Читать книгу Lucasta - Richard Lovelace - Страница 7

Table of Contents

With the exception of Sir Egerton Brydges, who contributed to the GENTLEMAN'S MAGAZINE for 1791-2 a series of articles on the life and writings of the subject of the present memoir, all the biographers of Richard Lovelace have contented themselves with following the account left by Anthony Wood of his short and unhappy career. I do not think that I can do better than commence, at least, by giving word for word the narrative of Wood in his own language, to which I purpose to add such additional particulars in the form of notes or otherwise, as I may be able to supply. But the reader must not expect much that is new: for I regret to say that, after the most careful researches, I have not improved, to any large extent, the state of knowledge respecting this elegant poet and unfortunate man.

"Richard Lovelace," writes Wood, "the eldest son of Sir William Lovelace<2.1> of Woollidge in Kent, knight, was born in that country [in 1618], educated in grammar learning in Charterhouse<2.2> School near London, became a gent. commoner of Gloucester Hall in the beginning of the year 1634,<2.3> and in that of his age sixteen, being then accounted the most amiable and beautiful person that ever eye beheld; a person also of innate modesty, virtue, and courtly deportment, which made him then, but especially after, when he retired to the great city, much admired and adored by the female sex. In 1636, when the king and queen were for some days entertained at Oxon, he was, at the request of a great lady belonging to the queen, made to the Archbishop of Canterbury [Laud], then Chancellor of the University, actually created, among other persons of quality, Master of Arts, though but of two years' standing; at which time his conversation being made public, and consequently his ingenuity and generous soul discovered, he became as much admired by the male, as before by the female, sex. After he had left the University, he retired in great splendour to the court, and being taken into the favour of Lord George Goring, afterwards Earl of Norwich, was by him adopted a soldier, and sent in the quality of an ensign, in the Scotch expedition, an. 1639. Afterwards, in the second expedition, he was commissionated a captain in the same regiment, and in that time wrote a tragedy called THE SOLDIER, but never acted, because the stage was soon after suppressed. After the pacification of Berwick, he retired to his native country, and took possession [of his estate] at Lovelace Place, in the parish of Bethersden,<2.4> at Canterbury, Chart, Halden, &c., worth, at least, <pounds>500 per annum. About which time he [being then on the commission of the peace] was made choice of by the whole body of the county of Kent at an assize, to deliver the Kentish petition<2.5> to the House of Commons, for the restoring the king to his rights, and for settling the government, &c. For which piece of service he was committed [April 30, 1642] to the Gatehouse at Westminster,<2.6> where he made that celebrated song called, STONE WALLS DO NOT A PRISON MAKE, &c. After three or four months' [six or seven weeks'] imprisonment, he had his liberty upon bail of <pounds>40,000 [<pounds>4000?] not to stir out of the lines of communication without a pass from the speaker. During the time of this confinement to London, he lived beyond the income of his estate, either to keep up the credit and reputation of the king's cause by furnishing men with horses and arms, or by relieving ingenious men in want, whether scholars, musicians, soldiers, &c. Also, by furnishing his two brothers, Colonel Franc. Lovelace, and Captain William Lovelace (afterwards slain at Caermarthen)<2.7> with men and money for the king's cause, and his other brother, called Dudley Posthumus Lovelace, with moneys for his maintenance in Holland, to study tactics and fortification in that school of war. After the rendition of Oxford garrison, in 1646, he formed a regiment for the service of the French king, was colonel of it, and wounded at Dunkirk;<2.8> and in 1648, returning into England, he, with Dudley Posthumus before mentioned, then a captain under him, were both committed prisoners to Peter House,<2.9> in London, where he framed his poems for the press, entitled, LUCASTA: EPODES, ODES, SONNETS, SONGS, &c., Lond. 1649, Oct. The reason why he gave that title was because, some time before, he had made his amours to a gentlewoman of great beauty and fortune, named Lucy Sacheverell, whom he usually called LUX CASTA; but she, upon a stray report that Lovelace was dead of his wound received at Dunkirk, soon after married.<2.10> He also wrote ARAMANTHA [Amarantha], A PASTORAL, printed with LUCASTA.<2.11> Afterwards a musical composition of two parts was set to part of it by Henry Lawes,<2.12> sometimes servant to king Charles I., in his public and private music.

"After the murther of king Charles I. Lovelace was set at liberty, and, having by that time consumed all his estate,<2.13> grew very melancholy (which brought him at length into a consumption), became very poor in body and purse, was the object of charity, went in ragged cloaths (whereas when he was in his glory he wore cloth of gold and silver), and mostly lodged in obscure and dirty places, more befitting the worst of beggars and poorest of servants, &c. After his death his brother Dudley, before mentioned, made a collection of his poetical papers, fitted them for the press, and entitled them LUCASTA: POSTHUME POEMS, Lond. 1659,<2.14> Oct., the second part, with his picture before them.<2.15> These are all the things that he hath extant; those that were never published were his tragedy, called THE SOLDIER or SOLDIERS, before mentioned; and his comedy, called THE SCHOLAR,<2.16> which he composed at sixteen years of age, when he came first to Gloucester hall, acted with applause afterwards in Salisbury Court. He died in a very mean lodging in Gunpowder Alley,<2.17> near Shoe Lane,<2.18> and was buried at the west-end of the church of S. Bride, alias Bridget, in London, near to the body of his kinsman Will. Lovelace, of Gray's Inn, Esq., in sixteen hundred fifty and eight,<2.19> having before been accounted by all those that well knew him to have been a person well versed in the Greek<2.20> and Latin<2.21> poets, in music, whether practical or theoretical, instrumental or vocal, and in other things befitting a gentleman. Some of the said persons have also added, in my hearing, that his common discourse was not only significant and witty, but incomparably graceful, which drew respect from all men and women. Many other things I could now say of him, relating either to his most generous mind in his prosperity, or dejected estate in his worst state of poverty, but for brevity's sake I shall now pass them by. At the end of his Posthume Poems are several elegies written on him by eminent poets of that time, wherein you may see his just character."

Such is Wood's account; it is to be regretted that that writer did not supply the additional information, which he tantalizes us by saying that he possessed, and could have published, had he not been afraid of being tedious. His love of brevity is, in this case, most provoking.

As might be expected, the Journals of Parliament cast additional light on the personal connexion of Lovelace with the Kentish Petition of 1642, which was for the GENERAL redress of existing grievances, not, as the editor of the VERNEY PAPERS seems to have considered, merely for the adjustment of certain points relative to the Militia. Parliamentary literature has not a very strong fascination for the editors of old authors, and the biographers of Lovelace have uniformly overlooked the mine of information which lies in the LORDS' AND COMMONS' JOURNALS. The subject was apparently introduced, for the first time, into Parliament on the 28th March, 1642, when a conference of both Houses took place, respecting "a petition from Kent, which, praying for a Restoration of the Bishops, Liturgy and Common Prayer, and other constitutional measures, was voted seditious and against privilege and the peace of the kingdom;" on the same occasion, Lord Bristol and Mr. Justice Mallett were committed to the Tower for having in their possession a copy of the document. On the 7th April it was ordered by both Houses, that the Kentish Petition should be burned by the hands of the common hangman.

On the 28th April, the Commons acquainted the Upper House, by Mr. Oliver Cromwell, "that a great meeting was to be held next day on Blackheath, to back the rejected Kentish Petition."<2.22>

Two days later, a strange scene occurred at Westminster.

Let the Commons' Journals tell the story in their own language:—

"30 April, 1642. The House being informed that divers gentlemen of the county of Kent were at the door, that desired to present a petition to the House;

"They were called in, presented their Petition, and withdrew.

"And their Petition was read, and appeared to be the same that was formerly burnt, by order of both Houses, by the hands of the common hangman. Captain LEIGH reports that, being at the Quarter Sessions held at MAIDSTONE, he observed certain passages which he delivered in writing.

"Captain Lovelace, who presented the Petition, was called in; and Mr. Speaker was commanded to ask him, from whose hand he had this Petition, and who gave him warrant to present it.

"'Mr. GEO. CHUTE delivered him [he replied] the Petition the next day after the Assizes.'

"'The gentlemen [he continued], that were assembled at BLACKHEATH, commanded him to deliver it.'

"[The Speaker then inquired] whether he knew that the like was burnt by the order of this House, and that some were here questioned for the business.

"'He understood a general rumour, that some gentlemen were questioned.

"'He had heard a fortnight since, that the like Petition was burned by the hand of the common hangman.

"'He knew nothing of the bundle of printed petitions.'

"He likewise said, 'that there was a petition at the Quarter

Sessions, disavowed by all the Justices there, which he tore.'

"Sir William Boteler was likewise called in, [and] asked when he was at Yorke.

"[He] answered, 'On Wednesday last was sevennight, he came from

Yorke, and came to his house in London.

"'He heard of a petition that was never delivered.

"'He never heard of any censure of the Parliament.

"'He heard that a paper was burnt for being irregularly burnt [?presented].

"'He had heard that the Petition, that went under the name of the Kentish Petition, was burnt by the hands of the common hangman.

"'He never heard of any order of either, [or] of both, the Houses concerning [the Petition].

"'He was at Hull on Thursday or Friday was a sevennight: as he came from Yorke, he took Hull in the way. He had heard, that Sir Roger Twisden was questioned for the like Petition.

"'He was yesterday at BLACKHEATH.'

"Resolved, upon the question, that Captain Lovelace shall be presently Committed prisoner to the Gatehouse.

"Resolved, upon the question, that Sir William Boteler shall be presently committed prisoner to the Fleet.

"Ordered, that the sergeant shall apprehend them, and carry them in safe custody, and deliver them as prisoners to the several prisons aforesaid."

On the 4th May, 1642, the House of Commons ordered Mr. Whittlock and others to prepare a charge against Mr. Lovelace and Sir William Boteler with all expedition; but nothing further is heard of the matter till the 17th June, When Lovelace<2.23> and Boteler petitioned the House separately for their release from custody. Hereupon Sir William was discharged on finding personal bail to the extent of <pounds>10,000, with a surety for <pounds>5000; and in the case of his companion in misfortune it was ordered, on the question, that "he be forthwith bailed upon GOOD security." This "good security," surely, did not reach the sum mentioned by Wood, namely, <pounds>40,000; but it is likely that the author of the ATHENAE is ONLY wrong by a cypher, and that the amount fixed was <pounds>4000, as it has been already suggested. Thus Lovelace's confinement did not exceed seven weeks in duration, and the probability, is that the sole inconvenience, which he subsequently experienced, was the loss of the bail.

The description left by Wood and Aubrey of the end of Lovelace can only be reconciled with the fact, that his daughter and heiress conveyed Kingsdown, Hever,<2.24> and a moiety of Chipsted, to the Cokes by marriage with Mr. Henry Coke, by presuming that those manors were entailed; while Lovelace Place, as well perhaps as Bayford and Goodneston, not being similarly secured, were sold to defray the owner's incumbrances. At any rate it is not, upon the whole, very probable that he died in a hovel, in a state of absolute poverty;<2.25> that he received a pound a week (equal to about <pounds>4 of our money) from two friends, Cotton and another, Aubrey himself admits; and we may rest satisfied that, however painful the contrast may have been between the opening and close of that career, the deplorable account given in the ATHENAE, and in the so-called LIVES OF EMINENT MEN, is much exaggerated and overdrawn.

It has not hitherto been remarked, that among the Kentish gentry who, from time to time, elected to change the nature of their tenure from gavelkind to primogeniture, were the Lovelaces themselves, in the person of Thomas Lovelace,<2.26> who, by Act of Parliament 2 and 3 Edw. VI. obtained, concurrently with several other families, the power of conversion. This Thomas Lovelace was not improbably the same, who was admitted a student of Gray's Inn in 1541; and that he was of the Kentish Lovelaces there is not much reason to doubt; although, at the same time, I am unable to fix the precise degree of consanguinity between him and Serjeant William Lovelace of Gray's Inn, who died in 1576, and who was great-grandfather to the author of LUCASTA. The circumstance that the real property of Thomas Lovelace aforesaid, situated in Kent, was released by Act of Parliament, 2 and 3 Edw. VI. from the operations of gavelkind tenure (assuming, as is most likely to have been the case, that he was of the same stock as the poet, though not an immediate ancestor,) seems to explain the following allusion by Dudley Lovelace in the verses prefixed by him to LUCASTA, 1649:—

"Those by the landed have been writ,

Mine's but a younger-brother wit."

As well as the subjoined lines by Lovelace in the poem entitled,

"To Lucasta, from Prison," (see p. 44 of present edition):—

"Next would I court my LIBERTY,

And then my birthright, PROPERTY."

There is evidence to prove that Lovelace was on intimate terms with some of the wits of his time, and that he had friendly relations with many of them—such as Hall, Rawlins, Lenton, and particularly the Cottons. John Tatham, the City Poet, and author of THE FANCIES THEATER, 1640, knew him well, and addressed to him some stanzas, not devoid of merit, during his stay abroad. In 1643, Henry Glapthorne, a celebrated dramatist and poet of the same age, dedicated to Lovelace his poem of WHITEHALL, printed in that year in a quarto pamphlet, with elegies on the Earls of Bedford and Manchester.<2.27> The pages of LUCASTA bear testimony to the acquaintance of the author with Anthony Hodges of New College, Oxford, translator of CLITOPHON AND LEUCIPPE from the Greek of Achilles Tatius (or rather probably from a Latin version of the original), and with other<2.28> members of the University.<2.29>

Although it is stated by Wood that LUCASTA was prepared for the press by Lovelace himself, on his return from the Continent in 1648, it is impossible to believe that any care was bestowed on the correction of the text, or on the arrangement of the various pieces which compose the volume: nor did his brother Dudley Posthumus, who edited the second part of the book in 1659, perform his task in any degree better. In both instances, the printer seems to have been suffered to do the work in his own way, and very infamously he has done it. To supply all the short-comings of the author and his literary executor at this distance of time, is, unfortunately, out of the power of any editor; but in the present republication I have taken the liberty of rearranging the poems, to a certain extent in the order in which it may be conjectured that they were written; and where Lovelace contributed commendatory verses to other works, either before or after the appearance of the first portion of LUCASTA, the two texts have been collated, and improved readings been occasionally obtained.

The few poems, on which the fame of Lovelace may be said to rest, are emanations not only of the stirring period in which he lived, but of the peculiar circumstances into which he was thrown at different epochs of his life. Lovelace had not the melodious and exquisite taste of Herrick, the wit of Suckling, or the power of Randolph (so often second only to his master Jonson). Mr. Singer has praised the exuberant fancy of Lovelace; but, in my thinking, Lovelace was inferior in fancy, as well as in grace, both to Carew and the author of HESPERIDES. Yet Lovelace has left behind him one or two things, which I doubt if any of those writers could have produced, and which our greatest poets would not have been ashamed to own. Winstanley was so far right in instituting a comparison between Lovelace and Sydney, that it is hard to name any one in the entire circle of early English literature except Sydney and Wither, who could have attempted, with any chance of success, the SONG TO ALTHEA FROM PRISON; and how differently Sydney at least would have handled it! We know what Herrick would have made of it; it would have furnished the theme for one more invocation to Julia. From Suckling we should have had a bantering playfulness, or a fescennine gaiety, equally unsuited to the subject. Waller had once an opportunity of realizing the position, which has been described by his contemporary in immortal stanzas; but Waller, when he was under confinement, was thinking too much of his neck to write verses with much felicity, and preferred waiting, till he got back to Beaconsfield (when his inspiration had evaporated), to pour out his feelings to Lady Dorothy or Lady Sophia. Wither's song, "Shall I wasting in Despair," is certainly superior to the SONG TO ALTHEA. Wither was frequently equal to Lovelace in poetical imagery and sentiment, and he far excelled him in versification. The versification of Lovelace is indeed more rugged and unmusical than that of any other writer of the period, and this blemish is so conspicuous throughout LUCASTA, and is noticeable in so many cases, where it might have been avoided with very little trouble, that we are naturally led to the inference that Lovelace, in writing, accepted from indolence or haste, the first word which happened to occur to his mind. Daniel, Drayton, and others were, it is well known, indefatigable revisers of their poems; they "added and altered many times," mostly for the better, occasionally for the worse. We can scarcely picture to ourselves Lovelace blotting a line, though it would have been well for his reputation, if he had blotted many.

In the poem of the LOOSE SARABAND (p. 34) there is some resemblance to a piece translated from Meleager in Elton's SPECIMENS OF CLASSIC POETS, i. 411, and entitled by Elton "Playing at Hearts."

"Love acts the tennis-player's part,

And throws to thee my panting heart;

Heliodora! ere it fall,

Let desire catch swift the ball:

Let her in the ball-court move,

Follow in the game with love.

If thou throw me back again,

I shall of foul play complain."

And an address to the Cicada by the same writer, (IBID. i. 415) opens with these lines:—

"Oh, shrill-voiced insect that, with dew-drops sweet

Inebriate, dost in desert woodlands sing."

In the poem called "The Grasshopper" (p. 94), the author speaks of the insect as

"Drunk ev'ry night with a delicious tear,

Dropped thee from heaven."——

The similarity, in each case, I believe to have been entirely accidental: nor am I disposed to think that Lovelace was under any considerable or direct obligations to the classics. I have taken occasion to remark that Lovelace seems to have helped to furnish a model to Cleveland, who carried to an extraordinary length that fondness for words and figures derived from the alchymist's vocabulary; but as regards the author of LUCASTA himself, it may be asserted that there are few writers whose productions exhibit less of book-lore than his, and even in those places, where he has employed phrases or images similar to some found in Peele, Middleton, Herrick, and others, there is great room to question, whether the circumstance can be treated as amounting to more than a curious coincidence.

The Master of Dulwich College has obligingly informed me, that the picture of ALTHEA, as well as that of Lovelace himself, bequeathed by Cartwright the actor to Dulwich College in 1687, bears no clue to date of composition, or to the artist's name, and that it does not assist in the identification of the lady. This is the more vexatious, inasmuch as it seems probable that ALTHEA, whoever she was, became the poet's wife, after LUCASTA'S marriage to another. The CHLOES, &c. mentioned in the following pages were merely more or less intimate acquaintances of Lovelace, like the ELECTRA, PERILLA, CORINNA, &c. of Herrick. But at the same time an obscurity has hitherto hung over some of the persons mentioned under fictitious names in the poems of Lovelace, which a little research and trouble would have easily removed. For instance, no one who reads "Amarantha, a Pastoral," doubts that LUCASTA and AMARANTHA are one and the same person. ALEXIS is Lovelace himself. ELLINDA is a female friend of the poet, who occasionally stayed at her house, and on one occasion (p. 79) had a serious illness there. ELLINDA marries AMYNTOR, under which disguise, I suspect, lurks the well known Maecenas of his time, Endymion Porter. If Porter be AMYNTOR, of course ELLINDA must be the Lady Olivia Porter, his wife. ARIGO (see the poem of AMYNTOR'S GROVE) signifies Porter's friend, Henry Jermyn. It may be as well to add that the LETTICE mentioned at p. 121, was the Lady Lettice Goring, wife of Lovelace's friend, and third daughter of Richard Boyle, first Earl of Cork. This lady died before her husband, to whom she brought no issue.

The following lines are prefixed to FONS LACHRYMARUM, &c. by John Quarles, 1648, 8vo., and are subscribed, as will be seen, R. L.; they may be from the pen of Lovelace; but, if so, it is strange that they were not admitted, with other productions of a similar character, into the volume published by the poet himself in 1649, or into that edited by his brother in 1659.