Tải bản đầy đủ - 0 (trang)
b) By Alfred, Lord Tennyson, c. 1874–80:

b) By Alfred, Lord Tennyson, c. 1874–80:

Tải bản đầy đủ - 0trang



Charles Cowden Clarke on Rochester


Extract from ‘On the Comic Writers of England’, the Gentleman’s Magazine (November 1871), N.S. vii.


Charles Cowden Clarke 1787–1877 was a friend of Keats, Lamb, Leigh Hunt, Hazlitt and, later,

Dickens. He was a prolific writer and is perhaps best remembered now for his contribution to Shakespeare


One essay in this series having been devoted to the illustrious author of Hudibras, I pass (with this simple reference) to

his eminent contemporary, the witty Lord Rochester.

When some miserable wretch lies charged with an atrocious crime, there is no lack of daily agents to supply the

gaping multitude with tales of enormity imputed to his charge, the greater part being pure fictions. This was the fortune

of Lord Rochester, who was by nature one of the most brilliant, as he was by practice the most perilously licentious,

wit of his age. In the collected editions of his poems—or poems attributed to him—a large proportion of them are so

unworthy of his talent that it were unbelievable he could have so written below himself. The man had quite enough to

answer for on the score of moral delinquency without having stupidity as well as indecency heaped upon his memory.

But, indeed, the amount of natural ability that he possessed, and the proofs of it adduced by the testimony of the best

judges (his contemporaries), justified his candidature to a niche with the satirists. He was evidently a spoiled child of the

Court at the Restoration; for upon his early introduction to that world of ribaldry, he is said to have been remarkable

for the modesty of his demeanour, even to a tendency to blush, when distinguished in company. His ‘virgin modesty’,

however, soon became case-hardened in the Court furnace, and strange indeed was the course he ran.

With an inborn talent for shedding a lustre over the horizon of the gayest and most intellectual circles, he did not decline

hazarding his person in the rudest warfare. He was a volunteer in the great Dutch fight under Albemarle; and was

afterwards in the desperate affair at Berghem. Nothing but excess of excitement, and of triumph in everything he

undertook, seemed to content him.

Rochester also inherited from nature a noble generosity of disposition, an invariable affability of demeanour, and a

repugnance to all meanness in whatever station he found it; which he vented upon prince or commoner in a strain of

invective as surprising for its intrepidity as in its diction it was copious and forcible. Marvell, who was no feeble or

partial judge, and was himself a keen satirist, used to say that ‘Rochester was the only man in England who had the true

vein of satire.’1 It is to be presumed that Marvell would consider Butler as a ‘star dwelling so far apart’ that with him no

comparison could be instituted. Bishop Burnett also, when speaking of Rochester, says that he defended his personal


Lines 12–28 of A Satire against Mankind are quoted here.



sallies against public characters by saying that ‘there were some people who could not be kept in order, or admonished,

but in that way.’ It has been said that ‘some brains will yield to an appeal, others only to a crow-bar.’

Before his last illness Rochester began to alter his way of life, and to inform himself of public business, and especially

of the constitution of his country. He spoke at times in the House of Peers with general approbation; and there is little

doubt that, with his uncommon powers of understanding, he would have become as celebrated for his acuteness in civil

policy as he had already been the admiration of the literary community for the remarkable fluency as well as versatility of

his wit and fancy. His reform, however, commenced too late; and, like other wits of the same era, he seemed to have

lived, as it were, in an atmosphere of hydro-oxygen, kindling the vital spark to an intensity of splendour, and thereby

anticipating its natural resources. Worn out with intemperance, he died in the bosom of Mother Church, at the early

age of thirty-three.

One branch of Rochester’s talent consisted in the most successful mimicry. When he was banished from the Court,

for some personal libel on the Duke of York (James II), whom he pursued with implacable hatred, and when he was, in

fact, playing at hide-and-seek with the civil powers, he upon one occasion turned mountebank, and harangued the

populace upon Tower Hill in a strain of extraordinary cleverness, acting his part of the quack with such truth that even

those who were in his secret could perceive nothing by which he might be betrayed.

Rochester’s satires are by no means to be indiscriminately instanced; and the keenest are the least tolerable anywhere.

Here are four lines from his Satire on the Times,1 quoted solely to give an idea of the rough and bold speaking of that age,

when even the highest persons in the State became the objects of a lynch-law vituperation. In the reign of Charles II

licence of speech and licentiousness of morals appear to have struggled for a bad pre-eminence—each a natural

consequence of the other; and the consequence was as fortunate as natural; for, like the Kilkenny cats, they devoured

each other. This is the passage of personality alluded to; it is an attack upon the same Duke of York, who was Lord High

Admiral. Its coarse insolence forms its distinguishing feature: —

This is the man whose vice each satire feeds;

And for whom no one virtue intercedes:

Destin’d for England’s plague from infant time;

Curs’d with a person fouler than his crime.

Rochester’s poem on Nothing has been justly celebrated for its wit and originality; indeed, it comprises more novelty of

thought and satirical point than any of his poems. Every stanza contains an epigram; and each is relieved by a grave or

playful allusion to the subject, and its term, Nothing. Here is a grave stanza, which seems almost like irony as coming

from so ribald a pen: but Rochester was a ribald from example and contamination, not from nature and principle. He

thus writes on Nothing: —

Yet this of thee the wise may truly say:

Thou from the virtuous Nothing tak’st away;

And to be part of thee the wicked wisely pray.

The next stanza contains a playful sarcasm: —


Quoted by John Aubrey (No. 29).


Now rejected from the Rochester canon.



Whilst weighty Something modestly abstains

From princes’ coffers, and from statesmen’s brains;

And Nothing there like stately Nothing reigns.

And here is the summary and conclusion of the poem: —

French truth, Dutch prowess, British policy,

Hibernian learning, Scotch civility,

Spaniards’ despatch, Danes’ wit, are mainly seen in thee!

As an instance that Rochester knew the better course of religious principles, although he was swayed by the evil, an

anecdote is told of one of the Bishops at Court relating, in his hearing, to King Charles, the increase and popularity of

Baxter the Nonconformist divine’s preaching; adding, ‘I went down, your Majesty, into his neighbourhood, and

preached myself; and yet, my congregation was very small, while Baxter’s was too numerous for the church.’ Rochester

quickly replied, ‘Your Majesty can be at no loss to recognise the cause of my lord Bishop’s non-success in his mission;

since his lordship confesses to your Majesty that he went to “preach himself;” now Baxter preached no one but his

Master.’ The playfulness of the retort harmonises with the feeling which dictated it.



Henry Morley is contemptuous


A First Sketch of English Literature (1873), p. 667.

This ‘sketch of English Literature’ by the Professor of English at London University went through

numerous editions and reprints between the first edition in 1873 and the end of the century.

In 1680 Burnet wrote an account of the penitent close of the dissolute life of John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, one of the

court wits who trifled in verse, and whose best piece of verse is upon Nothing.

A courtier and poet of much higher mark was Wentworth Dillon, Earl of Roscommon.



Edmund Gosse on Rochester


From the introduction to a selection of Rochester’s poems in The Seventeenth Century (1880), pp. 424–5.

This is a volume in the collection The English Poets, ed. T.H.Ward.

Sir Edmund Gosse (1849–1928), was a distinguished scholar and critic. The selection of Rochester’s

poetry in the anthology consists of six of the songs (including the spurious ‘I cannot change as others do’ —

probably by Carr Scroope) and an epigram on Charles II.

By a strange and melancholy paradox the finest lyrical poet of the Restoration was also its worst-natured man. Infamous

in a lax age for his debaucheries, the Earl of Rochester was unfaithful as a subject, shifting and treacherous as a friend,

and untrustworthy as a man of honour. His habitual drunkenness may be taken perhaps as an excuse for the physical

cowardice for which he was notorious, and his early decline in bodily strength as the cause of his extreme bitterness of

tongue and savage malice. So sullen was his humour, so cruel his pursuit of sensual pleasure, that this figure seems to

pass through the social history of his time, like that of a veritable devil. Yet there were points at which the character of

this unfortunate and abandoned person was not wholly vile. Within our own age his letters to his wife have surprised

the world by their tenderness and quiet domestic humour, and, above all, the finest of his songs reveal a sweetness and

purity of feeling for which the legends of his life are very far from preparing us.

The volumes which continued to be reprinted for nearly a century under the title of Rochester’s Poems form a kind

of ‘Parnasse Satyrique’ into which a modern reader can scarcely venture to dip. Of this notorious collection a large part

was spurious; the offensive matter that had to be removed from the writings of Dorset, Buckinghamshire, Butler, and

other less famous profligate poets, found an asylum under the infamy of the name of Rochester. But readers who are

fortunate enough to secure the volume edited by the dead poet’s friends in 1691 will find no more indiscretions than are

familiar in all poetry of the Restoration, and will discover, what they will not find elsewhere, the exquisite lyrics on

which the fame of Rochester should rest. His satires, as trenchant and vigorous as they are foul, are not included in this

edition; he uses the English language in them as Poggio and Filelfo1 had used Latin. As a dramatist he is only known by his

adaptation, or travesty, of Fletcher’s tragedy of Valentinian; of which the sole point of interest is that he omitted all

Fletcher’s exquisite songs, including the unequalled ‘Hear ye ladies that despise,’ and introduced a very good song of his

own, the latter as characteristically of the Restoration as the former were Elizabethan.

With Rochester the power of writing songs died in England until the age of Blake and Burns. He was the last of the

cavalier lyrists, and in some respects the best. In the qualities that a song demands, simplicity, brevity, pathos and

tenderness, he arrives nearer to pure excellence than any one between Carew and Burns. His style is without

adornment, and, save in this one matter of song-writing, he is weighed down by the dryness and inefficiency of his age.

But by the side of Sedley or of Congreve he seems as fresh as by the side of Dryden he seems light and flowing, turning

his trill of song brightly and sweetly, with the consummate artlessness of true art. Occasionally, as in the piece, not

quoted here, called The Mistress, he is surprisingly like Donne in the quaint force and ingenuity of his images. But the fact



is that the muse of Rochester resembles nothing so much as a beautiful child which has wantonly rolled itself in the

mud, and which has grown so dirty that the ordinary wayfarer would rather pass it hurriedly by, than do justice to its

native charms.


Two early fifteenth-century Italian humanist poets.


Article in the Encyclopaedia Britannica


The first edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (Edinburgh, 1771) has no entry on Rochester. Thereafter

notices are largely biographical. The comments on the poetry in the third and fourth editions (1797,

1810), for instance, are confined to quoting Walpole’s disapproval. The extract from the ninth edition is

exceptional. Later editions revert to a largely biographical interest.

Extract from the ninth edition:

Rochester was one of the unworthies of the ‘merry monarch, scandalous and poor’

Who never said a foolish thing

Nor ever did a wise one.

Rochester is the author of both of these imperishable descriptions of Charles II, and by them and his poem Upon Nothing

and his death bed conversation with Bishop Burnet is now chiefly known. His poetry has hardly had a fair chance against

that of his contemporaries, for owing to his scandalous character, which was probably worse than the time only in

respect of his ostentatious defiance of proprieties, all kinds of indecencies were fathered upon him and inserted in

unauthorized editions of his works. This has ensured his exclusion from decent libraries, an edition issued in 1691 by

friends careful of his memory having been pushed out of sight by the more piquant publications. [Comment on his

character omitted.] Some of his lyrics are very pretty, full of ingenious fancy and musical rhythm, but wit and intellect

are more marked in his writing than the free flow of lyrical sentiment. For wit, versatility and intense vitality of

intellect this strangely wasted life stood high above the level of the age.


Tài liệu bạn tìm kiếm đã sẵn sàng tải về

b) By Alfred, Lord Tennyson, c. 1874–80:

Tải bản đầy đủ ngay(0 tr)