And many a tyrant since;"
meaning, as he declares, that many a tyrant since has wasted them. There may be grammatical construction here, but what becomes of the meaning? The direct force of the words would surely be, that the ocean was in the habit of ravaging its shores in times of liberty, but that it left off when the tyrants began. I suppose it will be admitted that this is not exactly what the poet wished to convey. To his real meaning it will, I hope, be allowed to be essential that the statement should be made, that the ocean's ravages continue; and if this is not done in the fourth line, it is done nowhere,—the chain of reasoning is left without a link. To say that the ocean wasted empires once, and tyrants did it afterwards, is as little to the purpose as it would have been to say, in the preceding stanza, that the ocean destroyed the Armada, but that Nelson won Trafalgar. The lines become incoherent.
I beg pardon for trespassing so long on your attention; but the question seems to have excited some interest, and I think the occasion may plead my excuse.
T. W.
There is no occasion to say any more on the subject of T. W.'s doubts (Vol. iv., p. 223.) as to the construction of certain lines in the 182nd stanza: but his remarks on the substitution of the word gush'd for rush'd, in the 141st stanza, induce me to offer a suggestion, or rather ask a Query, with respect to a word in another stanza (180th) of the same canto, which I shall quote entire.
"His steps are not upon thy paths—thy fields
Are not a spoil for him,—thou dost arise
And shake him from thee; the vile strength he wields
For earth's destruction thou dost all despise,
Spurning him from thy bosom to the skies;