INTRODUCTION. HERE has hitherto, I think, been some confusion as to the exact meaning and limitation to be given to "Society verse." That dubious term has been assigned indiscriminately to everything in the way of verse that is not either broadly humorous or highly imaginative in character. It has been obvious to everybody that between such poems as Shelley's Skylark" on the one hand, and Wolcot's "Odes" on the other, there is a great gulf fixed; and to all verse which occupies the tremendous interval the description of vers de société has been applied. It seems to me that the definition is by far too rough and ready, and by no means sufficiently accurate. There is surely a very manifest difference between such poems as Praed's "Our Ball" and Locker's "Hurlingham" on the one side, and Brough's "Neighbour Nelly" and Peacock's "Rich and Poor on the other. Yet all four pieces are popularly included under the one description of "Society verse;" the word "Society," I suppose, being used to indicate the freedom of such pieces alike from the coarseness of unmitigated fun and the elevation of undiluted fancy. Much would be gained, I believe, if we revised 66 this conception of " Society verse;" applying that expression to the poetry of "fashionable life" alone, and including the remainder under the epithet of "familiar verse." Familiarity of style and of expression is of the essence of such poems as those by Brough and Peacock above mentioned; whereas Society verse," or, in other words, the poetry of "fashionable life," has other and distinctive characteristics. "Familiar verse" is wide in range, and admits of variety of subject and of manner. "Society verse," on the other hand, should be limited to the doings and sayings of the world of fashion, and, to be in perfect keeping with the phase of life which it delineates, should have the tone and temper which are peculiar to the monde. It should deal exclusively with such things as routs and balls, and dinners and receptions; the scene should be laid in London or in London-superMare; or if, by chance, the Muse quits town for country, it should follow in the wake of those who go as Sylvester said—after tiring in the city, to re-tire in the recesses of Swiss mountains, in the wilds of Scottish moors, or in the drawingrooms of English manor-houses. There should be little or no enthusiasm; the Muse should not be over-earnest, nor need it by any means be overflippant. It is essential to "Society verse" that it should have the tincture of good breeding;-that if it is lively, it should be so without being vulgar; and that if it is tender, it should be so without being maudlin. Its great distinction should be ease, the entire absence of apparent effort,—the presence of that playful spontaneity which proclaims the master. It should not be too uniformly epigrammatic, a fault which disfigures some of Praed's best pieces; nor should it deal over much with punning, as is the case with too many of Haynes Bayly's efforts. It should, at its best, be pervaded by an air of culture, and should have just that piquancy of expression which forms the flavour of polite conversation. But punning, qua punning, is not in favour in good company. Any one can pun, whilst few can pretend to the possession of that exquisite aroma of refinement which is only possible to men and women who have been highly educated and have always mingled in the best society. One may venture to say that, although a clever literary artist may so far throw himself into the position of a man of society as to be able to write very agreeable "Society verse," yet few can hope to write the best and most genuine vers de société who are not, or have not at one time been, in some measure at any rate, inhabitants of "Society." If a glance is given at the names of the most distinguished writers of "Society verse," it will be seen at once how true this is, and it will be understood how so many who have attempted to walk in the same path have so conspicuously failed. The tone of good society cannot be taken by merely reading about it; the true Belgravian manner cannot be acquired by merely living in Pimlico. The men who have produced the most successful vers de société have been as a rule, at any rate-men of "Society," -statesmen like Canning, politicians like Praed, men about town like Captain Morris. Prior himself whom I regard as the first, in point of time, of "Society-verse" writers-was emphatically a denizen of Mayfair. He was not well-born-he was only the son of a London citizen; but he was well educated, and, as the secretary to successive embassies, a Gentleman of the Royal Bedchamber, an Under-Secretary of State, a Lord Commissioner of Trade, and a Member of Parliament, had numerous opportunities of mixing with the best society. So, as we all know, had Swift and Pope. Congreve, it is notorious, prided himself more upon his vogue as a fine gentleman than upon his reputation as a dramatist. Lady Wortley Montagu, Lord Lyttelton, and Lord Chesterfield were members of the aristocracy; Charles James Fox, Richard Brinsley Sheridan, and Sir Charles Hanbury Williams all moved in the exclusive circles of their day; whilst Haynes Bayly, Thomas Moore, Smith, and Luttrell1 were pets of the society of their time. Haynes Bayly was to a great extent the fashionable laureate of his generation, though the tone of his performances is by no means always in the finest taste. For the rest, one can point to such names as those of Edward Fitzgerald, Miss Fanshawe, and Lord Macaulay as going still further to support the theory that the most successful "Society verse must generally, at least, be the production of persons who are more or less " in Society." I have described Matthew Prior as first in point of time of the "Society-verse" writers. I remember that when, some time ago, I first mooted the idea of this volume in a letter to the late Mortimer Collins, he was quite indignant at the notion of my making English "Society-verse" begin with Prior. He wrote to me: "An Earl and his Countess and a great poet were discoursing to Unfortunately, the plan of this work prevents me from inserting mere extracts from Luttrell's "Letters to Julia." His lyrics do not provide me with the pabulum required. 66 gether. The Earl said the women were men's shadows. She argued the point. Appeal being made to the poet, he affirmed it true; whereon the Countess gave him a penance to prove it in verse. That proof is, perhaps, the most perfect bit of Society verse written in our language.1 That poet died just twenty-six years before Prior was born. I give you this as a reason why I think it a mistake to begin with Matthew the inimitable." I cannot, however, bring myself to look upon Ben Jonson as a " Society" poet, or upon the verses in question as a Society" poem in the proper sense of the term-in the sense, at least, in which I understand them. My theory is, that what we ought to understand by "Society-verse" is verse on the subject of "Society," its sayings and its doings; and "Society," as we have it now, did not have its origin until the epoch in which Whig and Tory became the name-badges of the two great political parties. Broadly speaking, "Society" under the Normans and Plantagenets-if it can be said to have existed at all-was French in tone; under the Tudors it was Italian; under the Stuarts The lines to which Mr. Collins refers are these: "Follow a shadow, it still flies you; "At morn and even, shades are longest ; b |