324 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 104. 



In his opinion it is quite transparent that Lord 

 Byron meant to say, speaking to the Ocean of its 

 shores : 



" Thy waters wasted them when they were free, 

 And many a tyrant since " (has wa'ited them). 



But in my former letter I quoted a German trans- 

 lator's version of the lines, and he did not under- 

 stand them thus; and I have just referred to a 

 French translator's, and he also differs from Mr. 

 Crosslet. In fiict, his view of the matter so com- 

 pletely tallies with mine, that I will, with your 

 jiermission, quote his words : 



" Tes rivages soiit des empires, ou tout est change, 

 excepte toi. Que sont devenus I'Assyrie, la Greee, 

 Rome, Carthage ? 'J'es flots battaieiit leurs frontiercs 

 aux jours de la liberie, comme depuis sous le regne de 

 plus d'uu tyraii." 



This passage is taken from the complete trans- 

 lation of Lord Byron's ^Vorks, published at Paris 

 in 183G, by M. Benjamin de Lnroclie, vol. i. p. 754. 



M. de Laroche was no doubt led to form his 

 opinion of the real meaning of these two lines from 

 a careful consideration of those which immediately 

 precede and immediately follow. The theme of 

 the poet is the proud superiority of the ocean to 

 human authority, and its insensibility to human 

 vicissitude. He rebukes the haughty assumption 

 that "Britannia rules the waves;" he refers in 

 proof to the striking fact, that of the two most 

 memorable tempests recorded in the naval history 

 of Spain and England, the one aided our triumph, 

 and the other tore the fruits of a triumph from us. 

 " Tlie oak leviathans, whose huge rihs make 

 Their clay creator the proud title take 

 Of lord of thee, and arbiter of war. 

 These are thy toys, and, as the snowy flake, 

 They melt into thy yeast of waves, wliich mar 



Alike the Armada's pride, or spoils of Trafalgar." 



And then he proceeds, according to my view of 

 the passage, and according to the French transla- 

 tor's view, to point out, that while the shores of the 

 ocean are changed, the action of the ocean con- 

 tinues the same ; that it wasted the empires of the 

 ancient world when they were free, and wasted 

 them when they fell under the sway of tyrants : 

 " Thy shores are empires, changed in all save thee — 



Assyria, Greece, Rome, Carthage, what are they? 



Thy waters wasted them while they were free, 



And many a tyrant since their shores obey." 



Here there seems to be a logical sequence, 

 which is surely not to be found if the semicolon is 

 kept, as jNIr. Crossley wishes to keep it, after the ! 

 word " since." 



" Tliy waters wasted them while they were free, 

 .4.nd many a tyrant since ;" 



meaning, as he declares, that many a tyrant since 

 has wasted them. There may be grammatical 

 construction here, hut what becomes of the mean- 

 ing ? 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 no- 

 where, — 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 pur- 

 pose as it would have been to say, in the preceding 

 stanza, that the ocean destroyed the Arninda, 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'cl, 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; 

 And send'st him, shivering in thy playful spray 

 And howling, to his Gods, where haply lies 

 His petty hope in some near port or bay. 

 And dasliest him again to earth : — there let him lay." 



The blot which dis6gures the last line of this 

 fine stanza, in the use of the word la>/ for lie, has, 

 I believe, been often observed ; but the question 

 I wish to throw out for the consideration of your 

 readers is, whether it is quite certain that Lord 

 Byron really wrote, or intended to write, the word 

 lay. The following reasons appear to me to render 

 it improbable that he did. 1. His lordship is | 

 admittedly, I believe, a great master of the 

 English language, and would therefore be very j 

 unlikely to commit the somewhat vulgar blimder 

 of writing lay for lie, whatever might be the re- 

 quirements of the rhyme. 2. This improb.ability 

 is rendered much stronger by his having used the 

 word lies in the line next but one preceding; and 

 therefore his attention could hardly have been 

 averted from the distinction between the two 

 words. 3. Though not professing to be a critic, 

 it does appear to me that the sense itself of the line 

 (taking the word lay in the sense of lie} is weak 

 and unmeaning, or at least far from worthy of the 

 former part of the stanza. 



I am not perhaps bound to offer any emendation 



