576 
© Duros ¢ rijos, trinta e dous molciros 
© De grande Jorga, ¢ util exercigo ! 
He must possess no little credulity, who 
would attribute such a work to the author 
of the Lusiad !” 
This poem wasattributed to Camoens 
by the printer, as Britain’s Ida was in 
like manner, and with equal absurdity, 
ascribed to Spenser. But though the 
Creagam e Composigam do Honem was 
printed upon this erroneous supposition, 
the error was discovered before it was 
published, and acknowledged in the vo- 
lume which contained it, so that, in fact, 
the poem has never past as the produc- 
tion of Camcens. ‘The oddity of the 
allegory alone would be no proof that it 
was not his work. ‘The two-and-thirty 
millers may be paralleled by as mapy 
porters in one of the most wonderfu 
and delightful poems that ever has been, 
or ever will be, produced by human 
genius. 
«© And round about the porch on every syde 
‘Twice sixteen warders sat, all armed bright 
In glistering steel and strongly fortifyde 5 
‘Tall yeouem seemed they, and of great mi ght, 
And were enraunged ready still for fight. 
Faery Queene, bl. ii. 6. Q- 
These grinders, indeed, are in keep- 
ing ; nor would they be disapproved by 
any new Aristotle who should lay down 
the rules for ailegoric composition, as 
deduced from good old John Bunyan, 
the Homer of his class. ‘There are, in- 
deed, two miserable absurdities in this 
poem:—the castle is built upon two 
moving pedestals — and is moreover 
brought to-bed.of another castle ! 
«© There is also.ancther poem which bears 
“his name, but is certainly the production of 
a different hand. The odes ace of St. 
Ursula and the eleven thousand virgins forms 
its subject. But it is not probable that the 
persevering chastity of these unhappy ladies 
could ever have found favour in the sight 
of our amorous bard. It is still Jess likely 
that he would have celebrated it in his song.” 
This is a new and whimsical mode 
of criticism. Lord Strangford disco- 
yers that Camoens was of a very amo- 
rous disposition; and, therefore, as chas- 
tity was not his favourite virtue, he 
could not have written this poem in ho- 
nour of our eleven thousand virgins! 
‘This reminds us of Mr. Godwin, who 
draws acharacter of John of Gaunt, in 
contradiction to all the contemporary 
historians, and then makes his engraver 
POETRY. 
dual and the nation, that it never should . 
“ very happily” improve the portrait of — 
John of Gaunt, to make it suit his néw | 
historical character! The fact is, that 
though this poem is one of the many which 
was stolen by Diogo Bernardes CG poet 
whom Lord Strangford strangely un- 
dervaltes), it has been incontrovertibly 
proved to be the work of Camoens. 
«* The genius of Camoens was almost 
universal. “Like the great father of English 
poetry, there is searcely any species. of writ 
ing, from the epigram to the epic, which 
he has not attempted, and, like him, he has 
succeeded in atl. It is not the province of 
the translator to offer any remarks on the 
Lusiad. ‘That task has already been ably 
performed. Of his minor productions, the 
general characteristic is ease ; not the studied 
carelessness of modern refinement, but the 
graceful and charming simplicity of a Gre- 
cian muse.. When he wrote, the Italian 
model was in fashion; and as Camoens. was 
intimately acquainted with that language, he 
too frequently sacrificed his better judgement 
to the sepa! opinion of the public. Hence 
the extravagant hyberboles and Jaborious a}- 
lusions, which he has sometimes, though 
rarely, employed. But bis own taste was 
formed on purer principles. He had studied 
and admired the poems of Provence. He 
had wandered through those vast catacombs 
of buried genius, and treasure rewarded his 
search. Even the humble knowledge of 
Provencal literature, which the present wri- 
ter possesses, has enabled him to discover 
many passages which the Portuguese poet 
has rendered his own. But we must be 
careful not to defraud Camoens of the merit 
of originality. ‘To that character he has, 
perhaps, a juster claim than any of the mo- 
derns, Dante alone excepted. The same re- 
mark which Landino applies to that poet, 
may be referred to him. He was the first who 
wrote with elegance in his native tongue. 
‘The language of Rome, and even of Greece, 
had been refined by antecedent authors, be- 
fore the appearance of Virgil or of Homer, 
but Camoens was at once the polisher, and 
in some degree the creator of his own. How 
deplorable must have been its state, when it 
naturalized two thousand new words, on the 
bare authority of a single man! Monsieur 
Ménage was wont to pique himself on hay-~ 
ing introduced into French the term ‘ vé- 
nuste ;"yet all his influence could never make 
it current, nor indeed did it long survive its 
illustrious fabricator.” 
Lord Strangford quotes French au- 
thority for the last assertion—-bad autho- 
rity in any point of literature, and par- 
ticularly of Portuguese literature—as 
witness Voltaire’s criticism upon the 
Lusiad! an instance of shameless im- 
pudence so characteristic of the indivi- 
