THE VISION OF JUDGMENT,
BY QUEVEDO EEDIVIVUS.
SUGGESTED BY THE COMPOSITION SO ENTITLED EY THE AUTHOR OF “W.Vr
PREFACE.
It hath been wisely said, that “ one fool makes many,” and it hath been poetically observed,
“That fools rush in where angels fear to tread."—Pope.
If Mr. Southey had not rushed in where he had no business, and where he never was before,never will be again, the following poem would not have been written. It is not impossible that it uwas good u,o a. 3 own, seeing that it cannot, by any species of stupidity, natural or acquired, be wor V eThe gross flattery, the dull impudence, the renegado intolerance and impious cant, of the poem byauthor of “ Wat Tyler, ” are something so stupendous as to form the sublime of himself—containing &quintessence of his own attributes. s
So much for his poem—a word on his preface. In this preface it has pleased the magnaniwoj*Laureate to draw the picture of a supposed 41 Satanic School,” the which he doth recommend to unotice of the legislature; thereby adding to his other laurels the ambition of those of an informer. .there exists anywhere, excepting in his imagination, such a School, is he not sufficiently armed agajpit by his own intense vanity ? The truth is, that there are certain writers whom Mr. S. imagines, h*Scrub, to have “ talked of him; for they laughed consumedly.” . fl
I think I know enough of most of the writers to whom he is supposed to allude, to assert, that they^their individual capacities, have done more good, in the charities of life, to their fellow-creatures in a *one year, than Mr. Southey has done harm to himself by his absurdities in his whole life; and this 1saying a great deal. But I have a few questions to ask.lstly. Is Mr. Southey the author of “ Wat Tyler ?” ^
‘ 2 ndly. Was he not refused a remedy at law by the highest judge of his beloved England, becausewas a blasphemous and seditious publication r
3rdly. Was he not entitled by William Smith, in full Parliament , “ a rancorous renegado ?’’
4thly. Is he not Poet Laureate, with his own lines on Martin the regicide staring him in the face? ^And, 5thly. Putting the-four preceding items together, with what conscience dare he call the attem 1of the laws to the publications of others, he they what they may ? t0
I say nothing of the cowardice of such a proceeding; its meanness speaks for itself; but I wishtouch upon the motive , which is neither more nor less than that Mr. S. has been laughed at a litt.ie ,jsome recent publications, as he was of yore in the “ Anti-Jacobin ” by his present patrons. Hence ^this “ skimble-scamble stuff” about “ Satanic, ” and so forth. However, it is worthy of him— 44 qua^ sincepto n .If there is anything obnoxious to the political opinions of a portion of the public in the following P°®they may thank Mr. Southey . He might have written hexameters, as he has written everything ^for aught that the writer cared—had they been upon another subject. But to attempt to canonizmonarch, who, whatever were his household virtues, was neither a successful nor a patriot king,—J 11 *^much as several years of his reign passed in war with America and Ireland , to say nothing ofaggression upon France, —like all other exaggeration, necessarily begets opposition. In whatemanner he may be spoken of in this new 44 Vision,” his public career will not he more favourably tra •mitted by history. Of his private virtues (although a little expensive to the nation) there can bedoubt. oVtnU t
can only say that I know as much » u .
- - - ■ I .have ais y