APPENDIX III
[Vide ante p. [237].]
APOLOGETIC PREFACE TO 'FIRE, FAMINE,
AND SLAUGHTER'[1097:1]
At the house of a gentleman[1097:2] who by the principles and
corresponding virtues of a sincere Christian consecrates a
cultivated genius and the favourable accidents of birth, opulence,
and splendid connexions, it was my good fortune to meet, in
a dinner-party, with more men of celebrity in science or polite 5
literature than are commonly found collected round the same
table. In the course of conversation, one of the party reminded
an illustrious poet [Scott], then present, of some verses which
he had recited that morning, and which had appeared in
a newspaper under the name of a War-Eclogue, in which Fire, 10
Famine, and Slaughter were introduced as the speakers. The
gentleman so addressed replied, that he was rather surprised
that none of us should have noticed or heard of the poem, as it
had been, at the time, a good deal talked of in Scotland. It
may be easily supposed that my feelings were at this moment 15
not of the most comfortable kind. Of all present, one only [Sir
H. Davy] knew, or suspected me to be the author; a man who
would have established himself in the first rank of England's
living poets[1097:3], if the Genius of our country had not decreed that
he should rather be the first in the first rank of its philosophers [20]
and scientific benefactors. It appeared the general wish to
hear the lines. As my friend chose to remain silent, I chose
to follow his example, and Mr. . . . . . [Scott] recited the poem.
This he could do with the better grace, being known to have
ever been not only a firm and active Anti-Jacobin and 25
Anti-Gallican, but likewise a zealous admirer of Mr. Pitt, both as
a good man and a great statesman. As a poet exclusively, he
had been amused with the Eclogue; as a poet he recited it;
and in a spirit which made it evident that he would have read
and repeated it with the same pleasure had his own name been 30
attached to the imaginary object or agent.
After the recitation our amiable host observed that in his
opinion Mr. . . . . . had over-rated the merits of the poetry;
but had they been tenfold greater, they could not have
compensated for that malignity of heart which could alone have 35
prompted sentiments so atrocious. I perceived that my
illustrious friend became greatly distressed on my account; but
fortunately I was able to preserve fortitude and presence of
mind enough to take up the subject without exciting even
a suspicion how nearly and painfully it interested me. [40]
What follows is the substance of what I then replied, but
dilated and in language less colloquial. It was not my intention,
I said, to justify the publication, whatever its author's feelings
might have been at the time of composing it. That they are
calculated to call forth so severe a reprobation from a good man, 45
is not the worst feature of such poems. Their moral deformity
is aggravated in proportion to the pleasure which they are
capable of affording to vindictive, turbulent, and unprincipled
readers. Could it be supposed, though for a moment, that the
author seriously wished what he had thus wildly imagined, 50
even the attempt to palliate an inhumanity so monstrous would
be an insult to the hearers. But it seemed to me worthy of
consideration, whether the mood of mind and the general state
of sensations in which a poet produces such vivid and fantastic
images, is likely to co-exist, or is even compatible with, that [55]
gloomy and deliberate ferocity which a serious wish to realize
them would pre-suppose. It had been often observed, and all
my experience tended to confirm the observation, that prospects
of pain and evil to others, and in general all deep feelings of
revenge, are commonly expressed in a few words, ironically tame, 60
and mild. The mind under so direful and fiend-like an influence
seems to take a morbid pleasure in contrasting the intensity of
its wishes and feelings with the slightness or levity of the
expressions by which they are hinted; and indeed feelings
so intense and solitary, if they were not precluded (as in almost 65
all cases they would be) by a constitutional activity of fancy
and association, and by the specific joyousness combined with it,
would assuredly themselves preclude such activity. Passion, in
its own quality, is the antagonist of action; though in an
ordinary and natural degree the former alternates with the latter, 70
and thereby revives and strengthens it. But the more intense
and insane the passion is, the fewer and the more fixed are the
correspondent forms and notions. A rooted hatred, an inveterate
thirst of revenge, is a sort of madness, and still eddies round its
favourite object, and exercises as it were a perpetual tautology 75
of mind in thoughts and words which admit of no adequate
substitutes. Like a fish in a globe of glass, it moves restlessly
round and round the scanty circumference, which it cannot
leave without losing its vital element.
There is a second character of such imaginary representations 80
as spring from a real and earnest desire of evil to another,
which we often see in real life, and might even anticipate from
the nature of the mind. The images, I mean, that a vindictive
man places before his imagination, will most often be taken
from the realities of life: they will be images of pain and 85
suffering which he has himself seen inflicted on other men, and
which he can fancy himself as inflicting on the object of his
hatred. I will suppose that we had heard at different times
two common sailors, each speaking of some one who had
wronged or offended him: that the first with apparent violence [90]
had devoted every part of his adversary's body and soul to all
the horrid phantoms and fantastic places that ever Quevedo
dreamt of, and this in a rapid flow of those outrageous and wildly
combined execrations, which too often with our lower classes
serve for escape-valves to carry off the excess of their passions, [95]
as so much superfluous steam that would endanger the vessel if
it were retained. The other, on the contrary, with that sort of
calmness of tone which is to the ear what the paleness of anger
is to the eye, shall simply say, 'If I chance to be made
boatswain, as I hope I soon shall, and can but once get that 100
fellow under my hand (and I shall be upon the watch for him),
I'll tickle his pretty skin! I won't hurt him! oh no! I'll only
cut the — — to the liver!' I dare appeal to all present, which
of the two they would regard as the least deceptive symptom
of deliberate malignity? nay, whether it would surprise them [105]
to see the first fellow, an hour or two afterwards, cordially
shaking hands with the very man the fractional parts of whose
body and soul he had been so charitably disposing of; or even
perhaps risking his life for him? What language Shakespeare
considered characteristic of malignant disposition we see in the 110
speech of the good-natured Gratiano, who spoke 'an infinite
deal of nothing more than any man in all Venice';
——Too wild, too rude and bold of voice!
the skipping spirit, whose thoughts and words reciprocally ran
away with each other; [115]
———O be them damn'd, inexorable dog!
And for thy life let justice be accused!