And this, no doubt, was true, in a sense. Historians, finding that Strafford expressed surprise, and even indignation, that the king had complied with Strafford’s own letter releasing him from all obligation to save his life, have intimated that the letter was written out of policy. But this is a superficial view; it produces very different results from giving up all to another to see him take it; and, though Strafford must have known Charles’s weakness too well to expect any thing good from him, yet the consummation must have produced fresh emotion, for a strong character cannot be prepared for the conduct of a weak one; there is always in dishonour somewhat unexpected and incredible to one incapable of it.
The speeches in parliament are well translated from the page of history. The poet, we think, has improved upon it in Strafford’s mention of his children; it has not the theatrical tone of the common narrative, and is, probably, nearer truth, as it is more consistent with the rest of his deportment.
He has made good use of the fine anecdote of the effect pro- duced on Pym by meeting Strafford’s eye at the close of one of his most soaring passages.
| PYM. |
| The King is King, but as he props the State, |
| The State a legal and compacted bond, |
| Tying us all in sweet fraternity, |
| And that loosed off by fraudful creeping hand, |
| Or cut and torn by lawless violence, |
| There is no King because the State is gone; |
| And in the cannibal chaos that remains |
| Each man is sovereign of himself alone. |
| Shall then a drunken regicidal blow |
| Be paid by forfeit of the driveller’s head, |
| And he go free, who, slaying Law itself, |
| Murders all royalty and all subjection? |
| He who, with all the radiant attributes |
| That most, save goodness, can adorn a man, |
