THE POETS' BEASTS. 



THE KING OF THE BEASTS. 



There are many who deprecate the lion's coronation as the 

 King of Beasts. But, after all, it should not be forgotten 

 by this noble animal's critics that it is only contended on its 

 behalf that it is the King of Beasts; and, remembering this, 

 it is very difficult, I think, to dispute its claim to monarchy. 

 It may have vassals actually as strong as itself, powerful 

 Warwicks or Burgundies, but it is still, I think, their liege 

 lord. Its gait, eye, voice, and uplift of head all make it 

 royal in presence — and as for its character, taking one 

 thing with another, it is as good as that of any other 

 beast. Its personal advantages, therefore, are all so much 

 " to the good," as it were, while in its natural life, and in 

 its traditional glories, the lion is indisputably majestic. 



There are two lions, the real and the imaginary. The 

 former exists in nature only ; the latter in heraldry, myths, 

 and poetry. But both are royal ; the former from attri- 

 butes of person, the latter from attributes of mind. 



A writer,^ for whom I have a great respect, calls the 

 King of Beasts " a great carnivorous impostor," challenges 



^ Frances Power Cobbe. 



