a Of God s pl n has been sealed . In m these modern ti es , Fichte and C E m Schelling , arlyle and erson , w w t Words orth and Bro ning , hese and m any m ore have sought to u n n O f cover the secret thi gs God . The second alcove is stored with those books which unite the m ind O f man with outward nature . Our ideal Of the good is only satisﬁed by resting in the perfection o f the Godhead ; in th e sam e wa y a type Of the true u n and fair is , upon occasion , best veiled beneath the shows O f nature and the Inﬁnite Reason that gleams

~ ’ 6 Walte r Savage La n a o r

n o m nature , and that at ti e could ih e m a n be called a Of God , having

n o ﬁnal word o f the Lord to utter . And while these three classes Of w m books are not, al ays utually ex c l u siv e m w , but rese ble ater circles , O f w each hich ripples into the other , r e yet , like such circles , each class m O o w n tains a easure f its identity . w wa s Thus , though Words orth men “ tio n e d as an interpreter O f the ” w O f m e n ays God to , he stands pre m O f e inently as the poet nature .

Precisely so is Landor a bove all , ! ﬁ ’ ‘ the h u m a n isT Masculine stren gth m and aidenly tenderness , all the variations of noble and attractive

character , excited in him deep inter est ; and his interest wa s gau ged ’ L a n d o r s d e ﬁ by his insight . very c ie n c y as an abstract thinker, his O f inability to forge a chain dialectic , left his i m agination the m ore n u m o n to di med , and the alert conjure e e Landor as a Man of L tt rs. 7 up the phantoms Of history and

m ake the m live again . And in his w literary ork, therefore , ideas con n e c te d with nature or God are mere f scenic e fects , so to speak, having no w m w absorbing orth in the selves , hile ’ La n d o r s clai m to an artistic r e pre se n ta tio n O f life is restricted to the reﬂective exhibition Of certain types

Of character . Contrary to the habit Of the h u m a n ists wh o m , portray the anners and intellectual and m oral culture wa s distinctive Of their day , Landor n o m s e g t in w p an embodiment Of the spirit Of his tim e f Ca n we im agine what would have been the develop ’ ment O f Oliver Goldsm ith s genius apart fro m its eighteenth - century environ m ent ! At mention o f the ica r o Wa ke eld r /ee Sto o s V o S f ﬁ , p to Co n u er a ffe c q , the prudery and ta tio n w m m Of the o en , the ani ality o f m e n th e e the , even exaggerat d e e 8 Walt r Savag Landor.

o f style Of dressing, all the details “ o u r a e g Of prose and reason , do they n o t come to mind at once ! But Sh a k s e a r e wh o p , penetrated the per so n a lit O f Ca y esar or Brutus , Of Lear o r Macbeth , as profoundly as he did o f m wh o u n that a conte porary , so d e r sto o d the controlling forces Of m a n ife s human nature , as that their ta tio n in a n y particular a ge and person becam e an open secret to him even Sh a k spe a r e is far more the m ere Elizabethan w riter than is Lan dor the m ere Victorian . Recent peculiar phases O f E nglish life were much better known to Dickens o r

Anthony Trollope than to Landor . Th e w po er Of the latter consists , not in his grasp upon the transient as e pe ts of character, those aspects which a shifting environ m e n t w ill m m transfor , but upon the si pler and m ore ulti m ate passions o f the hu m an ’ La n d o r s w n o t w heart . ork does sho ’ v a or M a n e e La as a of L tt rs. 9 the careful scientific scrutiny Of local types that is m anifest o n alm ost every page Of Thackeray or George E liot . The intense psychologic anal ysis O f a George Eliot is beyond Lan ’ dor s range . His psychology is more O f o r like that Sophocles Cicero . His representations are statuesque rather i than p ctorial . If Landor does n o t exhibit his men and wo m en after the pattern Of the times , neither does he array himself fo r or against what m a y be regarded a as the tendencies O f his ge . About the great scientific m ovement— which w has , ho ever, only recently given us - its philosophic fruitage in the works Of Herbert Spencer— Landor m re ained profoundly unconcerned . ’ Neither Forster s s e nor any Of ’ L a n d o r s writings gives us the im pression that scientific questions possessed his attention in the least .

And indeed , Forster, quoting from I e e O Walt r Savag Landor.

Kirk u c o n Seymour p, says , that in v e r sa tio n a l encounters with Francis

Hare , Landor avoided the sciences . m And Landor hi self, in his published m a letter to E erson , correctin g an p m parent isconception , declares that m he does not despise ento ology , but is only ignorant Of it ; as, indeed , he is O f al m ost all science ; and while he w w loves ﬂo ers and plants , he kno s less about the m than is known by O f a beetle or butterﬂy . We do not course fall into the anachronism of wh o 1 86 expecting Landor, died in 4 , to be affected by the Darwinian the o r Or i in o S ec ies wa s y, since the g f p not published till 1 8 59 ; but we should have expected a m a n Of his positive tem per to have been stirred to in dig nant protest against the over- estim a O f m m O f tion aterial co forts , the m echanical i m provem ents which sci

- e s ence has given us , and the under im a ti n o f o f t o the needs the spirit . ’ L a r e e I n a o as a Man of L tt rs . I

’ Perhaps L a n d o r s somewh at isolated life in Italy and Bath hindered him from perceiving h o w the classicism which he so cherished wa s threatened by the incursion Of Professor Huxley and the other dragoons Of natural ” n science and the practical . It is o t o r w to Landor , but to Ruskin Matthe we o Arnold , that must g for a defence Of the hu m anism which alone can “ ” satisfy o u r sense fo r beauty and o u r sense for conduct . It is possible to inquire to o curi o u sly into psychical phenomena yet w e venture the supposition that the w w w sentiment Of onder, hich a akens scientiﬁc aptitude , never existed in ’ large measure in L a n d o r s m ental

- make u p. Wonder is the expression o f w is wh a ant , and ever asking the y

Of things . It is the instinct for ’ N o w L a n d o r s causes . , genius , as we to w hope sho more fully later, is d essentially static , rather than y ’ I 2 Walter Savage La n a or

m i n a c . His style is not progressive

m . s sl h t and cu ulative He h a m jg

fo - o r stOr. ability r , y telling for elabo ’ m La n d o r s w rate argu ent . po er m w m co es not from onder , but fro a d m ira tio n wh ic h , rests upon a beauti m n o ful for , contented , and seeks m farther . We are not uch surprised , w w e h im therefore , hen ﬁnd taking no part in scientiﬁc discussion ; since his genius is predo m inantly aesthetic and im aginative . N o r can Landor be said to have assu m ed the attitude Of partisan in the heated controversy between the m —a e piricist and the intuitionalist , w w o r u n controversy hich , avo ed w m so avo ed , co prehends much Of the higher literature Of the century . Who has been m ore strident in his “ vociferations against the ph ilo so ” wh o m m a n . phy Of dirt , and has ore “ fully proclaim ed Duty to be the ” s o f v o i c e O f’ GOd tern daughter the ,

1 4 Walter Savage Landor.

ff m serious e ort , to control the i pulse ’ o f m m L a n d o r s the o ent . philo S ophic ideal , therefore , in the matter w Of conduct , does not run parallel ith m m the odern one , as e bodied in Kant ’ o r Fichte . Kant s ideal is duty done O f w in the presence in ard hindrances , ’ O f opposing i m pulses ; L a n d o r s ideal is characteristically Greek . Denying ’ the need of conﬂict between m an s w lo er and his higher nature , it insists upon the deep - rooted harm ony Of c duty and desire , and pra tically yields o wh the reins to inclinati n . No ere in literature is a reﬁned type O f E pic u r e a n ism m ore persuasively set forth than in the dialogue between E pi i r n i n L e o n t o n Te ssa . cur s , , and The Greek conception of the harmonious o f m play of soul and body, ental and material forces , is here seen in its m N O str iv irresistible char . restless in g to i m press a sense Of o u r capa b ilitie s n o upon others , amount Of M a n o e er Landor as a f L tt s . I 5

- o f self exhibition , can stand in place that ideal which is characterized by th e quiet e fﬂ o r e sc e n c e o f what is noblest , purest , and best in each Of m us . This , in its highest ter s , is ’ L a n d o r s theory Of life . Indeed , if he had had a stronger hold upon in m tuitive truths , his standpoint ight have approached very near t o that Of the G ra c o - Puritan E m erson ; and o n e does not wonder that the latter had studied w ith delight the dia

' logn es o f Landor b e fo r e h is m em o Gh e r a r d e sc h a rable visit to the Villa , n / which is recorded in the E g is! !

Nor does Landor express the other distinctive feature Of his tim e “ — m wa s n o t its scepticis . His the spirit That denies TO parade a shallow agnosticism would have m e t ’ L a n d o r s m conte ptuous disapproval .

And surely , if Professor Huxley is speaking w ith accuracy when he I 6 e e Walt r Savag Landor. contends that agnosticism is merely a method and not a confession Of o r O f faith , rather doubt , he need give him self no airs for having m brought such ! a ethod to light , for his mental attitude is nothing other than the characteristic o n e O f every m modern investigator . It is erely ' de o m n ibu s a a oito o f the Descartes , O m the basal idea f odern thinking . w w sc e ti It , ho ever , is only a callo p c ism that would require all convi o tion to be grounded upon logic , ’ would apotheosize a part O f man s n — soul , his reasoni g faculty not recog n iz in h im w g as a spiritual unit , ith w m O f the po er, a ong others , intui w tive belief . Landor, ho ever, did not take this negative position , but wa s fundam entally a Co m tean in l m re igious atters . The speculative side Of Christianity he placed no emphasis upon ; and the decline Of faith could have excited in him n o ’ r e La na o as a Man of L tters . I 7 such lyrical laments as it did in Mat thew Arnold . Landor approached religion just as he approached all O f sides life , from the individualistic standpoint He never wearies in his dialogues Of em phasizing the antithesis between the m orality o f states o r sects and the sayings Of w m Christ . And hile his e otions did n o t penetrate the divine meaning Of

- humility and self renunciation , and his experience wa s foreign to such o n inﬂuences , he never , the other m m hand , ade the istake Of suppos in g that th e strength of C hristianity m w lay in a Hellenic Judais , hich sees a dogmatic content in the sim l e st m o f o u r p oral precept Lord . The dialogues between Middleton M a lia b e c c h i m and g , Ti otheus and M e la n c th o n C Lucian , and alvin , though not takin g fairly into a c count the i m possibility O f divorcing r it s — p actice from source theory, ’ 8 e e La n a o r I Walt r Savag .

’ w L a n d o r s sho , nevertheless , firm C grasp upon this idea , that hrist ia n it m m y , as he akes Ro illy say in “ b e another dialogue , lies not in M e l a n c lief , but in action . And thon fi tly closes his discussion with “ Calvin by declarin g that there is nothin g o n earth divine besides ” hu m anity . One is tem pted to draw an anal o gy here between Landor and wa s w Goethe . German the only orld ” literature that always remained a h im w w e closed door to . And hen o f recall the abstractness thou ght , m m the po posity Of style , the ystical rom anticism of our Teutonic neigh w e bors , feel that Landor, the classi m t to cist , issed less by his inabili y read this language than m ost other m e n Of as large mental calibre . After an inadequate acquaintance w ith Goethe , Landor, in his usual ' categorical fashion , pronounced him ’ r f e e La ri a o as a Man o L tt rs. 1 9 self disgusted with the corrugated ” m w spicery Of etaphysics , hich he wa s pleased to find in the writings

m . Of the great Ger an Nevertheless , these tw o m e n had points in c o m ’ m o n . One side Of Goethe s nature w a s Greek, the other side intensely m o n e r e odern . Landor in aspect m se bled the Greek , in the other the

m . m e t o n Ro an They , therefore ,

k co m m on H ellenic ground . Goethe ’ looked at things fro m the critic s H e standpoint . lightly disen gaged m m hi self fro the Object , and then with perfect self- poise studied its

ff . e ectiveness Landor, for all his m m so Hellenis , could rarely beco e disinterested ; the active ethical im pulse wa s ever and again pulling at

- w his heart strings . It is not , ho ever , o u r purpose to draw out these lines m m o r f sim Of co unity di ference , but ply to quote a passage from Goethe which gives expression to a positivism ’ e e a 20 Walt r Savag L n a o r .

’ a n d o r s similar to L . Goethe says m a n wh o m But an able , has so ething to a n d m do here , ust toil and strive m day by day to acco plish it , leaves wo rld the future till it comes , and t contents him self with being active ” and useful in this . Nevertheless , ’ ’ m L a n d o r s Goethe s positivis , unlike , is occasionally lighted up by ﬂashes

Of insight into the very life Of things , “ as in the Prologue in Heaven in Fa u st , an allegory inﬁnite in its s uggestiveness . It is evident fro m what has been said that Landor c an not be r e pr e sented as o n e of the mouth - pieces Of

' h i§ m - wa s ti e , since he not coerced by th e logic Of contem porary events t o the choice Of standpoints c o in c i dent with those O f his fellow- think e rs w , but hen he took such similar positions wa s constrained by the necessity Of his o wn te m peram ent r x ather than by e ternal inﬂuences .

’ 2 2 e e r Walt r Savag L a n a o .

prerogatives which criticism has as su m ed in this a ge were not at all well ‘ h im m m understood by . He so eti es ’ deals hard blows against the E a in bu r /i u a r ter Rev iew s g and ! ly , yet his o wn criticism is not always e s s e n tia lly different fro m Lord Jef ’ ’ frey s o r Gifford s . Landor wa s fond “ of i m pressin g his whi m upon the ” m - im utable past , and his hot headed ad m iration o r repugnance frequently disabled h im from striking that care ful balance which is necessary to m sane literary judg ents . Indeed his esti m ates rarely appear to be

thoroughly reasoned . They concern them selves almost entirely with o f qualities style , and do not pene trate the personality Of th e author

and grasp his relation to his period .

As Mr . John Morley ad m irably puts it ! Minor verse - writers m a y fairly w be consigned , ithout disrespect , to the region Of the literature Of taste ; ’ La n a or a s a o e e s 2 Man f L tt r . 3 and criticism Of their work takes the Of shape Of a discussion stray graces , n e w Of turns Of thought , Of little variations Of shade and color, Of their conformity to the accepted rules that constitute the technique

Of poetry . The loftier masters m besides these precious gifts , co e to us w ith the size and quality Of great historic forces , for they represent the m hopes and energies , the drea s and the consu m m ation O f the hu m an in te llige n c e in its most enorm ous m ove ” E m w ments very i portant riter , therefore , is the delegate Of a vast m intellectual and oral constituency , for whose needs he seeks to legis

. m wa s n o r late Landor hi self never , u to u so ght be , s ch a social force ; and he did not View other writers under this aspect . While Carlyle and later critics have entered into m w deep sy pathy ith Dante , regard in g him as the e fﬂo r e sc e n c e Of 2 ’ 4 e e Walt r Savag La n a or .

n scholasticism and chivalry, La dor studied the great Florentine as an isolated phenomenon , and thus lost o f r the sense histo ic perspective . Nor does Landor exhibit that close psychologic and philosophical w C insight hich great critics , like ole ’ ! L a n o r s . d ridge and Amie , possess criticis m m akes slight endeavor to seize upon an author ’ s philosophy

Of life and his organizing ideas , and fails to trace the Obscure links b e tween the personality O f a writer A u and his literary contributions . n o t m m thors are ere logic ac hines . Landor himself has beautifully said The heart is the creator Of the poetical world ; only the atmosphere ” is from the brain . Hence the busi ness o f the critic is to examine the emotive and ethical i m pulses that lie at the root Of the intellectual life . Fo r this kind Of penetrative , sympa fe w ta l thetic criticism , Landor had ﬁ ’ L n a or e e 2 a as a Man of L tt rs. 5

c u ts . m o n h r His judg ents , the ot e m w hand , consist in a so e hat arbi tra r in y assertion , generally couched ’ m o f o n e w s exquisite i agery , riter

. N o w superiority over another , nothing is easier, and , I may add , nothing is more inconclusive than fo r a critic to insist upon arranging his victims according to his o wn

- ready made , graduated scale Of ex n n o t c e ll e c e . This defect is rare m n N o t even a on g critics Of ote . only Landor , but Arnold , in his m Swin reasoned dog atism , and m burne , in his intuitional dog atism , are too prone to set up their o wn personal esti m ate Of the rank Of an author as the supreme tribunal m w e n o fro hich ther is appeal . m Whereas, it ust be apparent that whether o n e shall assert Thackeray to be a greater n ovelist than Dick ’ O r E M iddle m a n /i ens , George liot s ’ s a ﬁner novel than Mrs . Ward ’ e e L a 26 Walt r Savag a n or .

Ro oer t E lsm er e w , ill depend largely m a m o f upon te per ent , not to speak other causes ! and since none Of us can boast the possession o f an ideal m w tempera ent , ith faculties ideally adjusted and harm onized ; in the m idst Of the m any possible criteria ae b e both intellectual and sthetic , it comes the part Of wisdom and h u m ility quietly to justify the faith w that is in us, so to speak, ithout representing o u r faith as the m eas ’ ure Of the credible . Arnold s O f exaggerated valuation Byron , w ’ S inburne s Of Victor Hugo , and ’ L a n d o r s Of his friend and coadjutor ,

Southey, are to be classed , there m fore , as deﬂections fro tactful ,

- m well reasoned criticis . The last m entioned preference reminds us , ’ perhaps unjustly, Of Dr . Johnson s k “ remar , that the reciprocal civility Of authors is o n e o f the m ost risible f ” sce nes in the farce o life . ’ a r La n a or s a Man of Lette s . 2 7

No w h we n o t , alt ough dare retract any o f these strictures upon Lan - f ’ f w w e w dor s critical po er , yet ould be confessing ourselves deﬁcient in this faculty did we not acknowledge his in variably ﬁne perception on the ’ L a n d o r s form al side Of literature . catholic range Of reading , and his born instinct for expression enabled — him as we shall hav e frequent o c casion to note in treating Of his o wn style— to appraise the literary quali

’ tie s o f m any authors both ancient w ae ! and modern , ith much sthetic ! nesse m wa and in ter s that , in their y , we are ﬁnal . Nevertheless , just as would not suppose ourselves to have w we exhausted a good painting, hen [ had estimated the effects Of pe rspe c e tive , light and shad , tone and grad ation , and the other technicalities , but would seek above all to enter into the emotional life Of the artist , and to extract the idea o f the pic e d 28 Walter Sa vag Lan or. ture ; s o we cannot pluck o u t the heart o f the mystery in a work Of prose o r poetry by directing our crit ical scalpels m erely to the more o r less superﬁcial phenomena Of form , but must also question an author as

to . his organizing ideas It is true , w m m ho ever , that atter and for , idea and execution , are so fused that the formal elem ent is never wholly s u i l ff pe r ﬁ c a . An a ected style is just as really a negative index Of thought and character as are the positive m indices , si plicity and sincerity . wh o i Hence , the critic discr minates nicely the form s o f things m a y be in a fair wa y to appreciate the things themselves . The ﬁnal plea that might b e m ade o f in behalf Landor as a social force , a e w and as illustrative of his g , ould be drawn fro m his political co m posi o f tions . Born at the beginning the

American Revolution , and dying near

3 0

liberty and justice , Landor lost all

power o f discri m ination . E very Pole o r Italian o r Greek wh o fought for m wa s freedo an angel Of light , and all their opponents w ere angels o f e darkness . Proce ding upon this po s d tulate , Lan or indulges in rhetoric , idealistic and grandiose . At times there is a resonan ce in his periods equal to the most digniﬁed utterances

Of Cicero . Yet because Of his impa tient contem pt fo r considerations o f o r m expediency compro ise , because

- Of his hot headed political idealism , h e usually fails so to grasp the situ to m ation as ake his appeals tell . Perhaps if he had entertained some wha t more regard fo r the man o f n o w statecraft , and had tried , and ’ t o then , take the politician s point o f V w o s ie , his pleas might have p sessed more weight . wa s As it , Landor cannot be called is a normal citizen . H social re la g ’ L a n a or M a n o e e 1 as a f L tt rs. 3

tio n sh ips were o f the most varied

and delightful sort , but his political — ties were virtually non - existent ex cept when he go t into o n e Of his nu m e r o u s squabbles with the Italian police o r with some other Ofﬁcials at

o r . w home abroad True , hile at to Llanthony , he sought Obtain a m agistracy ; and h o w like an o u t raged Ro m an did he behave when fo r so m e petty reason it wa s refused h im . Yet all through his life , sub sequ ent to his youthful experience as a disciple Of that W hi m sical Old

pedant and politician , Dr . Parr, Lan d o r held hi m self aloof from pra ctical th e politics , and even boasted , after m anner Of Thoreau , that he had

never entered a club , and never cast w w e m m a vote . Kno ing this , so eti es grow im patient with his o ft- repeated th e i i tirades against polit c an , and his dogm atic insistance o n the supe r i r i f f o ty O the man o letters . We ’ 2 e L 3 Walt r Savage a n a o r . feel at such times that Landor pre

fers heat to light . Holding the idea Of wa r in noble wa s w in detestation , Landor ont to w m w O f sist , ith uch sho seriousness , iﬁ ili upon the ju st a b ty Of tyrannicide .

And he makes Demosthenes say , “ characteristically ! Rapine and li c e n tio u sn e ss are the precursors and followers O f even the most righteous wa r w . A single blo against the m m a m worst Of ortals y prevent the . Many years and much treasure are usually required for an uncertain

o f issue , besides the stagnation traf ﬁ c O f the prostration industry , the innu m erable maladies arising from w d e o u to ns besieged , and regions p p m m f to lated . A o ent is su ﬁcient m N O avert all these cala ities . usurp n o m er, invader, should be per itted ” t o o n exist earth . Nothing could ’ illustrate better than this La n d o r s emphatic recognition Of the power ’ L r e e a n a o as a Man of L tt rs. 3 3

inherent in chosen individuals . With a sublim e disregard o f what w e n o w call the force of heredity and e u v iro n m e n t - m , co prehending in this phrase social custom and individual w habit , and sentiments hich outlive the ideas producing them , all those m subtle and anifold causes , mental w and material , hich superimpose w their eight upon personality , Landor seems to look upon men and things as pawns which a tyrant can dispose Of according to his whim . w This individualistic idealism , hich w could slur over hole series Of causes , rendered h im incapable O f entering a s into the inner life Of history, it is seen in the action Of masses Of men . Thus, for example , the philo sophic aspect Of that greatest Of all m cataclys s , the French Revolution , wa s without its full r a tio na le to Lan ’ o f dor s mind . That the streams tendency which proceede d from the ’ e e La na o 3 4 Walt r Savag r .

A u kla r u n — E n c c lo a f g , from the y p m dists , fro Rousseau , and the rest , uniting with the pent -u p em otions ' o f a pe o pl e d o w n tr o dd e n by priest b u w and noble , t at last a akened to a sense Of their prerogatives , should ﬂo w o n with ever- accelerated speed to O f 2 wa s the horrors I 79 , certainly a spectacle calculated to excite the

o n - intense interest Of all lookers . Yet we do not ﬁnd Landor following the drama with the intelligent sym r pathy Of Wordsworth o Coleridge . There is a germ of truth in Carlyle’s E m saying, reported by erson , that ’ La n d o r s principle wa s m ere rebel ” m lion . Relative to this ti e , Forster

! says of him He reasoned little , but h is instincts were all against w h im authority , or hat took to the m O f for its abuse . Thus he sided w ith the French Republic , but he did so without an adequate insight in to th e causes from which it ’ e e La n a o r as a Man of L tt rs. 3 5 sprang o r the direction in which it tended . In several ways a parallel m ight be drawn between the political princi ples o f Landor and those Of Milton . Both were iconoclasts ; both were w apostles Of the idea , but hile Mil ’ ton s a pr io r i reasoning wa s the nat ’ m a e La n d o r s ural outco e Of his g , wa s opposed to the inductive spirit , which is ever growing stronger and more effective ; both longed fo r the time when the fe w virtuo u s and wise w w ould bear rule, yet ithout creating any deﬁnite constructive scheme by wh ich their hopes m ight be realized . Both must take a second rank as — political thinkers , though Milton ,

Of course , stands far above Landor, — because both failed so to ground their aspirations upon sound prece dent and present conditions as that a rejuvenescent future could , by their e f w o u t o f a s forts , gro the past , the ’ 6 e e o u a 3 Walt r Savag L a r.

ﬂower from its stalk . Both abhorred

m - w in a any headed Demos , here , O f o n e stead tyrant , there are thou

sands . Indeed Landor could never m o wn brin g himself ! to sto ach our u rep blican institutions, regarding them in some what the same light

' a s d id Matthew Arnold . Landor loved the distinction and charm which emanate from a true nobility ; and while he also loved the people — he loved them as some Of us d o a t

a digniﬁed distance . But it may suddenly be asked If all this is true Of Landor ; if he

I o n i i o f INS a e portrays the l fe g , sf e ther ;nor represents its tendencies , and if, 5even in those occupations where he to ff attempted a ect his generation , m m in criticis and political pa phlet , f w he does not vitally a fect it , just hat is his claim upon the lover Of litera ” ture and o f life ! If the converse ' o f o Spinoza s fam us dictum be true ,

’ e a 3 8 Walt r S vage La n a o r .

classical and pagan cast o f mind ; b e cause we regard such catch - words as m wa s inexact and isleading . Landor a mem ber of no sect which m ight

wave its classical or romantic banner . And if he wa s at home in ancient wa s m Greece , he also accli ated to the

Italy Of Petrarch and Boccaccio , and th e E ngland of Sh a k spe a r e o r o f m Cromwell . In nothing is he ore distinctive than in his haughty inde n d n e m m pe e c Of ere odels . Like the O f artist the early Renaissance , nature

wa s w . his teacher , and he kne no other This fact constitutes one o f his claim s upon our consideration fo r any man

” wh o can look upon the drama Of life h im o wn about , and into his soul , and w w w then tell hat he sees , ill al ays afford the needed spectacles fo r o u r wa s purblind eyes . Landor , as Mrs . w w Bro ning ell said , most Greek, because most E nglish since it is n o t h e wh o G b u t mimics the reeks , ’ a a a s a e L n or Man of L tters . 3 9

wh o he does as the Greeks did , w n — h e wh o namely, follo s ature it is

possesses their spirit . Therefore , it is n o t as an antiquarian that we

w . ould eulogize Landor Indeed , w r Ole hen he plays this , he is rarely successful ; for his scholarship wa s n o t o f that inﬁnitely painstaking w w sort hich requires everythin g, do n to to the lacing of a sandal , conform

to the original . Landor listened to m e n w m the and o en around him , he listened t o the beatings o f his o wn w sympathetic heart ; and then , ith

these tones still ringing in his soul , a n d 1 0 r o he shut his eyes ; , long p o f cessions the good , the great , and the unfortunate Of form er days ﬁled before h im he watched their pensive r e ﬂe c gestures , he caught their calm tions o r their i m passioned replies ; and straightway he chiselled and polished the fast vanishing scene in statuesqu e ve rse o r monumental ’ e e a r 40 Walt r Savag L n a o .

prose . Landor , therefore , ﬁxed his gaze neither upon a model nor an it audience , but upon the Object a self . Such consecrated ideal Of w w authorship ill al ays , as it did in ’ L a n d o r s case , bear its measure Of

fruit . One o f the w ays Of appreciating ’ L a n d o r s works is to approach the m through the medium Of his person wa s ality . As a man he as unique as o r Oliver Goldsmith Dr . Johnson . In out ward appearance he stood fo r — the prince and lion am ong m e n his face showing great force and a ggr e s siv e n e ss w w , ith high arched bro , m strongly oulded nose , and a mouth whose downward curving lines su g gest a passionate and even caustic r nature . Yet , in the p esence Of his e fri nds , and especially Of ladies , this face could beam with a wealth Of

-w Old orld grace and courtesy, his wh ole deme anor besp e aking that ’ La n a o r as a Man of Letters . 4 1 dignity and deference which the ra pid intercourse O f o u r later day rarely

m . takes ti e for His actions, his biog r a h e rs w w w p tell us , ere a triﬂe a k ard

—n o t - , Of course , from ill breeding, but from the ai m lessness Of the u m m a n in practical . And , indeed , its w a w e m a y, y imagine that this fact made his manners all the more a t n o t tractive . In his infrequent ﬁts

Of ungovernable passion , it is said m w that his thu bs ere not clinched , but relaxed , this seeming to indicate that his rage w a s louder than it wa s wa s deep , that it a habit Of speech and gesture rather than the dethrone ment Of personality , and the entire subordination Of will to ani m al im w s . pul e In other ords , it is probable that Landor never completely lost hi m self in thes e wild exhibitions o f m — m te per, that he never co pletely sacriﬁced his freedo m to a mere th e brutish determinism . While surface Of his soul wa s in turm oil the depths lay undisturbed . TO O much emphasis has been ’ L a n d o r s m placed upon i petuous , ungovernable tem peram ent by his T O critics . Insist upon this side Of his character is to view h im su pe r ﬁ ia ll n c y . It is as though o e should put special stress upon Sir Walter ’ ’ m o r C m Scott s la eness , harles La b s ’ L a n d o r propensity to stammer . s pride and anger never penetrated

o f - into the sanctuary his soul life , and profaned his better nature . They were m erely uproarious protestations m against an ungenial environ ent .

And in almost every case, if the motives which ani m ated his wild outbreaks should be examined , they w m is ould be found noble , thou gh applied . Possessed Of a just regard fo r his dignity and high desert , he wa s all a ﬂa m e at the suspicion o f a slight . Thus th ere is something a s M a n e e Landor a of L tt rs. 43

m w n o t so a using, if it ere pathetic , ’ in La n d o r s m ajestic letter to Lord m E n Nor anby, in retort upon this g ’ lish m inister s cold reception Of h im C at the ascine , in the presence Of “ ” innu m era ble Florentines . This wa s ’ L a n do r s O ld a e e n in g , after his g e r o s ity and gallant attentions to a young girl at Bath had been sham e m fully isrepresented and he , having resorted to his O ld childish weapons to Of satiric verse , had been obliged pay a heavy ﬁne , and had left his

w - native country , sorro stricken yet unconq u ered . The letter closes with these majestic words We are both o f us Old men , my lord , and are g g o n ver in decrepi’ tude and imbe c ilit m m i y, else y note ght be more a m n o t energetic . I inobservant Of distinctions . You by the favor Of a minister are the Marqu is of N o r manby, I by the grace Of God am ” V WALTE R SA AGE LANDO R. ’ a 44 Walter Sav ge La n a or .

Indeed , the six years that Landor lived after the Bath scandal are so ﬁlled with pathetic m aterial that his indiscretions o f former days are for gotten in o u r indignation at the exasperating treat m ent which the

Old lion received , even at the hands o wn o u r m Of his family, and in ad i ration fo r the general nobility Of his m m aims . And it ust be borne in ind ’ that L a n d o r s wrath wa s aroused by an affront o r insult done to others as effectually as though it had been a done to hi m self . His anger w s a perversion Of a noble attribute n o t w an unbending , though al ays

o f . accurate, sense justice There if w fore , Professor Do den means to w a convey a eighty Observ tion , when he remarks that the ﬁrst thing o n e m to o f is te pted say Landor is, that he wa s emphatically an u n c iv ” iliz e d n o man , he is giving by means ’ a fa ir impression o f o u r author s

’ 46 Wa lter Savage La n a o r .

He wa s uncivilized in his ﬂaring bursts Of anger . But his passion wa s not a ﬁre smouldering u n su s d wa s pe c te beneath the ashes . It the sudden response of a proud and ,

w . ithal , a gracious nature Therefore , to apply the word uncivilized to one ’ Of La n d o r s ex quisite reﬁnem ent and delicac y to h im whose princely pO liteness , even such a connoisseur as

Lady Blessington signalized , and w o f w hose representations omen , and Of all that is beautiful and suave , hav e been surpassed neither by a n

m - w cient nor mode , is ill timed as ell as inaccurate . wa s we Landor , as have intimated , a man , generous, ardent , and sincere . We do n o t therefore propose to go over the tiresome list Of his misun d e rsta n din gs and quarrels with fel lo w- w students , teachers , father , ife , e fﬁ fri nds , publishers , and civil O cials . His biographers give us little more ’ ‘

. e e La na or as a Man ry L tt rs. 4 7 than the bare facts in the case ; th e m itigating circu m stances and expla nations we are usually left to e m infer as best w may . We ust judge Landor by his high ideal Of digniﬁed and gracious conduct rather m w m a than by his perfor ance , hich y s u n di n iﬁ e d have been ludicrou ly g . Viewed fro m a somewhat external m and unsy pathetic standpoint , the world is hopelessly vulgar . It seems to care so little for intellectual pur It suits . lives in an atmosphere w here ideas look so hazy, and gold is more dazzling than the sun . It is u n only natural , therefore , that an practical idealist like Landor should have found the world a place hard to breathe in . He preferred to walk o n alone the far eastern uplands , m meditating and re embering. He even goes so far as to write to Lady “ Blessington ! Most things are real ” to in me , except realities And 8 e e d 4 Walt r Savag Lan or.

to deed , Landor seems have let the reality o f fa m ily ties han g about h im but loosely . Thus , in the spring Of 1 83 5 he could leave his fair Italian m w w ho e , his ife and children , ithout apparently a ny violent wrench with w e x c r u c ia t the past , and ithout any in m g co punctions , because , forsooth , his wife ’ s temper did not quite tally w o wn m ith his proud , com anding w Fo r w ays . years after ard he could n o t lead an independent life at Bath , allo wing the thou ght Of his duty as husband and father to interrupt an agreeable social intercourse o r a f m pleasant trend o editation . And “ after grief had passed into near ’ ” m m Me ory s ore quiet shade , he could say good - bye to Italy in this impersonal manner

v h b t a ! n o m I lea e t ee, eau eous It ly ore

m r a v - t Fro the high te r ces, at e en ide, s n s o f sk To look upine i to thy depth y, ’ L a na or as a Man of Letters . 49

Thy golde n m oon be twee n th e c l iff a n m e d , Or thy d a r k spires of fr etted cypr esses Border ing th e cha n n el o f the m il ky wa y.

While o n e cannot but feel th e m char Of these lines , as a natural de w w scription , it ere ell if they had ’ etniea l iz ea s o been , to speak , by a fe w regrets at parting fro m wife and fe w children , by a compunctions at severing the m ost responsible and

u . u n end ring Of ties But Landor, n o t like most persons , does appear to have minded these sudden breaks t r in his existence . All hat he e quired wa s an ideal o r i m aginative ' n in u it o f c o t y life . If he only had the worthies Of form er days that h e might glory in their deeds and weep f n wa s over their su feri gs , he content . m ’ In exa ining such a character , it is therefore m ore proﬁtable to ask h o w h e realized him self in his writings ’ e e L a n a o r 50 Walt r Savag .

than h o w h e failed to realize himself in the exasperating concerns Of daily O f m life . Of Landor , as indeed ost r ’ authors , it is manifest that his books e s l are his tr u t s e f. A ﬁrst word to be said Of Landor wa s as a literary man is , that he r e r e unswervingly original . He p sented the Independent in the Re wa s w public Of Letters . He an avo ed enemy to the prevailing habit Of

quotation , and he stoutly refused to put into the mouth O f his speakers any senti m ents that history m ight

have ascribed to them . He sought by his ﬁne historic im agination to m e n catch and portray real , not their m in d e e n manneris s . This proud p dent spirit wa s the source o f his

strength and Of his weakness . On the o n e h im hand , it led to uphold the dignity and disinterestedness Of lit e ra tu re to , and aim above all things at satisfying his o wn exacting sense ’ or a s e e I L a n a a Man of L tt rs . 5

fo r . literary form On the other hand , it brought him Into conﬂict with his m b e audience . There is a just ean tween the l o w men -pleaser and the literary aristocrat . And this mean

Landor never took the pains to strike . He is either unsym pathetic with his O f m readers , or else oblivious the . Therefore he so m eti m es leaves his m eaning needlessly opaque . His m c la ssm ideal , co prehending a sever r m ity and rest aint Of speech , he akes ! n o effort to supply his audience with necessary sequences and com fortable m m transitions . H e so eti es cuts away th e n so i t grou d , that requires an agile imagination to take the leap t from point o point . This fact goes som e wa y toward accountin g for ’ L a n d o r s unpopularity, the reasons fo r which have been discussed by his ’ a o n a u e rn critics s a . And relevant to w e m this discussion may re ark, that , to j udge from recent attractive edi ’ 2 te S e L a n a or 5 Wal r avag . tions Of the Im ag in a ry Co n v er sa tio ns E x a m in a tio n o k /e e S a s ea r , the f p , ’ Pe r icl es a n a A s a s ia w and the p , hat ’ has been satirized as L a n d o r s late dinner theory ”bids fair to be real iz e d w - , not ithstanding the head shak i n gs of dubious critics . ’ L a n d o r s high ideal of authorship m O f w is seen in his anner riting . His w carefulness sho ed itself, not so much m in his collection Of aterials , as in his efforts after adequacy O f expres sion Fo r his facts he depended m w upon a tenacious me ory , hich could open at will the vast store O f house his reading and reﬂection . ’ La n d o r s o n e m wa s library , at any ti e , small . Actuated by an inveterate m generosity, he astered a book and w n o twit then gave it a ay . But h w standing this lack , he could rite ’ letters between Pe r icles a na A spa s ia which are so fraught with Hellenic a n d w th grace beauty, even do n to e

’ e a e L a n a r 54 Walt r S vag o .

divert his imagination from the par tic u la r wa wa s subject under y, and at a loss to conceive h o w Southey

’ wa s able to co m pose tw o poem s at “ o n e m w a o e m ti e . When I rite p , m y heart a n d all my feelings are m m upon it . I never co it adultery w w ith another , and high poems ill ” not admit ﬂirtation . It is indeed hard to ﬁnd the literary conscience as fully developed as it wa s in Lan w dor . There is , ho ever , at least one o n — other instance record , that Of wh o the French novelist Flaubert , wa s m al ost a fanatic on style , and used to exclaim in thunderous tones !

No , the only important and endur in W g thing under the sun , is a ell w formed sentence , a sentence ith m w hand and foot , that har onizes ith the sentences precedin g and follow in o n g it , and that falls pleasantly the ear when it is read . And Flau w bert , they say , ould relentlessly ’ L a na or o e e as a Man f L tt rs. 55

w pursue a repeated ord , even at the O f distance thirty or forty lines , and so much as the recurrence Of the sam e syllable in the sam e sentence h im m m s m annoyed . So eti e , beco ing w dissatisfied ith a single letter, he would spare no pains till he had lighted upon a substitute w ord . Such struggles to attain perfection rem ind one o f the all - night a gony w that Landor experienced , hen he thought he had been guilty Of a false m w qu a ntity , in aking the first vo el O f w a r a ns O f the ord fl g short , in one m w his Latin poe s , hich he had just O ff fo r before sent publication . ff w e m These e orts , as have Inti ated , were not in vain . The texture o f ’ La n d o r s style represents an exquisite o f blending diversified materials . And though there m a y be re nts n o w and then in the thought , there are at least n o visible patches in the ex pression . Moreover , the style is an ’ 6 e e a 5 Walt r Savag L n o or .

admirable exposition o f the man m m hi self, its pri ary qualities being rightly of an ethical rather than Of a

purely intellectual cast . While at ti m es Landor condescends to sculp t w ture his sen ences in a inning, wa graceful , Praxitelean y, he is in

the main characteristically epic , his periods possessing the dignity and m massiveness Of Phidian arbles . By t o c o m epic , I refer his grand n m w n o t pendio s anner, and ould be understood to i m ply that o u r author “ has that divine ﬂuidity o f m ove w w ment , hich Matthe Arnold ﬁnds to be so characteristic o f Homer and ab C . haucer Indeed , it is just the s o n e ence Of this , that notices in ’ L a n d o r s w n o t ro prose , hich is p r e ssiv e g , but is rather a series Of

sentences organically related , yet at

s m m m - the a e ti e se i detached , each

standing o u t in bold relief . This peculiarity is what we would call the ’ e La n a o r as a Man !i L tters. 5 7

’ La n d o r static quality of s prose . And we by no m eans criticise his work m a nship because it possesses this n quality to such a high degree ; si ce , fo r the utterance O f solid reﬂections m a upon hu an n ture , this is the ideal — style a style where the sentences are made up Of semi - independent w m clauses , and here all is e inently

m . direct , si ple , and urbane B ut when this digniﬁed and some what sententious m anner is m ade the vehicle for writing o f a dram atic

rather than a reﬂective cast , there o f m w results a species classicis , hich ’ L a n do r s dialogues O f action splen didly exhibit And as the word

' u se d in classic is frequently a vague , d m wa w to in iscri inate y, it is ell mark that this peculiarity , namely, the expression o f i m passioned thought in term s Of strict gram m atical s o b r ie t o n e s y , is Of the several feature

th e , w i to c o n Of classicist . ! n ill ng ’ 8 e e L a n a or 5 Walt r Savag .

tort his style o r to sacriﬁce ideal excellence to a crude realism , Landor wa s careful that his personages should m aintain a certain degree o f regular ity and precision Of utterance , even in the most animated dialogues . And as all true art is a spiritual in te rpre ta tio n Of nature and the human soul , and is selective , and therefore above

wa s . reality , he justiﬁed in the result In this respect Landor so m ewhat r e w wh o sembles Nathaniel Ha thorne , , as Mr . Lathrop says, could scarcely perm it his actors to speak loosely o r m ungram atically . But after the knife Of criticism has done its best to dissect the charm o f ’ L a n d o r s a style like , the essence Of so its beauty , so volatile and yet real , has vanished ; and we must be con to we tent, admire even if cannot m o u r m fully for ulate ad iration . Suf ’ ﬁ c e L a n d o r s w it to say , that onderful w style , taken in connection ith the ’ L a na or o e e as a Man f L tt rs. 59

w r e delicate aphorisms , the eighty fl e c tio n s , and the noble and beautiful scenes from the drama Of hu m an life which he has given us in the books we are about to exam ine more par tic u l a r l y, is enough to secure him a permanent place in literature . A fe w w very riters, like Aristotle , live by sheer force Of thought ; the vast m ajority live by the force o f a fi n e style in vital union with fine thou ght . t Landor belongs o this latter class .

D R’ P E T ! LA N O S O R .

TH O ! GH Landor wa s wont to refer to m verse as his pasti e , and prose as his occupation , still the quality Of much Of his poetry is high enough t m o erit an appreciative recognition . Brought up according t o the E nglish w school system , hich trains the youth to acquire a facility in scribbling w a s Latin verses, Landor, as natural , took so readily to the translation o f Greek and Roman them es into m rhy ed pentameters , that by his twentieth year he had gotten o u t his ﬁrst volu m e Of E nglish and Latin po m ems , so e satiric , others descriptive . What especially strikes o n e in the 63 ’ 6 e e 4 Walt r Savag La n a or . selections which Forster has served o f these verses is their o a l v e n ti n manner .

SO w , hen Medea, on her native strand, Beheld th e A rg o lessen from the l a nd The tender pledges o f her love she bore; m b Frantic, and raised the high a ove th e s hore . ‘ m a s a s Thus, thus y Jason , faithle s

he ﬂies, ’ Faithless a n d heedless of Medea s i cr es, a s Behold his b bes, oppose the adver e a g les, Return to Colchis tho se retir ing ’ sa ils.

This is the artiﬁcial sing- so ng o f ’ Pope s muse . Yet by his twenty- third year Lan do r had brought o u t another poem Gebir w e , hose massive blank vers is a s far remove d from Pope as is ’ e L a n dor s Po try .

the Pa r a dise Lost fro m the E ssay o n

a n m . M . The advance is re arkable Yet w e d o not agree with Forster in ascribing it to the effect Of m aking w translations . We ould rather say ’ that the efﬁcient cause w a s L a n d o r s careful and enthusiastic study Of m m r i Milton . So e ti e after his u st m cation fro Oxford , Landor settled In w a ild secluded spot Of Wales . w And here he fell in ith Pindar, “ whose proud com placency and ” scornful strength he particularly w noted , and hose poetry he resolved to m i itate , at least as respects its w eighty brevity and exclusiveness . to d m w Here , also , he used eclai , ith w m m glo ing ad iration , the agniﬁcent

‘ Pa r a dise Lost lines Of , and at last cam e to think that even the great hexam eter sounded tinkling when he had recited aloud , in his solitary w o n a alks the seashore, the h u ghty appea l Of Satan and the repentance s 66 e e r Walt r Savag Lando .

E v e . Of It is , then , to the influence Of o u r greatest m aster in the grand style that w e would find Landor m ost indebted for the m any fine qualities contained in the verse Of Geoir Before estimating the value o f m we this poe , it is only just that should m ake a general remark upon Landor as a poet —a rem ark which must tend irrevocably to fix his h place in the choir Of the m uses . ! like the genius O f the great original ’ L a n d o r s bards , poetic talent does not seem to have sprung fro m an irresistible necessity Of his soul

- towards self expression . Nor does his poetry appear to have developed w w naturally from ithin out ard , from the early lyric outpourings O f a soli tary soul to the later dra matic and w epic representations , hen the mind has grown m ore fam iliar with the

w . orld around it On the contrary , ’ 6 L a ndor s Poetry . 7

’ L a n d o r s first two considerable poems were an epic and a tragedy ; his later poetry wa s in the m ain o r pastoral erotic . This develop m ent , or perhaps lack Of develop m ment , is the reverse Of the nor al w ’ gro th Of a poet s mind , as is seen Sh a k s e a r e o r su in p Milton , and g gests that Landor never felt the poetic im pulse as a sacred and irre sistible m Gebir ission . He says in that there wa s aroused within h im “ ” the feverish thirst Of song ; but w e believe that poetry wa s not to h im o n e , as it is to inevitably a poet , w O f the very ater life . Indeed , his reference to v e rsifi c a tiOn as a pas m w O f ti e ould itself confirm this View . e Ge oir N vertheless , , his first long m m fo r poe , is re arkable both the vivid force Of im agination dis fo r O f played , and the full tones its w m blank verse . As a hole , the poe “ f is a magnificent failure , the di ferent 68 e e Walt r Savag Landor. parts being blocked together so a b r u tl w m p y that it is ellnigh i possible , w e t ithout explanations , to g a satis O le factory conception f the e nsem o . ’ L a n d o r s m ad iration for Pindar , and “ his consequent desire to be as com e n dio u s p and exclusive , led him to cart O ff so m any loads from Gebir !as he expressed it! that the transi tions in the plot are not easy to w follo . w Moreover , the plot itself, hich he took fro m a tale purporting to be w Arabian , and hich has for its idea to m repri and pride Of conquest , is somewhat grotesque and i m proba sa w ble . Landor thought he in it m ag n ifi c u m qu id s u b c r epu sc u lo a n tigu ita tis ; but at least he did n o t succeed in adequately conveying this quality . Indeed the parts that w w deal ith the t ilighted region , where the natural and the supernal to o u r converge are , mind at least ,

n 70 Walter Savage La dor.

w M a sa r ia n M a r th r and ith y , the sor ’ G e bir s ceress . Indeed , visit to the Shades is re ndered al m ost ridiculous by his there encountering , despite m the anachronis , the Stuarts and ’ h o wa s n r . w L a d o s George III , ever w e m detestation . What iss , then , in this treat m ent is that air O f super m natural realism , so pro inent in m w another poe , hich appeared the m Rk m e o th e A n sa e year , the y f c e t M a r in er i n . Landor is either to o w real and homely, as hen Mar thyr , after having indulged in the m ff ost outlandish scenic e ects , ex claims to Dalica

W m t a Oh, hat ore pleasant h n the short

breathed sigh, W a w a t hen , l ying do n your burthen the

gate, w w r And, dizzy ith long ande ings, you em b race The cool and quiet of a hom e - spun

b e d . ’ r L a n dor s Poet y . 7 I

For here we ﬁnd it incompatible with o u r form er notion o f the terrible so r wh o o ne ceress , can shrivel in breath m the bones Of her victi s , as all the sands we tread o n could not in a thou ” sand years , that she should conde scend to the cool a n d quie t Of a

- o n home spun bed . Or else , the to other hand , Landor fails excite to o emotion , because his horrors are horrid to simulate probability even m for a mo ent . There is , therefore , n o t that perfect blending Of natural and supernatural elements which arouses o u r sense fo r the m ysterious without conﬂicting with o u r sense fo r

the probable . But after these abatements have m m been ade , there re ain passages, as for exam ple the loves Of Gebir and m m Ta ar, and the nuptial orning , w O f hich , for purity outline , incisive o n e strokes , and at time graceful o psych logic touches, at another, 2 e e r 7 Walt r Savag Lando .

r w r st ong, majestic lines , ould bea ’ co m parison with portions O f Keats H er io n a nd w w yp , ould justify the arm ’ admiration Of a Shelley . Tamar s narrative Of his encounter with the m w Nymph , for exa ple , hich contains

o n - the noted passage the sea shell , h a s all the directness and chaste r e straint which is characteristic Of the w best Greek art . And hile the pic ’ ture Of Ch a r o b a s nuptial morning may suggest so m ewhat ignobly th e fo r physical side Of her passion Gebir, yet many Of the lines , notably those portraying her fears , are exquisitely handled . As regards the technical quality Of we m the verse , ight criticise the o f unpleasant iteration syllables , m m Sa w someti es in the sa e line , as the blood m a n tle in his m a n ly ” a wk cheeks , also the tendency to“ ward Latinized phraseology, as Him ” r ove come her serious voice bespake , ' r e L a n do s Po try . 73

and the to o regular beat o f the blank verse but w e prefer rather to ad m ire th e a n d m frequent felicity , , at ti es , f the grandeur o expression . The follo wing is worthy to stand with the introductory lines o f the second

Pa r a dise Lost book of , as a splendid specim en of the periodic sentence !

a a n s Once f ir city, courted then by ki g , s a n Mistre s of n tions, thro ged by a a p l ces, ’ a h e r s n a R ising head o er de ti y, her f ce Glowin g with plea sure a n d with pa lm s sh refre ed, No w pointed at b y Wisdom o r by W a e lth, a b a a m Bereft of be uty, re of orn ent, d th e w r s o f wo e s . Stoo in ilde nes , Ma ar

This is one o f the many places in Gebir that Shelley never tired o f re e in p a t g . But notwithstanding the ad m ira o f fe w — tion a select spirits Shelley, e e 74 Walt r Savag Landor.

Southey , Reginald Heber, De ! uin C — Gebir cey, and perhaps oleridge fell upon the general public a dead failure Landor wa s not honored by the vituperation which Wordsworth o r m i n Keats received , yet he ca e for his m odest share of the uncritical lashings which the critics of his day held it their privilege to im pose upon w a n e and original author . This by no m eans destroyed his self- c o n ﬁ t o wn dence , for he never doub ed his w ability, he only doubted hether others could be m ade to recognize m it ; still , applause does supple ent ’ and stren gthen one s consciousness of m erit and give just that ﬁnal impulse which is needed to a c c o m

lish . p g reat things Landor felt this , and wrote to Southey ! Thepopu la r is a u r a we m n u , though are asha ed or

able to analyze it , is requisite for the ” health and growth of genius ; and again he wrote in his high and mighty ’ L a n do r s Poetry . 75 “ wa ! y I confess to you , if even fool m e n Ge éir ish had read , I should a w h ve continued to rite poetry, there is so m ething o f su m m er in the ” h u m o f insects . wa s As it , he did not long abstain m fro versifying . Indeed , all through w a s m v o w his life he accusto ed to , after som e friction w ith public or ' w publishers , that he ould never again touch pen to paper and behold , the very next day would ﬁnd h im at wo v r o d u rk as sedulously as e er, p

cing a n e w dialogue or poem . Only two years after the publication of Ge bir o t o u t , Landor had g a little pam phlet o f poems from the Arabic ' a d n Persian , purporting to have been rendered from a French trans w lation , and garnished ith elaborate lv m w . Co w notes , hich Mr thinks ere m m eant to ystify the reader . These effusions have not com e down to us . two to But years subsequent this, 76 Walter Savage Landor. there appeared Ch rysa o r and the Pno caea ns tw o w , poems hich are still ’ preserved among L a n d o r s collected P o a works . The n cw ns is painfully n m obscure , an uni telligible frag ent Cnr sa o r w but y , hich is also in its m w general drift so e hat puzzling, m m erits ore attention . It has for its subject an incident in the wa r w bet een the Gods and Titans , and w s u thus foreshado s , as has been g H n er io . gested , the yp of Keats In deed there are in it sounding lines and felicities o f phrase which a Keats need not have been asham ed o wn to .

The a zure con c a ve of th eir curlin g shells

is surely n o t without the magic o f expression which w e so m uch ad m ire La m ia E v e in the author of , and the

o St. A nes . we f g And in general , may claim fo r the Cnrysa o r that as a

78 Walte r Savage Landor

’ men s m inds o n account of the po litic a l co m plications which had arisen ’ fro m Napoleon s infamous e fforts to place his brother Joseph upon the — Spanish thron e efforts which had resulted in the sudden uprisin g of the Spanish people . In his ardent sympathy for their resistance to the

French despot , Landor had gone to 1 808 f Spain in , o fered himself as a m volunteer , sent to the govern ent ten thousand reals for the relief of w the inhabitants of Venturada, a to n m destroyed by the French , and pro ised to equip and lead to the ﬁeld troops up to the nu m ber o f a thou sand . All this speaks well for Lan ’ w dor s generous soul . And hile his expedition w a s anything but a su c cess m w from a ilitary standpoint , and hile , o f moreover , his evil genius pride and precipitancy m anaged to m ake his experience unco m fortable by ﬂaring up offensively at some harmless ex ’ L n s e a dor Po try. 79

o f e n pression Stuart , the English ’ voy ; still L a n d o r s journey w a s not w devoid of results , for the kno ledge o f Spain thus go t enabled h im to m m i part a local coloring to his dra a , w m hich , as Southey re arked in con tr a stin g it with his o w n Spanish epic o f Ro der ic k a d , gave Landor an vantage . The sem i -legendary history o f Spain appears to have excited a ’ strong fascination in L a n d o r s m ind ; and by m aking choice of that grandly i w C trag c story, herein ount Julian , discovering that his daughter has been outraged by King Roderick, determ ines to give Over his native w m land to the Moors , ho he had s wa s ju t before defeated , Landor able m wh to construct a dra a , ose charac w o u t ters are he n , naked and colossal P t e u fE s h l u s as the r o m e n s of c y . By thus objectifying desperate and trem endous emotion s in i m agery so 80 e e Walt r Savag Landor.

clear, pregnant , and concise that the very words a im to be as distinct and real as the deeds they celebrate , Landor wa s followi n g the highest Greek m odels [E sc h yl u s and So ph o cles ; but by reason of this very o f loftiness purpose , he must needs m w pitch his the e in an ideal key , hich it wa s wellnigh i m possible for him to w m m sustain ithout , at the sa e ti e , drownin g that m odest volu m e Of ho m ely human interest requisite to the harm ony and truth o f the whole . we w Hence , if ould justly laud a sub li m e picture like that which Count w o f m w Julian dra s hi self , hen he stands in unutterable m isery before the ruined Roderick

t a s r t r m I s and ab ed befo e insul ing c i e, I fa lter like a c r im in a l m yself ’ Th e ha nd th at hurled th y cha riot o er w its heels, Tha t held th y steeds erect and motion s le s, ’ L a n do r s e Po try. 8 I

m t a t o n m a a a As ol en st ues so e p l ce g te, Sha kes a s with palsied a ge b efore thee n o w , a picture which Southey declared to be the grandest i m age o f power that ” ever poet produced ; we m ust at the same time recognize that such m passages lose uch of their force , because Landor is ever striving to m aintain a too continuous level o f m subli ity . He does not grasp the m agic power inhering in contrast . A ll those wonderful m eans— a droll b - wit m y play of or hu or, a sudden dash of pathos— by which a m aster Sh a k s e a r e w w like p thro s , as it ere in e m high , oppos d relief, the ain action m of the story , Landor akes little use

o f. And hence , though he tells us w that he lived ith his personages , and w entered into their sorro s , he never quite succeeds in creating a c o m l e te m Sa m p dra atic illusion . As in so n A o n istes m g , the softer hu an 5 8 2 e e L Walt r Savag andor.

w touches , hich should ﬁnish the pic w w e ture , are anting ; and feel that the poet has not attained the end of his art , the striking of a perfect m ean between the sharply deﬁned b e individual and the vague type , tween the real and the ideal . But perhaps an even stronger reason wh y the hu m an elem ent is not effective lies in the absence of a well - sustained plot . As Landor conceded , the play m is really a series of dra atic dialogues , several o f the scenes even interrupt in o f g, instead furthering , the progress f m o . m the dra a Further ore , on the ’ m technical side of the dra atist s art , m the studied cli axes , the incidental f explanations , the e forts to arouse a m o f a n sense of ystery, of surprise , or tic i a tio n — o r le ss p , all these are more r dis egarded . But after all abatem ents have been m C ade , it is still true that , in ount n e w Julian , Landor had formed a ’ e L a n do r s Po try. 8 3

c o n and magniﬁcent conception , a c e ptio n partaking less o f the subtle m o f m m co plexity the odern dra a , and more of the sim ple sublim ity o f — o n e the antique tragedians , and which he sustained w ith marvellous ’ w power . De ! uincey s ords are not far above the m ark when he says wh o w w Mr . Landor, al ays rises ith his subject and dilates like Satan into ff w b e Teneri e or Atlas , hen he sees fore h im an antagonist worthy of his

’ w o n e po ers , is probably the man in E urope that has adequately con c e iv e d the situation , the stern self m dependency, and the onumental m isery of Count J ulian . That sub m o f w li ity penitential grief, hich m m a n cannot accept consolation fro , cannot hear external reproach , can n o t condescend to notice insult , cannot so m uch as see the curiosity of bystanders ; that aw ful careless ness o f all but the troubled deeps e a e n 84 Walt r Sav g La dor.

’ w o wn ithin his heart , and of God s spirit brooding upon their surface wa s and searching their abysses , never ” m so ajestically described . More w e m over, there are , as have inti ated , superb passages which show their full splendor only when detached and

read by them selves . Take the ﬁrst o r scene of the fourth act , better , take the description of Count Julian o f which De ! uincey w a s thinking when he wrote the lines quoted above

’ Not v ictory that o e r sh a d o ws h im sees he ; h s b r No airy and lig t pa sion stirs a oad, To rufﬂe o r to soothe h im ; all are

quelled, n t m s Be ea h a ightier, sterner tress of m ind Wa t u n keful he si s, and lonely, and m oved , w v w o r s Beyond the arro s, ie s, shout o f m en

6 e e 8 Walt r Savag Landor.

wheelings which characterize the sustained and involved harmonies of ’ Milton s blank verse . In order to reach some final de c isio n s with regard to Landor as a m dramatist , one is te pted to contrast him with the greatest of Italian w o f A lfi e ri riters tragedy, Vittorio , whom he him self always desired to m m m tw o rese ble . In te pera ent the m e n m m had points in co on . Both were possessed o f inflam m able na w o n tures , ere the alert to take ff a n o ence , and thunderous in their r ge . Both had the qualities of the

- school boy quick passions, irra tio n a l w prejudices , and a some hat imm ature enthusiasm for liberators and abhorrence o f kings and tyrants — term s which to them were syn o n y u m o s . There are even superﬁcial w o f likenesses . Both ere good family ; both lived long in v o lu n tary exile ; both detested the French ’ d r s L a n o Poetry . 8 7

. m two nation And as dra atists , the m had nearly the sa e ideal , though they realized it somewhat differ m r m a n i ently . Abo inating the o t c ism which m ixes figures and strains meanings in the vain effort to allego — rize which m ystifi e s but does n o t — o n enlighten , they, the contrary, aim ed to express in clear and vigor o u s words those universal em otions w hich agitate the soul . Their char a c te r s , therefore , are not highly m m o r co plex organis s , like Hamlet r e r e Faust , but are rather heroic p s e n ta tio n s of one or two over- m a s m tering passions . They co e upon w the stage, say distinctly hat they — in m feel bold , even bald , ter s , in o f A lfi e r i o r the case , in chaste and m m o f li pid i agery , in the case Lan — dor, and then they vanish . The com plicated development o f charac w ter , hich the novelists , especially, to w w have delighted atch , hich a e 8 8 Walt r Savage Landor.

George E liot has portrayed so wo n d e r fu ll m y in Tito Mele a , is not within the range Of these students ’ f lﬁ r i o . A e s the antique In plays ,

! in particular, there are no subtle changes of purpose , no clash of con ﬂic ti n g interests , nothing to retard

o n - m o f the steady , inevitable , oving

. w r e the plot . As Mr Ho ells has ’ m arked o f A lfi e r i s best tragedy “ Or es tes When you read , you find yourself attendant upon an i m m a m w nent cala ity, hich nothing can avert or delay . In a solitude like o f m that drea s , those hapless phan o f m tasms , dark types re orse, of m o f r e cruel a bition , inexorable m w venge, ove s iftly to the fatal end . They do not grow or develop on the i m agination ; their character is am st ped at once , and they have but ” m to act it out . This is classicis . it o f A lfi e r i And , is the ideal and f Landor . From the aspect o form

0 e e 9 Walt r Savag Landor.

His plan is ineffective and in a d e u a te l q y sustained . We are fascinated diffi by exquisite passages , but it is cult to ge t a general im pression of w the hole play . The separate parts do not bind o u r interest to the m f develop ent o so m e central idea . And although we m a y not demand m we of a dra atist an exciting plot , at least dem and that he shall stim u late o u r i m agination by suggesting a w definite goal , and shall all the hile be gradually leading us toward it . Notw ithstanding his m agnificent C conception of ount Julian , this c o n se Landor failed to do , and quently Robert Browning wa s right in dedicating his L u r ia and Th e ’ So u l s Tr a ed n g y to Landor, as bei g ” r a great d amatic poet , rather than a great dramatist . A great dram atist Landor never became , although he composed at least five other tragedies and a co m e ’ L a n dor s Poetry. 9 I

dy . One of the former he seems to have written in 1 8 1 1 but upon learning that L o n gm a n s refused to Co u n t u lia n publish 7 , either at their o wn , or even at his expense , Landor wrote in great chagrin and exaspera tion to Southey ! On receiving the o f m c o m last letter Mr . Long an I m itte d to the ﬂam es m y tragedy o f Fer r a n ti a n d Giu lio w w , ith hich I o u a m r e intended to surprise y , and solved that never verse o f m ine shall be he reafter co m m itted to a nything ” m else . This stor of indignation , as w Co u n t usual , ble over rapidly ; and j7u lia n w a s soon published by Mur a fe w m o f ray, though only frag ents

the other tragedy had been saved . With the exception of the Cna r ita ole Do wa er m w g , a prose co edy , hich Landor wa s probably wise in not c o m printin g, he produced no other ‘f l t u lia p e te dram a fo r years . Co u n j n and the other two plays m entioned e 9 2 Walter Savag Landor.

’ w w L a n d o r s w above ere ritten at ild , A b beautiful residence , Llanthony bey , in Wales . Subsequently , on account of hostilities and financial f w di ficulty ith tenants and neighbors , Landor had been forced to take up — his abode on the continent fi rst at C m Tours , then at o o , Pisa , and at last at Florence . He had finally , throu gh the generous advances of a W e lsh Mr . Ablett , friend , been able , to much to his delight , purchase the Gh e r a r d e sc h a Villa , an exquisite place situated picturesquely on the road which ascends fro m Florence to wa s w Fiesole . And it hile at Flor ence or at the Villa Gh e r a r d e sc h a that Landor acco m plished his best w w m ork , the onderful prose e bodied Im a ina r Co n v e r sa tio ns in the g y , the E x a m ina tio n o Sna t s ea r e f p , the Pen ta m er o n and the Per icles a n d i A s a s a . w p Not , ho ever, until he had bid farewell to his beautiful Italian

e e d 94 Walt r Savag Lan or. the conception o f Andrea of Hun Gio v a n gary , the young husband of e m ’ na , b ars the ark of a true artist s

w m . w w ork anship Andrea sho s , hat ’ L a nd o r s is rare in actors , a real de e l o m e n v p t of character . Brought up under the guardianship o f a de signing monk , Fra Rupert , he has been purposely allowed to rem ain in idleness and ignorance , like Shaks ’ peare s Orlando , but his chivalrous c o m soul , under the kind care and o f r e passion Giovanna , is made to m to alize itself, by beco ing attuned the chords of love and gratitude . — In general , these plays including Sie e o A nco na w m the g f , hich in anner m Co u n t u lia n most rese bles y , being pitched in a sim ilarly heroic strain possess essentially the same m erits ’ and defects as L a n d o r s earlier dra w o n e matic orks . On the hand , there is not that effective interaction o f w characters and motives hich , ’ e L a n do r s Po try . 9 5 when regarded from the central idea o f c o the play, constitutes a deﬁnite , herent plot . On the other hand , it is w possible to detach incidents , hich , supposing ourselves acquainted with o f the merest outline the story , may be viewed as independent i m aginary n o f co versations , and as such are full

w . m po er Thus , for exa ple , the scene Sie e o A n co n a w in the g f , herein the gentle Lady Malaspina , pressing her m m infant to her boso , la ents the e horrors of the fam in , is deeply, nobly

w ! pathetic . She hispers to her babe My little one /ze G o d will feed t e Be sleep thy nour isher Until his m er cies strengthen m e a fresh w i w w And hen the sold er , ith hom she wa s w to conversing, has hurried a ay

defend the Balista Gate, she looks w m do n at the burden in her ar s , and says 96 Walter Savage Landor

m sw And still thou sleepest, y eet babe Is dea th wh o w Like sleep Ah, then ould fear to die ! H o w beautiful is all serenity

Tw o w priests , passing by , onder whether the child over which the w m o an leans is dead . The one w thinks not , because she eeps not over it the other rejoins

For taa t a I think it de d . It then could pierce no m ore H e r tender hea rt with its sad sobs a n d ” cries . “ Only a fe w moments has this ten ” der heart to grieve . The Lady Mala spina, unable to resist the fatal inroads o f hunger, lies dead ; and the babe m still peacefully sleeps on her boso . In the sam e general style as these ’ separate scenes from La n d o r s so

r 98 Wa lte r Savage Lando . bodied in the Per icl es a nd A spa sia relates to the meeting o f A ga m e m non and Iph ige n e ia among the

Shades . Of this latter, Landor wrote

m m m m o m to a Fro eve to orn , fro p rt in g night, Father and daughter stood before m y

sight . a w s I felt the looks they g ve, the ord

they said, r r And econducted each serene shade . Ever shall these to m e b e well spent

days, w m w S eet fell the tears upon the , s eet th e pra ise Far from the footstool of the tra gic r th one, a m e a a I trag di n in this scene lone . The dramatic conception of this meeting inheres in the peculiar rela tions which subsist between father I h i e ne ia and daughter . p g had been sacriﬁced by Agamemnon o n the ’ L a n d r s e o Po try . 99

w to to out ard journey Troy, in order propitiate th e gods ; and A ga m e m n o n has just been murdered by h is

w C . adulterous ife , lytemnestra Of I h i e n e ia ro this foul deed , p g is p fo u n dl n o f y ignorant , and the i terest the daughter in inquiring about the living, and especially about her mother, and at the same time the unex plain ed grief and anger o f A ga th e memnon , constitute dramatic — motive a potent o n e . The natu ‘ w to ral criticism , ho ever, be passed s 1 3 w A a upon the cene , that , hile g memnon seems gradually to be pre paring his daughter fo r the revelation o f his tragic death , he never really E does tell her . xpectation is ex cited by his exquisitely managed r e plies ; but no climax is reached . In r eading this dialogue the acute o riti c ism o f Chateaubrian d with regard to the pathe tic in poetry comes to r ll i a le o u mind a s e spe c ia y a ppl c b . 1 e e 00 Walt r Savag Landor.

Th e condition o f father and da u gh

ter is truly pathetic ; and yet , if our “ t ears are excited , it is by the ” beauty of the poetry - by o u r a d m ir a tio n u r w rather than by o sorro . W h o can resist the beauty o f these

lines, especially the Pindaric grand eur o f the central ones o n Poseidon

Fath er ! we m ust not let you here condem n w d a Not, ere the y less joyful recollect We have no wicked here ; no king to

judge . we w t Poseidon , have heard, ith bit er r a ge La shes his foam ing steeds a gainst the

skies, h w a t And, laug ing ith loud yell w e ing d ﬁre, n x In o ious to his ﬁelds and palaces, Affrights the eagle fr om the sceptred han d ; W e r hil Pluto, gentlest brothe of the e thr e,

I 02 Walter Savage Landor

Certainly n o evolution a ry ph i lo so ph e r has ever more grandly proclaim ed the inﬂuence o f environ m ! fe w o n ent A lines farther , Landor lam ent s the co m promising attitude which E ngland has taken toward the cause o f freedom .

Oh thou degenerate Albion with what sha m e Do r I su vey thee, pushing forth the sponge ’ a in m At thy spe r s length , ocking at th e thirst m in Of holy Freedo his agony.

These and others that we might quote are ﬁne lines ; yet it m ust be confessed that in this Ode , as in several other lofty poems, Landor is apt to ge t involved in the meshes o f to a classical reference , and break the thread o f passion and poetry in explicating his ﬁgure . Besides all these poetic produc ’ L a n do r s Poetry. 1

n tions in the gra d style , or in a style bordering upon the grand , Landor ran u p and down the gam ut of the light er E themes o f verse . very passing o f in phase his experience , from the v ita tio n o f to o r a friend dinner, the ’ m celebration of a loved one s char s , to m m the separation fro his fa ily , or d ff the eath of a companion , o ers its appropriate dash of color to the pic f ture o his life . Thus his transient moods are wrested fro m the o blite r o f ating stream consciousness , and eid llia preserved in exquisite y , carv ”

w o n o r m . ings , as it ere , ivory on ge s o f fo r Many these are erotic , as, m o f exa ple , those in eulogy Ianthe , a lady whose real nam e wa s Sophia w w e Jane S ift , and hos person and character Landor all his life con tin n ed to hold in honorable ad m ira tion . What could be nearer to the o f C m manner atullus , and at the sa e w time happier , than the follo ing 1 0 e a e 4 Walt r Sav g Landor.

’ tribute to this lady s sunny disposi tion !

! our plea sures sprin g like d a isies in a s the gr s, Cut down a n d up again as blithe a s ever ; F m a t ro you , I nthe, lit le troubles pass, ” r Like little ipples in a sunny river.

Others o f these short poe m s are invocations or rem iniscences o f o ld w familiar Objects , ith little incidents n o w n w and then i ter oven , and a col l o qu ia l turn given to the swiftly w moving iam bics . This ork partakes of the style of Horace It is E pic u m rean in i plication , yet at the same m ti e healthy and clean . There is a i’ e na vet in the quick, picturesque w m strokes hich is al ost irresistible . w Again , Landor rites addresses to m w a o f his conte poraries , in the y m r com endation o elegy . There a r e odes to Wordsworth and to

I 06 Walter Savage Landor.

sion . Of the elegiac pieces , proba bly the most perfect is the o n e writ ten to Mary Lam b o n the death o f m her brother . The rhy e and rhythm o f the stanzas accord completely with the sentim ent and the closing lines show Landor 5 classic mode o f expression , his clear uninvolved m anner

Behold h im ! from the region of the

blest, H e a b t r spe ks he ids hee est .

Lines like these suggest those beau w tiful funerary vases , hereon the Greeks were wont to ﬁgure the o f mourners the departed , standin g m w in si ple, touching attitudes , ith wreathes in their hands . w In It is , ho ever, the idyl , the last form o f poetry attempted by Lan h w e m dor, t at discover his ost dis tin c tiv e poetic contribution . In epic and drama, and even in the occa ’ L a n dor s Poetry . 1 0 7 sio n a l o u t pieces , Landor has been stripped by poets o f deeper passion o r reﬂection ; but in his best idyllic

w fe w . ork he has , if any, superiors Tennyson and A n d r e Chenier come u r to o mind as possible competitors . ’ Yet the latter had n o t L a n d o r s classic restraint and absolute free d o m fro m ro m anticism and the fo r m e r w d , in his on erfully beautiful Id ls o tne Kin w y f g , illustrates hat the French critic calls s implesse t ra her than real simplicity . A number of these idyls had origi ’ nally appeared in La n d o r s Idyllia H e r o ica , in Latin , he ha ving continued fo r years to hide away fro m popular appreciation interesti n g prose and verse by reason of his scholarly , and m at the same ti e schoolboyish , pref erence for the language o f ancient

Rome over his native tongue . But o f B at last , at the request Lady less i n to n g , Landor agreed to translate e e 1 08 Walt r Savag Landor.

E these pieces into nglish . And as ic the outcome we have his H elle n s .

Of all his poetic achievements , these best exhibit what is usually treated as the charact eristic note o f Greek — art the note of objectivity . Philo S ophically speaking, this epithet , w hen applied to an artist , conveys the idea that he has succeeded in great measure in detaching his o w n subjective interpretation o f an object from his observation and portrayal o f it ; that he has seen and r e pr e w sented the thing as it is , ithout trying to suggest any double mean in o f w c o r g, any idea hich the in responding thing is , Platonic m phase , an adu bration . The liquid clea rness which results from this o b je c tiv e treatm ent is the distinctive r o f m ma k classicis . And it is in the H elle n ics that Landor expresses this

- m m quality pre e inently . At the sa e c o n time it must not be inferred ,

e I 1 0 Walter Savag Landor. marvels were n o t explained but b e lie v e d th e wa s n o t , and supernatural o r higher than the natural , indeed other than a different development o f the attributes and powers o f ” nature . Among the many fine mythologic th emes which compose the H ellen ics m , the finest , the ost delightfully H a m a dr a d objective , is the y , a poem ’ written in L a n d o r s seventieth year . This idyl perused o n a fine day in s ummer, in some leafy mountain

nook , might almost lead the reader, his senses being attuned to the gentle o f to pulsations its verse , fancy that sa w he , seated there

th e m b w w two Upon oss elo , ith her palm s m in Pressing it on each side, a aid ” rm fo ,

a veritable Hamadryad . And if his ’ n o t o f mind s eye did , in the course h is o u t o f th e reading, bring a series I I I

most fascinating little pictures , paint ed in strokes fascinatingly clear and e d licate , this reader must forsooth be o f w m s dull its , a dry literalist , drea les im a in a tio n le ss and g . Indeed , this ’ poem o f L a n d o r s mature o ld a ge is

above analysis . Each image is struck O ff with an idealized realism and a w w inning yet incisive grace , hich make comm on adjectives seem n ig a r dl o f g y . There are little touches m characterization , little gno ic ex r o n o f p essions the part the speakers , which could not be bettered . What

’ could be m ore n aively fem inine than this

Rh o ic o s went da ily ; but the n ym ph a s oft, v b a a t v n w In isi le . To pl y lo e, she k e , Stopping its b rea things when it b h m s reat es o t soft, sw r a to a Is eete th n pl y on any pipe . She pla yed on h is sh e fed upon h is Si ghs a I 1 2 Walter Sav ge Landor.

They plea sed her when they gen tly W a a her h ir, O ved th e u s h e r Cooling p l es of purple veins, A n d when her ab sence b rought them ” t out, hey pleased .

“ E fe w w ven these lines , ho ever , give one an idea of the condensation o f ’ r o f L a n d o s style . He is so sparin g word s that it is not always easy to tell what his possessive pronouns w m odify . He is not ithout faults also in his m anagem ent o f blank verse ! instead of keeping his lines

relatively entities , he often ends them w ith a preposition or adjective , either o f which is carelessly related to a

noun in the succeeding line . Not w m H e l ithstanding this , any of the l en ics are typical exam ples of that m w for of poetry hich is of the senses , u and is yet pure , clean , and beautif l . Fitly to close o u r review of the ’ o f L a n d o r s o e idyllic poems , and p in we l fe w try general , sha l quote a

e I 1 4 Walter Savag Landor.

A n d not repr oached m e ; th e ever sacre d cup r a w n m Of the pu e lily h th, bet ee y

hands, a s n o r Felt s fe, un oiled, lost one grain of d ” gol .

And n o w with these lines still b e fore u s as fair specimens of what wa o f Landor could do in the y verse, we to come ask ourselves , What in general are the elements of power in his poetry ! He himself has given a touchstone by which to test his o wn performance . What is there in ” poetry, he makes Boccaccio say, unless there be m oderation and co m posure ! are they n o t better than h o t o f the , uncontrollable harlotry a ﬂa u n tin m g, dishevelled enthusias w o f Whoever has the po er creatin g, has likewise the inferior power o f keeping his creations in order . The m m best poets are the ost i pressive , because their steps are regular ; fo r ’ e 1 1 L a ndor s Po try . 5 without regularity there is neither ” n o r strength state . And again , he puts in the mouth of Aspasia the “ following ! Fo r any high o r any w r e n ide ope ation , a poet must be n o t w dued , ith passion indeed , but ” with the power and m astery over it . N o w it is acknowledged that Lan dor’ s effort after moderation and m w co posure , and the regularity hich m should result from the , has its frui wa s to tion in his poetry . He able o ff strike ideas in a singularly vivid , m wa w i aginative y , ithout burdening w w them ith accessory touches , hich w ould obscure their m eaning. Doubt less he has also the power and mas te ry over passion— when the passion is th ere ! but his very fault consists in a lack o f that tense enthusiasm w w and s eeping passion , hich are the attributes o f great poets . His ideal wa s w more like that Of Words orth , emotion remembered in tranquil 1 1 6 e e Walt r Savag Landor.

lity but then he wa s not endowed with the the deeply reﬂective percep tion which constitutes the glory of

Wordsworth . Landor has too little

of the transcendentalist about him , too little of the insight that pene w w Of trates belo the sho things , to possess the power of entering into o f the inner life nature and thought . This very fact m ust forever exclude him fro m a place among the poets o f m a the front rank . H e y have had a m odest share o f what Matthew ” Arnold calls natural magic ; but , barring the really sublim e conception o f C wa s ount Julian , he practically ” m devoid of oral profundity . Hence

his position and inﬂuence as a poet , like that of the ae sthetic school o f w m Mr . S inburne and his co peers who in a sense recognize them selves ’ L a n d o r s — w as disciples , must al ays m remain C ircu scribed . As Heinrich Heine once said ! Deeds are the o ff

L ND R’ S W G A O PROSE RITIN S .

I 22 Walter Savage Landor “ The letter begins ! I am rejoiced to m e ﬁnd that you have not forgotten , and I raise m yself up fro m the bosom o f indifference to the voice and the ” m blandish ents of praise . We look ’ in vain for such bom bast in L a n d o r s w later ritin g, though all through his life w e ﬁnd h i m inclined to slip into a m ode o f expression wh ich is de clam atory and som ewhat Johnson ese . An actual descent into the false m w subli e , ho ever, is restricted to the m political dialogues and pa phlets , which he ever and anon felt con strained to cast upon the troubled

w . aters of civil contention These , so far as w e are acquainted with m w the , are orthy of his prejudices rather than his powers . Yet it should be said that o n e often runs across m o f sentences , in the idst diatribes w against priests and kings , hich for rhetorical splen dor are unsurpassed and unsurpassable . And it must ’ r s e 2 L a ndo Pros Writi ngs . I 3

’ also be said that L a n d o r s opposition to wa r m m , and enthusias for freedo justly challenge o u r adm iration and é a d h e r e n c e a t least in their general L a n d o r ia n conception , if not in their t applica ions . O m itting the consideration of Lan ’ w dor s political ritings , and of his

- m w w pleas for spelling refor , hich ere ge n e r a lly u n h e e d e d ; of his occasional m w w essays in criticis , hich , ith the exception o f three reﬁned textual o f C studies Theocritus , atullus , and m w Petrarch , have not co e do n to us o f w w we and his Latin orks , hich w ould scarcely have th e tem erity to w criticise , even ere they perfectly

- we m preserved , have re aining four r m m g eat onu ents in prose , the Im a ina r Co n v er sa tio ns th e Cita tio n g y ,

‘ a n d E x a m in a tio n of Willia m Sna k s ea r e Pe n tdmer o n Per i p , the , and the les a n d A s a sia c p . It wa s after Landor had gotten I 2 e e 4 Walt r Savag Landor. comfortably established in Italy that w w 1 8 2 1 he rote , bet een the years 1 82 m and 9 , the ajor part of the ﬁrst of these w orks . His inclination had always been toward this m ode of ex

. w pression T enty years before , he f M o r n in Cnr o n icle had o fered to the g , m w m the organ of the Whigs , a ong ho he then counted hi m self an unbiassed w exponent , a dialogue bet een Burke and Grenville . This had not been

n o t ! to accepted , and he does appear have m ade m any m ore attempts at this kind of writin g until after he had taken up his abode in Florence in ’ 1 2 1 L a n d o r s the fall o f 8 . concrete wa o f y looking at things , his ready enthusiasm for persons em bodying m certain senti ents and ideas , rather than for the abstract , logical presenta m tion of these ideas and senti ents , m ade the dialogue his natural literary w a s m m o f el em ent . He al ost as uch

- a hero worshipper as Carlyle . The

I 26 e e Walt r Savag Landor. however privileged they m a y be ; for at the sam e ti m e that you disown w m her, you ill lose the true co pre h e n sio n of these rare m e n who m you ad m ire . The inspiration of genius belongs one half to heaven , the other to the crowd of co m m on ” m ortals fro m whose life it springs . Such a conception of the solidarity and interconnection of the race , coupled with the idea o f a God in and at the sam e ti m e above h u m m w o u r anity , ight ell arouse aspira u r tions and o efforts . And it is far rem oved fro m the Co m tean view w o f hich , instead recognizing God as working in hu m anity and yet above it , identiﬁes , by a debasing anthro o m o r h ism w p p , the idea of Deity ith m a n the notion of collective , and thus gives the sanction of divin ity to mere nu m bers ; whereas it is f h o w indeed di ﬁcult to see , if indi

n o t - h u vidual man be God born , ’ L a n dor s e i i 2 Pros Wr t ngs. I 7 m o r m a n anity , collective , can possess w this attribute . The hole cannot be different from its parts ; and if the individual be without God in the

w . orld , even so must be the race w w n o t These high ideas , ho ever , ere ’ L a n d o r s within range of thought . An ad m iration fo r individual traits wa s the m ainspring in his theory o f i n life . He quotes enthusiastically, o n e w of his letters , the follo ing lines L e o B la nco W/zite w from the if f , hich adequately sum up his o w n ph il o so “ phy ! The moral world presents upon the whole a most hideous and distorted appearance . But it hap in m pens here , as so e pictures . w Looked at ith the naked eye , they are a perfect m ass o f confusion ; but the mo m ent you look throu gh a lens constructed to unite the scattered lines in a proper focus , w they sho a regularity , and even beauty . My favorite lens is a vir I 2 e e 8 Walt r Savag Landor.

tu o u s m a n ; it brings into harmony the discordant parts o f the m oral w ” orld . Fo r m the representation , in i agi

nary conversations , of the virtuous w wa s and the ise of the past , Landor , m oreover , especially ﬁtted by his

- u general intellectual make p. In w m consecutiveness , hich in other for s o f w c o u n te d a is prose ould be , fault ,

unobjectionable in the dialogue, if w kept ithin the large , embracing o f unity a central thought . And the

opportunity , by virtue of the free m dom and infor ality of conversation , to give vent to extravagant ideas peculiar to the author is likewise m ade possible . This is a concession i m portant to a writer possessed o f ’ L a n d o r m s i petuous individuality . w So that , hen speaking in the person o f another, he could in reality ex press his o wn idiosyncrasies m ore freely than if he had chosen to write

0 e e I 3 Walt r Savag Landor.

abound in original and penetrating aphorisms couched in strikingly beau m w tiful i agery . There are , ho ever , two vital defects in the reﬂective class , w w hich , if they do not lo er the high value o f selections fro m the conver sa tio n s m a , do certainly odify our p

preciation of them as wholes . The ﬁrst o f these defects m a y be seen w by contrasting Landor ith Plato . “ E m erson truly says ! Plato turns incessantly the obverse and the ” m reverse of the edal of Jove . By this he pri m arily m eant that Plato had the abstract speculative genius o f the Oriental coupled with the love o f the accom plished fact which char a c te r iz e s o u r Western m ind ; but he also m eant to infer that in the dia logn es Plato sa w both sides o f a e qu stion , so that his speakers could always give the c o ns as well as the ’ r o s L a n d o r s p . This versatility char r a c te s do n o t possess . Our author ’ n s e r i i L a dor Pros W t ngs. I 3 I

is n o t proﬁcient in the play o f r e w partee , hich really constitutes the f m o r life o the dialogue . Ti otheus Calvin are the m ere targets at which Lucian o r M e l a n c th o n level their

controversial guns . And the poor targets beco m e thoroughly riddled

before the conversations are over . w The sense of friction , of clash , hich o u r should sustain flagging interest , c o n se is conspicuously absent . And , w to quently , our its are not aroused t a fascinated play of hou ght , and u r w o attention begins to ane . w The other defect , hich is fully as m o r serious , arises fro the lack of ga n ic unity in the several conversa f m t . o ions We do not , course , ean that Landor should have analytically o u t o n e w plotted a dialogue , as ould m divide a treatise , aking the various parts depend explicitly and Obviously m upon so e central conception . Such a design would have stopped the flo w e e I 3 2 Walt r Savag Landor. o f m n i aginatio , and have rendered the speeches stilted and unreal . But w e do m ean that Landor should hi m self have known whither he wa s a n d m leading us , that the eandering paths of thought should have at last opened out upon so m e central pros e w w e m w pe t , hence ight look do n w a w e m and discover the y had co e . Landor should have recognized that a vast body o f aphorism s and fine m a c thou ghts , and also , it ust be w o f kno ledged , tedious disquisitions , m ust collapse into an incoherent mass if they be not sustained by the skeleton o f an underlying idea . That he did not reco gnize this fact is seen from his o wn figurative account o f o f m his mode co posing the dialogues . ” to I confess you , he says , that a fe wdetached thoughts and i m ages have always been the beginnings o f my works Narrow slips have risen o r w up , more fe er, above the sur

I 3 4 Walter Savage Landor. these conversations contain — as Lan m w e x a s dor hi self declared , hen his pe r a tio n wa s excited by difﬁculties in “ publishing them as forcible writ ” i n ! g as exists on earth . Not only are they forcible ; m any of the m are pervaded by a spirit of beauty that is rarely attained . Take the dialogue betw een Epicurus and his tw o lovely

L e o n tio n T e r n issa . pupils , and The E m w w picureanis , hich ould environ us am id delightful sights and sounds and would thus gently withdraw o u r souls away fro m the din o f the crowd into the peace o f self- culture

- wa s m and self satisfaction , never ore w alluringly set forth . Oh , s eet

- ! h o w sea air bland art thou , and refreshing ! breathe upon L e o n tio n ! breathe upon Te r n issa bri n g them m health and spirits and serenity , any m m w springs and any sum ers , and hen the vine - leaves have redde n ed and m rustle under their feet . These , y ’ e i n L a n do r s Pros Wr ti gs. I 3 5

beloved girls , are the children of

Eternity . They played around The seus and the beauteous Am azon ; they m o f gave to Pallas the bloo Venus , and to Venus the ani m ation of Pal las . Is it not better to enjoy by the hour their soft salubrious inﬂuence , than to catch by ﬁts the rancid breath o f dem agogues ; than to swell and m ove under it without or against our will ; than to acquire the sem blance o f eloquence by the bitterness of o f passion , the tone philosophy by m disappoint ent , or the credit of ! Ca n prudence by distrust fortune, e w can industry , can des rt itself, besto ” o n us anything w e have not here !

- b e Aga in , take the conversation tween Vittoria Colonna and Michael w Angelo , herein they discuss the qualities of poetry and the glory o f H o w the Greeks . acute and true “ are the following aphorisms ! The beautiful in itself is useful by awak I 3 6 Walter Savage Landor. c u w ing our finer sensibilities , hich it m ust be o u r o w n fault if we do not carry with us into action . Wishes a r e by- paths on the declivity to u n happiness ; the weaker term inate in the sterile sand the stronger in the vale of tears . Serenity is no m sign of security . A strea is never m so s ooth , equable , and silvery, as at the instant before it beco m es a cata r a c t . The children of Niobe fell by the arrows of Diana under a bright ” “ m and cloudless sky . Little inds in high places are the worst i m pedi e s ments to great . Chestnuts and culent oaks perm it the traveller to pass onward under them ; briars and thorns and unthrifty grass entangle ” h im two . The last quotations give ’ the m echanism o f La n d o r s prose fi rst m m o f the si ple state ent an idea , then a metaphor illustrative o f it . Tw o o f the most suggestive o f the reflective dialogues have already

I 3 8 Walter Savage Landor.

o f w easy to leap across . Much hat w e call sublim e is only the residue o f ”

w . infancy , and the orst of it It is curious that Kant is reported to have expressed the sam e idea as is tw o contained in the last sentences , in reference to the poetry o f Isaiah m e n and Ossian . Both , as rational ists w to , ere constitutionally unable realize that the profound synthetic m intuitions of the poet are subli e , not because o f an obscurity which m m is incident to hu an li itations , but o f w by reason the divine hints , hich o f these intuitions contain , higher spiritual altitudes and loftier issues than m a n had before dream ed o f. In the discussion between Calvin M e la n c th o n and , the former is as clay in the hands o f his h u m a n ita

’ rian opponent . This is surely an unfair representation o f the a c k n o wl edged logical acumen o f the great

Genevan theologian . Nevertheless , ’ 1 L a n dor s Prose Writi ngs . 3 9

M e la n c th o n enunciates several senti m ents which it would have been well ! if Calvin and som e o f his theological successors had thoughtfully heeded . m w Thus he says , so e hat after the manner o f E m erson or Matthew Ar nold What a curse hath m etaphor been to religion ! It is the wedge that holds asunder the two great portions o f the Christian world . We hear o f n othing so com monly as ﬁre w w and s ord . And here , indeed , hat wa s m etaphor is converted into sub stance and applied to practice .

! m m Again , he says I re e ber no d iscussion on religion in which reli gion wa s not a sufferer by it, if m utual forbearance and belief in a n ’ other s good m otives and intentions are !as I must always think they are! its proper and necessary a ppu r t e H o w nances . identical this senti m ent is with the life and thought o f o u r E m great American teacher, er 1 e e 40 Walt r Savag Landor.

! son And again , near the close M e la n c th o n m of the dialogue , akes some searching rem arks concern i n m g idolatry, discussing it very uch w as a Greek philosopher ould , and at last uttering this hu m anitarian principle ! But in regard to idola m try , I see more cri inals that are o f o w guilty it than you do . I g belo

- ! the stone quarry and the pasture , be yond the graven image and the o x e stall . If w b o w before the distant m w i age of good , hile there exists within o u r reach o n e solitary object w w w of substantial sorro , hich sorro o u r ff m we e orts can re ove , are guilty

! I pronounce it! O f idolatry . We pre fer the intangible efﬁ gy to the living m w e for . Surely neglect the service o f o u r Maker if we neglect his chil ” e o f dr n . This religion kindly co m m on - sense is again expounded by William Penn in his dialogue with wh o Lord Peterborough , represents

1 4 2 Walter Savage Landor

favorable to his reputation . As Mr . C o u t olvin has pointed , Landor had spent weeks in strenuously reading all the Platonic dialogues in the m m original . This exa ination ust have been s Om e wh a t perfunctory ; and partly as the result of it , Landor conceived an invincible dislike for what he held to be the bodiless in ” co m prehensible vagaries and the falsely ornate style of Plato ; there fore he m akes this philosopher appear as a ridiculous m ilksop of a sophist in the presence of his gruff contem porary of the Tub ; and even when Plato indulges in a fine figure “ t like this , The brightest of s ars appear the m ost unsteady and trem u l o u s m in their light , not fro any m quality inherent in the selves, but m w fro the vapors that float belo , and fro m the i m perfection o f vision in ” the surveyor, Diogenes roughly w retorts , Dra thy robe around ’ n r s e Vr iti n s La do Pros l g . 1 43

thee ; let the folds fall gracefully , m and look ajestic . That sentence is

m o n e m e . an . ad irable ; but not for

w . I ant sense , not stars Diogenes m here gives , ore or less truly , Lan ’ dor s real thought concerning Plato , and concerning even the faintest

f s o - m m tincture O called ysticis . This attitude toward the Greek thinker w sho s, characteristically , an obvious ’ m L a n d r s li itation in o intelligence . H is m ind clung only too tenaciously to the tangible ; and speculative in w w sight , the po er of dra in g the uni versal o u t o f its investiture in par tic u la rs , he therefore undervalued , ! designating its products by so m e such opprobrious epithets as bodi s m le s inco prehensible vagaries . In a n o th e m this , Landor is ; exa ple o f the tendency to d e pie c ia te that particular faculty which o n e does not happen to possess . While the dialogues o f reﬂection 1 e e 44 Walt r Savag Landor. are thus somewhat too heavily ’ freighted with L a n d o r s idio syn c ra sie s w , and are like ise open to the tw o general defects o f being one sided in opinio n and deﬁcient in ’ o f a c organic unity, the dialogues tion are am enable to none of these objections, but are scenes transcribed from the dra m a o f history with as masterful a hand as any within the o f range classical literature . These dialogues are especially and justly noted for their delicate insight into w omanhood . In a letter to Southey Landor makes us aware of the source w of this po er . I delight , he says, in the m inute variations and alm ost i m perceptible shades o f the female m character , and confess that y rev m m m eries , fro y ost early youth , w ere al m ost entirely on what this o n e o r that o n e w ould have said o r done in this o r that situation . Their countenances , their movements , their

e 1 46 Walter Savag Landor.

o f Rhodope , though only ﬁve years a e w m g hen the fa ine occurred , and n o w only fourteen , recalls the details connected with it as if she had been m H e r m m o f a grown wo an . e ory the incidents is m ore than preco n cio s , it is prematurely old and she rem inds us o f o n e of those d im in u tive adults that are represented by

early sculptors in default of children . Thus a child o f ﬁve years has the sagacity to know the estimation in “ which her father had always been ” w- held by his fello citizens , and the

precocity to pinch his ear , as a play ful wa y of arousing his anger against f w e one o his friends . Nor can de fend this unreality by supposing that Rhodope ’ s present developed per s o n a lity colors the m em ory o f her

past experience , since even at the tim e o f her relating the story she is

a m ere girl o f fourteen .

A more successful dialogue , and ’ L a d r s r e i i n o P os Wr t ngs. I 4 7 o n e which gives us a glimpse o f the w m m s eetest , purest , and ost co pas ’ SIOn a te o f L a n d o r s w m all o en , is that bet ween the Lady Godiva and her E w husband , arl Leofric . It ould be hard to ﬁnd in literature a more beau tiful and touching conception than that o f the tender- hearted Lady Godi v a w m , pleading ith all the entice ents w of love and all the po er of an angel , that thus she m a y prevail upon her m w obdurate lord to re it the tax , hich his starving tenants are unable to

m - pay , even after the ut ost self de w denial . Thus, hen Leofric declares m that the tax must be paid , else sole n r e festivals cannot be held , Godiva joins ! Is the clam orousness that ’ succeeds the death o f God s du m b w creatures , are cro ded halls , are t ! slaughtered ca tle, festivals are m addening songs and giddy dances , and hireling praises fro m party- c o l o red coats ! Ca n the voice o f a e e I 48 Walt r Savag Landor. minstrel tell us better things o f ourselves than our o w n internal one m ight tell us ! or can his breath m ake o u r breath softer in sleep ! Oh m y beloved ! let everything be a w w e w joyance to us ; it ill , if ill . w m Sad is the day, and orse ust fol l o w w w e , hen hear the blackbird in the garden and do n o t throb with joy . But , Leofric , the high festival is strown by the servant o f God upon the heart of man . It is gladness , it is thanksgiving ; it is the orphan , m the starveling, pressed to the boso , m m and bidden , as its ﬁrst co and

m m . ent , to re ember its benefactor w We ill hold this festival , the guests m a are ready . We y keep it up for w m eeks , and onths , and years to w gether, and al ays be the happier and richer for it . The beverage o f w this feast , O Leofric , is s eeter than bee o r ﬂower o r vine can give us ! it ﬂows from heaven and in heaven

1 e e 50 Walt r Savag Landor.

’ ’ m ore than Horace s or Thackeray s . He ai m s to be extravagant and m crushing rather than ildly derisive , m and distorts the facts , not ockingly , but with a p rofound sense o f anger for outraged justice . As showing another feature o f ’ L a n d o r s m wa /in talent , na ely , the y which he took the bare inti m ations o f history and clothed them by the w o f m po er a su ggestive , sy pathetic m w e m i agination , ight instance the dialogue between the Earl of E ssex E m and d und Spenser . Probably the only historic m aterial for this ﬁnely conceived scene is to be found in the following state m ent o f Ben

Jonson , as reported by his literary m m m w co peer , Dru ond of Ha thorn ’ den The Irish having r o b d Spe u ’ ser s goods , and burnt his house and

n e w- a little child born , he and his w a n d fo r ife escaped ; after, he died r e lake of bread , in King street , and ’ a n d r s e i i I L o Pros Wr t ngs. 5 I fused 20 pieces sent to h im by m y o f E wa s s o r r ie Lord ssex , and said he ” h m m e had no ti e to spend the . “ Landor used to say of him self ! I a m b a horrible. confounder of istori cal facts ; I have usually one history that I have read , and another that I h o f ave invented . The truth the acknowledgm ent is seen i n this w m m dialogue , hose dra atic otive , as E ’ invented by Landor, lies in ssex s ’ ignorance o f the reason for the poet s grief, and in the gradual revelation o f its cause, and in the exquisite tact and kindness with which the E arl seeks to lighten th e grievous burden o f his unfortunate friend . Another m o n e dialogue even ore pathetic , and , m w to oreover, hich rises the very m m m s w su it of subli ity , i that bet een

Lady Lisle and E lizabeth Gaunt . The humility and co m plete self abnegation shown by these heroic souls are co nceived with loving ﬁ d e l 1 2 e e 5 Walt r Savag Landor.

ity ; and the depth Of Christian feel in g displayed m akes us al m ost wil to m ling take back the assertion , ade in treating o f Landor as a m a n o f ‘ letters , that the Christian ideal of self- sa c r iﬁ c e w a s foreign to his n a

ture . In such dialogues as this , one realizes that if Landor did not follow o f the exact facts the past , he so transfused and irradiated the spirit Of history as to render the notice Of his departure from m inute accuracy

- m unessential and ill ti ed . The style o f these dialogues of a c tion is as interestin g a study as their

- m m subject atter . In the , Landor often carries his tendency to co u den sation o f phrase and thought to an H e d ir e c extreme . gives no stage w e im tions , and have constantly to w agine hat the actors are doing , in order that we m a y catch the thread o f T we their intercourse . hus , must picture Godiva, as having dismounted

1 e e 54 Walt r Savag Landor. structed sentences even in the midst f m o the highest excite ent and passion .

This tendency , already noted , leads to a peculiar psychological effect m upon the reader . It akes him m ore directly m oved by the attractive

. managem ent of the situation than by m its inherent pathos or subli ity . Our critical appreciati o n is never H held in abeyance . ence the quali ’ ties of L a n d o r s work appeal to us m m m e n ore as artists than si ply as . We al ways rem ain conscious of its m technical ﬁnish . The e otions ex e rie n c e d w p by the character , hile w conceived ith all ﬁdelity , yet their expression being sober and regular, and not , as in life , harsh and dis m a jointed , the scene is re oved step m we fro the actual , and are unable to enter spontaneously into the rush o f m w feeling, but must ad ire hile keeping relatively unm oved . These wh E d facts explain y Landor, like ’ L a r s e r n do Pros W iti ngs. 1 55 m und Spenser , may be called a ’ w ” writer s riter . If this epithet m ight be applied to the author o f the Im a g ina ry Co nv er “ sa tio ns — t ic a l s e c im e n s o f w , yp p hich , w e have tried to select fi o m am ong the o ne hundred a n d forty- seven — dia l o gu e éf m uch m ore is it a pplica b le to one wh o wrote the Cita tio n a n d E x a m i na tio n of Willia m Sna k spea r e befo r e tne Wo r snipf u l Sir

’ lco m a s L u c a nt to u cnin Deer I y , g , g l n m e s tea i g . This a pliﬁ d conversa tion Landor co m posed while a t his m th e beautiful Italian ho e , Villa Gh e r a r d e sc h a w ed m , here he liv fro 1 82 1 8 w 9 to 3 7 , and here he also w Per ic les a n d A s a s ia rote the p , and a Pe n ta m er o n E x a . m part of the The , ina tia n w , hich is an elaborate essay at humor conveyed in the heavily o f E n loaded style lizabetha prose , is ’ the least happy o f all L a n d o r s longer m r writings . He hi self exp essed so m e 1 6 e e 5 Walt r Savag Landor. doubts as to whether his humor would seem hu m orous — doubts which were am ply sustained by the m result . The atte pt to retain evan e sc e n t ﬂashe s o f wit w ithin a euphuistic style laden with form ali ties and circu m locutions is as though o n e should try to spirit about a w bludgeon as if it ere a rapier . Wit and hu m or of this description tend to become ponderous and depressing ; ’ and this is just what L a n d o r s f a e forts at the facetious ctually are .

s One ea ily recognizes other defects . The freedom o f epithet and of refer n o t to ence , say the indecency of an m o n e occasional re ark , particularly m m a fro Sir Silas , y be characteristic o f E fo rtu lizabethan literature , but

n a te l o f . y is not Victorian Indeed , Landor has reproduced this elem ent with more historic accuracy than he has som e others worthier o f r e pr o d u c fo r tion . Thus , example, the verses

1 8 e e 5 Walt r Savag Landor.

o f pathetic fate the young poet , John W e lle rb w Sh a k s e a r e y , hich p is sup m posed to have heard fro Dr . Glaston , m w is per eated ith an ideal beauty, m aking it by fa r the finest passage in this disappointing book . Pe n ta m er o n The , another conversa tion elaborated Into a small volume , is much m ore successful both in choice m o f subject and in treat ent . It pur w o n ports to be five intervie s , held w B o c five successive days , bet een wh o m caccio , is ill , and his sy pathetic wh o m to friend , Petrarch , has co e o f visit him . The title and idea the book are o f course taken from B o c ’ c a c c io s Deca m er o n w w a , hich al ays p pealed to Landor, doubtless above ’ its actual value . Boccaccio s honest m m and lusty , if so eti es coarse , real ism , his hearty grasp upon certain o f w types character, his po er as a ’ story- teller all aroused L a n d o r s o n admiration And moreover, the ’ e i i L a n dor s Pros Wr t ngs. I 59

very grounds about the v illa where Landor lived lay the Valley of La Deca m er o n dies , described in the ; ’ m L a n d o r s and , as Forster says , fro “ gate up to the gates o f Florence there w a s hardly a street or farm that the great story- teller had n o t associated with som e witty or affect n w i g narrative . Such scenes ere naturally calculated to quicken Lan ’ m to dor s i agination , and intensify his interest in Boccaccio . ’It were useless in exam ining a m o f book as delightful as this , so e

w . w hose pages , as Mrs Bro ning said , “ ” are too delicious to turn over, to d o other than allow it to interpret itself . Its three most striking feat r u es , its episodes , allegories, and m criticis s , are best seen by quota f tion , the only di ﬁculty in such a m course being , that , a id such fasci m nating and quotable aterial , it is impossible to resist the temptation 6 e e I 0 Walt r Savag Landor. o f m transcribing one ore sentence , and you are thus irresistibly lured

o n . Take these scraps of the episode ’ relating to Petrarch s visit to the “ e parish church at Certaldo . It b ’ in n o w g the Lord s Day , Messer Francesco thou ght it m eet that he should rise early in the m orning and m m bestir hi self, to hear ass in the parish church at Certaldo . Where w w upon he ent on tiptoe , if so eighty a m a n could indeed go in such a fashion , and lifted softly the latch of ’ m Ser Giovanni s cha ber door, that m h im he ight salute ere he departed , and occasion no wonder at the step he wa s about to take . He w w then ent into the kitchen , here he m e n found the girl Assunta, and tioned his resolution . But w o Ser Francesco , ith his natural p w w liteness , ould not allo her to equip ‘ n o t w his palfrey . This is the ork

I 6 2 e e Walt r Savag Landor.

wa s Francesco had failed in . He scarcely m ore successful in his allot — m ent o f the labor found unlooked for intricacies and com plications in m w t m the achinery , ondered tha hu an wit could not simplify it , and de c la re d that the ani m al never had

exhibited such restiveness before .

In fact , he had never experienced ” m the same groo ing . Although Landor expressed his o wn belief when he represented Pe tra r c h as saying ! Allegory had fe w fo r m e attractions , believin g it to be friv o the delight in general of idle , i n e x c u r s iv e m w lous, inds , in hose m ansions there is neither hall nor portal to receive the loftier o f the ” passions ; yet for picturesqueness o f expression and transparency o f m senti ent the allegories , in the form o f m w drea s , hich Boccaccio and

Petrarch relate to each other , are unsurpassed in the prose literature ’ e i 6 L a n dor s Pr os Writ ngs. I 3

e Of i m agination . Notic this ﬁne consolatory description of Death in ’ o f Petrarch s allegory Sleep , Love , “ and Death . At last , before the close o f the altercation between Love r a d and Sleep , the thi d Genius had

v a n c e d . , and stood before us I can h o w w h im w not tell I kne , but I kne him to be the Genius Of Death . Breathless as I w a s at beholdin g h im m w , I soon beca e familiar ith his m features . First they see ed calm presently they grew contem plative ; and lastly beautiful ! those o f the m Graces the selves are less regular ,

m m . less har onious , less co posed h im Love glanced at unsteadily , with a countenance in which there wa s m w o f m w so e hat anxiety , so e hat o f disdain ; and cried ! Go away ! go away ! nothing that thou touch ! ’ ‘ ! ’ est , lives Say rather , child m a d replied the advancing for , and v a n c in w g gre loftier and statelier, I 6 e 4 Walter Savag Landor.

Say rather that n othing o f beauti ful o r of glorious lives its o w n true life until m y wing hath passed over ’ m it . Love pouted , and ru pled and w w bent do n , ith his foreﬁnger the f o n w sti f , short feathers his arro n o t head ; but replied . Although w w he fro ned orse than ever, and at h im me , I dreaded less and less , and ” scarcely looked toward him . Of criticism s and o f general r e ﬂe c m tions , ost of them upon literary Pe n ta m er o n topics , the has a de “ N O lightful profusion . advice is o u less necessary to y , Landor says , throu gh the thin disguise of Pe tr a r c h , than the advice to express m o u your eaning as clearly as y can . W here the purpose of glass is to be w e n o t w seen through , do ant it ”

o r w . r e a llv tinted avy Again , it is “ Landor wh o says ! E nter into the mind and heart o f your o wn o f e n creatures ; think them long,

1 66 e e Walt r Savag Landor. into the m outh of Petrarch ! Sys m o f o f o f te s poetry, philosophy , m m m govern ent , for and odel us to ” wn their o proportions . This fact r e c is e l wh a t is p y , Landor overlooks w m m hen he co es to exa ine Dante . He seem s to be oblivious of the t n o twith truth that the great poe , o m standing his unique , lofty , and n i r e se n t w a s p personality , an inte gral part of his a ge and its highest to expression , and that appreciate him in any true degree the i m agina tion must travel back to the Middle ’ Ages , to Dante s environment , through the doors of approach found o f m in the history popes and e perors , o f the Italian cities and o f scholas

tic ism . o n Landor, the contrary , studies Dante as an isolated phe n o m e n o n - as we have already had occasion to rem ark ; and partly fo r v this reason , reaches the ery debat able conclusion that in the whole o f ’ n 1 6 Lande r s Prose Writi gs . 7 the Infer no the only descriptions at all ad m irable are the episode o f so m Francesca, tenderly hu an as it m is , though at osphered by despair , “ and that o f ! golino . Vigorous m expressions there are any , but lost in their application to base objects and isolated thoughts in high relief, “ but with everything cru m bling m around the . Proportionately to o f the extent , there is a scantiness o r poetry , if delight be the purpose f w in dication o it . Intensity sho s everywhere the powerful m aster and yet intensity is not invitation . A great poet m a y do everything but E w repel us . stablished la s are pliant before h im ! nevertheless his ofﬁce ” hath both its duties and its limits . It is im possible to close this c o n verse with Petrarch and Boccaccio without transcribing the following w thoughts, hich , in their nobility , ’ are n o t unlike Cicero s meditations I6 8 Walte r Sav age Landon.

P upon friendship and o ld a ge . e tr a r c h says ! 0 Giovanni ! the heart that has once been bathed in love ’ s o f pure fountain , retains the pulse youth forever . Death can only take aw ay the sorrowful from our a ffe c ! w tions the ﬂo er expands , the color less ﬁ lm that enveloped it falls o ff ” ! and perishes . Boccaccio replies “ We m a y well believe it ! and b e

lieving it , let us cease to be dis quieted fo r their absence wh o have e m but retir d into another cha ber . We are like those wh o have over slept the hour ! when we rejoin o u r

friends , there is only the more joy we ance and congratulation . Would

break a precious vase , because it is as capable of containing th e bitter as the sweet ! No ! the very things which touch us the m ost sensibly are those which we should be the m ost m a n reluctant to forget . The noble sion is most distinguished by the

e 1 70 Wali er Savag Landor.

Greek, and at the same time Lan n o dorian reﬂections , such as other modern has ever succeeded in doing . m s a i e n er is w The volu e is g , and ill m m probably long re ain so oreover, ’ L a n d o r s unlike other compositions , no excisions could be m ade in it w ithout weakening the general effect . Of course the antiquary might discover anachronism s and historic inaccu racies ; but then his ’ e Sh a k s e a r e s interference h re, as in p m — a h plays , is often an i pertinence insistence upon the letter and a dis o i regard the spirit .

Moreover, the ideas being cast in o f w the form letters , bet een Peri cles and his wife and between her and her friends the objections involved in L a n d o r s conduct o f the dia ff w logue are of none e ect . It ould w be unnatural for letters , hich pre suppose decided intervals o i time w m bet een their co position , and ’ ’ L a r s e i i n 1 n a o Pros Wr t gs . 7 I

‘ ff w to di erent moods in the riters , maintain strict organic unity and m m sequence a ong the selves . That the replies are as spontaneous and

irregular as in life , introducing any passing i m pressions or ideas o f the correspondent and any incident o r conversation in which he happened

to take part , constitutes the central o f m o f w charm this for riting . The o f lack an elaborate plot or plan , which in other com positions would w be counted a eakness , is not so

here . The result tends rather to produce a satisfying sense o f beauti

ful and chaste reality . And as giving at least a faint idea - o f the ﬁ n ish and fascination o f these w o f letters , take the closing ords a m i ssw e w , ritten by Aspasia to her C d e sc r i young girl friend leone , p

tive of Alcibiades , then a youth

u h He is as beautiful , playful , and c e r ta l n as any half- tamed young tiger , feasted and caressed on the royal carpets of Persepolis ; not e v en ” w h im Aspasia ill ever quite subdue . ’ “ Then m ark Cleone s reply ! I shall m m never ore be in fear about you , y m Aspasia . Frolicso e and giddy as m e you once appeared to , at no time o f your life could Alcibiades have in f te r e ste d your a fections . You will be angry with m e when I declare to you that I do not believe you will ever w be in love . The reno n and genius of Pericles w o n your i m agination ~ his preference , his fondness , his con s ta n c w y, hold , and ill ever hold , your heart . The very beautiful rarely love at all . Those precious i m ages are placed above the reach o f the Passions ! Ti m e alone is per m itte d m m to efface the ; Ti e , the f tneir ather of the gods, and even m m consu er . Note the frank, fe i “ nine rejoinder o f Aspasia ! Angry ! ! yes , indeed , very angry am I but let me lay all my anger in th e righ t

’ I Wa lter e L a n a o r 74 Savag .

C a application , sayin g, leverly p ’ plied indeed ! Pericles enjoyed th e si m plicity o f Meton and the slyness ‘ a M ! of An xagoras , and said , eton o u r friend Anaxagoras is so m odest m a n w e a , that the least can do for h im is to ackno wledge his clai m s as m heir general to Hesiod . See the ’ I h registered . ave never observed the te m per of Pericles either above or below the enjoym ent of a joke he invites and retaliates , but never begins , lest he should appear to take m e n a liberty . There are proud of m m so uch delicacy, that it al ost conceals their pride , and perfectly ” m excuses it . This last senti ent Landor no doubt felt would apply to hi m self as w ell . As an exam ple of a different order o f thought , let us transcribe the part in g words o f Pericles when on his ‘ death - bed ! Alci biades ! I need n o t warn you against superstition ! it ’ ’ La n a o r s Prose Writi ngs . 1 75

m w never w a s a on g your eaknesses . Do not wonder at these am ulet s m above all , do not order the to be h m e . w o re ov d The kind old nurses , hav e been faithfully watchin g over m e day and night , are persuaded w m that these ill save y life . Super s titio n is rarely so kind - hearted ; w u w e henever she is , nable as are to reverence , let us at least respect her . After the good , patient crea m tures have found , as they ust soon , a ll their traditional charm s unavail i n w g , they ill surely grieve enough , and perhaps from so m e other m otive than their fallibility in science . In ﬂic t 0 ia w not , Alcib des , a fresh ound

th r o wm upon their grief , by g aside ff the tokens of their a ection . In hours like these we are the m ost f e indi fer nt to opinion , and greatly the m ost sensible to kindness The

m th e r states an , orator, the conquero , w the protector, had died a ay ; the ’ I 6 e a e L a n a or 7 Walt r S vag .

m m a n philosopher, the hu ane , yet w a s living alas ! fe w m o m m ents ore . ’ Som e o f La n d o r s most character istic utteranc es on the great subjects o f hu m an thought are to be found m w a ong these letters . Thus , vie ing m history , not fro the modern stand o f wh o point Vico and his successors , perceive within historic facts the unity of a progressively unfolding m idea , but fro the individualistic ! standpoint , Landor says The ﬁeld o f History should not be m erely well w tilled , but ell peopled . None is m e delightful to , or interesting, in which I ﬁnd not as m any illustrious nam es as have a right to enter it We m ight as w ell in a dram a place th e the actors behind scenes , and h listen to the dialogue t ere , as in a m e n history push valiant back , and protrude ourselves with husky d ispu ” “ ta tio n ! s . And again The busi

’ e e r I 78 Walt r Savag L a n a o .

ideas , and to count not upon the

future , let us quote these graceful “ words o f Cleone ! We have kept ! your birthday, Aspasia On these occasions I am reluctant to write P I k anything . oliteness , thin , and m w hu anity , should al ays check the precipitancy of con gratulation . No E body is felicitated on losing . ven the loss of a bracelet or tiara is dee m ed no subject for m erri m ent or w alertness in our friends and follo ers . Surely then the m arked and regis t e r e d loss of an irreparable year , the m loss of a li b of life , ought to excite ” m far other sensations . The i plica tions involved in these ideas are Hel leni e to the core . Indulging our passions and em otions within rational

bounds , and entertaining no vain regrets over the past and no foolish

fears concerning the future , let us seek to extract fro m the ﬂeeting w moment all the honey , hich , in the ’ ’ r s e i 1 L a n a o Pros Writ ngs. 79 w a y o f lawful sensation s and ideas that m om ent can afford . Such an e ae m id al is sthetic rather than oral . th e It is good , approached , if at all , throu gh the gateway of the beauti m ful . It is the being ade perfect by the love o f visible beauty and its keynote is personal nobility rather ’ w than devotion to one s fello s . Such ’ an ideal w a s L a n d o r s and never has it been m ore alluringly con veyed m than in his ost perfect production , ’ the Pe r icl es a na A spa sia .

D R’ P CE IN TE T E LA N O S LA LI RA ! R .

AFTE R the somewhat exhaustive treat m ent o f Landor as a m a n o f m o f letters, the deter ination his place m m in literature ust , in our esti ation , v m im ha e already been ade , at least lie d l w o f p y . To ard the close his m life , in a letter to Lord Brougha , “ Landor him self said ! I clai m no place in the world o f letters ; I a m w I and ill be alone , as long as live , ” r h e . n e v e t and after That he has , a w is less , place in the literary orld n o w undeniable , and that this place can be ﬁxed only by a co m parative m esti ate , is also true . Just as it is m o r fo r i possible , at least unnatural , 1 83 ’ I 84 Walter Savage L a n a o r

a man to exist alone , a cheerless soli tary ; so is it likewise out of the question for an author to waive or forbid co m parisons . Landor must therefore be tried by the sam e jury

- w as his fello w authors . And hat is the verdict ! That there are li m itations to his w genius it ere folly to deny . The m ost dam aging one consists in his o f lack spiritual insight . Words ’ worth s intuitional poetry wa s al ways m wh o w a s w an enig a to Landor, ont to f m a ﬁr , that , as the miner cannot delve far into the earth , so man cannot plunge into the abyss of speculative thought without directly reaching the void and formless , and cheating hi m self and others into the vain belief that nebulous rings , mere airy nothings , are habitable m worlds . Landor ight have been a o f student Kant , considering the w w accuracy ith hich , in a literary

’ I 6 e e L a n a o r 8 Walt r Savag .

m occasional obscurity , arising fro undue condensation and a lack of m tact and of sy pathy for the reader, and also barring the fact that his sentences a r e at ti m es too regular fo r exuberant life and reality , Lan ’ w dor s style is ﬂa less . It is charac t e r is tic and at the same tim e uni versal .

- m Passing to subject atter, one can ﬁnd no valid reason for supposing that Landor has not enduringly e n riched literature by the choi c est of

o f m his idyls , his scenes in dra atic m poetry , of his i aginary conversa m tions , reﬂective and dra atic , and by ’ P icles a n a A s a s ia e r . his p Moreover , o f s as the author eparate thoughts , which exhibit their extre m e d elicacy and beauty all the m ore clearly after they have been detached from their m o o r re less prosaic surroundings , Landor has a special call upon our o f admiration . With the exception ’ ’ r l i n Li te t e I L a n a o s P ace r a n r . 8 7

C a l oleridge , English literature is

’ m ost devoid o f really ﬁne pensee w — o u b e r tﬂ riters like Pascal and J , wh o , though they stand related to the philosopher as gardeners do to the geologist , and though they are m ore concerned about truths than truth l n its unity and at the same m m m ti e its ra ifying ultiplicity , yet m are sti ulating and suggestive , often m e inently so . And it is in this c a a c it w p y, as ell as in that of idyllist , am w m dr atic poet , riter of i aginary

conversations and letters, that Lan d o r m ust long m aintain a notable place in the m inds of thos e choice spirits wh o love beautiful conceptions and noble th o u gh ts b e a u tifu lly and nobly

expressed .

TH E H D W N S A O IN STO E .

H E a a n d s noon had p ssed, Athen l a y in light ;

n a - w The deepeni g, zure tinted sky dre l o w

Th e a a v wa s a v ult of he en the air cle r, so clear Tha t sha dows of yon ivy lea ves hung t here, a s w m a w a t Ag in t the all , ore real th n h they feign ed The steeper slopes m ade cav ern ous s a s a n d h de all, a v v w d S ing the oli e trees, hich looke afa r Like hoa ry clouds stirred b y a gen tle b reeze, wa s d st w m w dr ws All i inct, yet ar ith o y

life . I 2 A e n cl i x 9 ﬁp .

A n d drowsy wa s the m urm ur of th e b ees ’ a a n d w th e a In Myron s g rden , , ithin h ll , ’ L e ia a a yg , Myron s d ughter, sp ke in ton e s th e a ir v That plashed in sil ery ripples, spake Rh o ic o s a To , ever and anon t pping

H is a d m h a w W a h n to e p size her ord . h t wa s

She sa yin g ! Wh o c a n tell wh a t swa l lows ch irp ’ In spring ! The lov er s l a ngu a ge is a ton gue Known b u t to one wh o lo v es ; its c a d e n c e s Are those of brook or breeze or ocean wa v e .

a So there they sat, h nd linked in a a n d m h nd, s iled And pra ttled a t the sim ple bliss of it Rh o ic o s a n s a Till , c tchi g sight of h des th a t l a y Longer than four tall pill a r s whence c m they a e,

’ 1 A en a i x 94 ﬁp .

For h im wh o n o w should be husba n d a n d so n Together n o r wa s it pe r m itted h im r b a to tt a To jou ney ck rugged A ic , ’ W w t a s w a n o r hen in ry! bl ts ere r gi g e the

land , For it wa s whi spered in the a gora That Athen s m ean t to hum b le ha ughty Theb es And even then th e Atheni a n a r chons

looked, W a a b a ith eyes ask nce , upon The n

youth . And Myron longed to keep his d a u gh m ter ho e, w n m r to a dd One i ter o e, gl en his old eyes ; So he decla red Lyge ia wa s too young To see th e nuptial tor ch borne b l a zi n g

forth , And Rh o ic o s m ust awa it till vernal ﬂowers Strew b right the wa y from A thens forth

to Thebes .

H ence were they sorr owful . ’ Tne na a ozo i n e S Ston . 1 9 5

And a s they stepped w f a n d Upon the porch, hose rieze col u m n s tall ’ Were gra v ed by Myron s skilful ha n d Rh ic o s o , Tha t he m ight turn their speech in m wa s oother ys, x a m e — a r m a a m E cl i d , one g inst a arble a sh ft, The oth er stretched in front o f h im “’ T is well Fo r thee to b ide h ere wher e the fa r -o ff se a

w m m w a n d Flo s gli ering to ard the shore, ’ a s thou n e a r st

! o n - ff a sun bathed cli , to c tch the glancing sm ile

w t a se a - w Of aves, h t dash the eed, ochry

hued, ’ n w c T w w I to the hollo ed ro ks . ere s eet to trea d a w t Such p ths i h thee as guide . Bright Theb es c a n b oast Naught fairer tha n yon glim pse o f wa ve b d w a oun h rves, I 6 A en cl i x 9 ﬁﬁ .

Where husba ndm en h a v e ga rn er ed dues of oil

A n d a t w ! e a a - a n fr gran ine . , h rvest l de ﬁelds And softly swa ying cypresses a r e touched W m w h a n d is a ss n ith ello lig t, all p i g

fair .

i s w t v The sky s ep of every cloud, sa e

one, Th a t ﬂoa ts serene in yon va st azu r e

deep . A foolish cloud ! th e ﬂ a m ing ch ariot wh eel Of H elios will crush into thin a ir m t a n a a n a The is th t goes u gu rded d lone . L e ia t v r n yg , hou art such a i gi cloud And would a n ora cle m igh t stra ight a decl re,

a v - n w No gorgeous v por, sil er li ed, ill rise

w - b wh To seek this hite ro ed cloud, en I h a v e gone The dusky wa y from Athen s forth to Thebes !

— The sh a dow of h is for m with Cru m bling cha lk h a a m a a th e u t m T t gle ed g inst d ll , i e w a e wa e ther d ll . ’ No w Rh o ic o s w a a , , h t s y st thou of clouds with rim s ! a a m h a Of silver Sh ll I not d ire t is sh de, a m i m i t a s t su n Th t cs hee, orches do the a a t w t For, g zing this shado of hyself, I c a n com pa re m y sta ture with th ine o wn , C a n see h o w passing ta ll a n d b r ave thou art Nor wa s thy shadow quite so ta ll a s thou ! But look ! thine outline sta nds below the fr ieze Whereon Athene Pa rthenos conten ds ’ For su n n y Attica ga in st drea ded lor d ’ w - a d wa d o e r Of ind l she stes, Posei on ; thine h ea d t e m r A hen , y p otecting goddess, holds b r w v a n d An olive anch ith spiky lea es, sm iles ” Upon thee . ’ T e n n e 1 b Sna a ozv i Sto . 99

a Rh o ic o s a At these s llies l ughed, ’ And sa id Th ou sh ould st ha v e m a de my sh a dow bea m ’ Upon th e goddess fo r t wa s on h e r d a y h o d a a n d t v a r Of c ric nce fes i l , I ﬁ st a B eh eld thy f ce .

I had gone by tha t a ge When b oys choo se rather to pl a y ga m es with b oys Than ta m e th eir spor t to gi r li sh ta stes a n d soon r a m a v V s a m a s My d e s g e i ion of f ir id , their lock s Str ea m in g or ga r l a nded with h yacinth m r t w wh o b th And y le intert ined, li ely tripped With m e to gro v es i wh e r e che c kered sh a dows pl a y W e a m r wh hen , one cl r o n , ile Eos yet upsh ot ’ H e r burni shed a r r ows ga in st th e ﬂe e t in m g gloo , We r in t - I v x fo r n ose has e, e ed broke drea m s r n m a — we m h Of t ippi g ids, since ust reac tha t d a y The pillared heights of th e Acropoli s For o n the m orrow Ath ens held in pom p H e r choric da nce a n d sa cr e d festiv a l n e a n In reverence of Athe P rthe os . ’ T wa s on th at m orrow I b eheld you

ﬁrst . Am on gst th e white - robed m a ids wh o celeb ra te The glister in g goddess of th e wide a w rched bro , I sa w one form tha t sent m e to m y a m s dre , I though t it wa s A th e n é in di sguise A n d all th e jou r n ey hom e tha t fa ce would sta rt m v w s d a n d a Fro e ery ay i e bush, g ze at m e , A n d set m e longing for Athenian streets A n d sweet procession s of untroub led ” m a ids . r a a s And thus the love s t lked, lovers do, t m Of nothing save he selves .

Rh o ic o s t D Of O hou virgin eity, ’ May I n o t see m y lov er s form till suns Un num bered ﬂ a unt their str eam ers in the west ! Is this fond outline of h is vanished sha de The only sem bl a nce of his sh ape for m e a n a n d e m To g ze upo , gazing, dr a of ” h im !

w a wa s n Myron , ithin the h ll , polishi g A sta tue of that goddess wh o arose m v Refulgent fro the sil ery surge, and sm iles

v r t - a On lo e s, Aphrodi e, golden h ired ’ A n d w L e ia s r hen he heard yg p ayer, he m ca e, H is b e ar d by m a n y winter s fr osted w t hi e, ’ A n d m s ilingly he spake Child, I o er hea rd w Rh o ic o s wh n Thy ords to , e , in play,

thou saidst, That he wa s chan ged into a cloud with r im ’ Tae S a a ozv i n e 20 lt Ston . 3

v a n d w two - d Of sil er, , ithin full orbe m n s oo , Will turn this sil v er lin ing toward thin e ’ e ye sf At these stra nge words h is d a ughter m a v l m r e led uch .

’ Far other words cam e to Lyge ia s e a r — F u ll soon drea d words that se t her

pondering, Un til her lim bs grew trem ulous with

cold, ’ And stiﬂing fea r cl u tched at Lyge ia s soul ’ T wa s rum ored in the streets tha t A th ens m ea n t T o wa r w a n d a n d a ith Thebes, ever non , n w b a a n d A citize , ith re thless speech looks r h a a Inqui ing, sted to the gora, t r L e ia a To learn the lates wo d . yg fe red Rh o ic o s sh e r For , yet t ied to choke her

fear, ’ A n d n w t wa s te ded Myron s an s, as her

wa y. 2 A e i x 04 pp nd .

And then to r est her after da ily

cares, When n ight folded the l a nd in slum b er o u s sh a d e , She would stea l out to their cool west e r n h porc , wa e r And tch Selen ide, fulgent or

veiled, Thr ough skies pav en with ponderous

clouds, through skies Whose pa ths were lightest air ; then oft her dr eam s W r t d a w a n ould tu n to hat glad y, hen, h d a in h nd, Rh o ic o s a n d she m ight journey forth to Thebes And nuptial hym n s resound and torches ﬂare W r w hen , suddenly, a blighting fea ould chill ’ L e ia s w u n a n d yg soul , and she o ld tur , n sca , W t e m i h troubled eyes, the outlin d for of h im

n ! She lo ged for.

Ay m ara .

m b u t a No ore, lie all b thed in cold m o n h o lig t, s t a a w w a Or unk in S ygi n sh do , hen

cloud, r a wa r sk b s r th e Scur ying th t the y, o cu es m oon . w b n th e The ind is sobbing, so bi g, in tr ees ; A n d v a a a f e er and non , a f ded le w a r Is blo n upon bu nished shield, and dim s n Its bright ess .

G lorious little Theb a n b a n d Like heroes h a ve ye fought again st foul odds wa s v s Nor there one poor, cra en oul tha t turn ed Hi u s b ack pon the foe . By your proud n a m es, Will Theb a n fa thers call their lith e lim bed sons m ta a And others, king on their l ps their b oys, W S o f t ill tell the tory your for itude, ’ i n e Tne Sna a ozo Ston . 20 7

Nor will they fa il to spea k of h im wh o

stood , a a a s Rh o ic o s St unch le der of the r nk , b a v the r e .

With lordly wa v ing plum e and b row e a l te , The Ath enia ns enter n o w their city wa lls ; A n d a ll the streets a r e clam orous with a m cclai . wa r w a m o ff The elder riors thro their r or , G la d to r ea ch h om e on ce m ore th e m e n younger , c a a v b a a Ea h cl d in gre es and re stpl te, hasten forth To se ek the tim id smiles of those th ey v lo e . ’ And as the m ai dens c a tch th e l r heroes a d tre , a a a s a n d b E ch he rt be t quick, lushes m o co e and g .

t L eia l a Alone, disconsola e, yg y Upon her couch a n d endlessly o n e wa il 2 A e i x 08 pp nd .

K ept throbbing, throbbing through her — n o m soul, ore h im w m v m To see ho she lo ed, no ore, no m ore N o t ev en m igh t sheha ngh i s den ted shield th e wa a n d s a its t a Upon ll , c n rus ing f ce .

A n d a s L e ia l a a yg y there desol te, Old Myron called h e r to the wester n r po ch, Whereon th e m oonbeam s fell r e spl en d e n tl y, A n d spake in m ourn ful yet trium pha nt ton e m w a in h a d Behold , y child, h t I jest ” wrought !

e m sh e x wa s Th re, otionless, stood, ﬁ ed h e r ga ze

ta v - a nd r Upon a s tue, sil er sheened la ge, a a — a h im Of purest P ri n stone, st tue of — v a r m a a a m a She lo ed, one g inst rble

shaft, s in h im The other tretched front of , the head