Most men will readily admit that the
two poets who have the greatest hold over Englishmen
are Handel and Shakespeare—for it is as
a poet, a sympathiser with and renderer of all estates
and conditions whether of men or things, rather than
as a mere musician, that Handel reigns supreme.
There have been many who have known as much English
as Shakespeare, and so, doubtless, there have been
no fewer who have known as much music as Handel:
perhaps Bach, probably Haydn, certainly Mozart; as
likely as not, many a known and unknown musician now
living; but the poet is not known by knowledge alone—not
by gnosis only—but also, and in greater
part, by the agape which makes him wish to steal men’s
hearts, and prompts him so to apply his knowledge
that he shall succeed. There has been no one
to touch Handel as an observer of all that was observable,
a lover of all that was loveable, a hater of all that
was hateable, and, therefore, as a poet. Shakespeare
loved not wisely but too well. Handel loved
as well as Shakespeare, but more wisely. He
is as much above Shakespeare as Shakespeare is above
all others, except Handel himself; he is no less lofty,
impassioned, tender, and full alike of fire and love
of play; he is no less universal in the range of his
sympathies, no less a master of expression and illustration
than Shakespeare, and at the same time he is of robuster,
stronger fibre, more easy, less introspective.
Englishmen are of so mixed a race, so inventive,
and so given to migration, that for many generations
to come they are bound to be at times puzzled, and
therefore introspective; if they get their freedom
at all they get it as Shakespeare “with a great
sum,” whereas Handel was “free born.”
Shakespeare sometimes errs and grievously, he is
as one of his own best men “moulded out of faults,”
who “for the most become much more the better,
for being a little bad;” Handel, if he puts
forth his strength at all, is unerring: he gains
the maximum of effect with the minimum of effort.
As Mozart said of him, “he beats us all in effect,
when he chooses he strikes like a thunderbolt.”
Shakespeare’s strength is perfected in weakness;
Handel is the serenity and unself-consciousness of
health itself. “There,” said Beethoven
on his deathbed, pointing to the works of Handel,
“there—is truth.” These,
however, are details, the main point that will be admitted
is that the average Englishman is more attracted by
Handel and Shakespeare than by any other two men who
have been long enough dead for us to have formed a
fairly permanent verdict concerning them. We
not only believe them to have been the best men familiarly
known here in England, but we see foreign nations join
us for the most part in assigning to them the highest
place as renderers of emotion.
It is always a pleasure to me to reflect
that the countries dearest to these two master spirits
are those which are also dearest to myself, I mean
England and Italy. Both of them lived mainly
here in London, but both of them turned mainly to
Italy when realising their dreams. Handel’s
music is the embodiment of all the best Italian music
of his time and before him, assimilated and reproduced
with the enlargements and additions suggested by his
own genius. He studied in Italy; his subjects
for many years were almost exclusively from Italian
sources; the very language of his thoughts was Italian,
and to the end of his life he would have composed
nothing but Italian operas, if the English public would
have supported him. His spirit flew to Italy,
but his home was London. So also Shakespeare
turned to Italy more than to any other country for
his subjects. Roughly, he wrote nineteen Italian,
or what to him were virtually Italian plays, to twelve
English, one Scotch, one Danish, three French, and
two early British.
But who does not turn to Italy who
has the chance of doing so? What, indeed, do
we not owe to that most lovely and loveable country?
Take up a Bank of England note and the Italian language
will be found still lingering upon it. It is
signed “for Bank of England and Compa.”
(Compagnia), not “Compy.” Our laws
are Roman in their origin. Our music, as we
have seen, and our painting comes from Italy.
Our very religion till a few hundred years ago found
its headquarters, not in London nor in Canterbury,
but in Rome. What, in fact, is there which has
not filtered through Italy, even though it arose elsewhere?
On the other hand, there are infinite attractions
in London. I have seen many foreign cities,
but I know none so commodious, or, let me add, so
beautiful. I know of nothing in any foreign city
equal to the view down Fleet Street, walking along
the north side from the corner of Fetter Lane.
It is often said that this has been spoiled by the
London, Chatham, and Dover Railway bridge over Ludgate
Hill; I think, however, the effect is more imposing
now than it was before the bridge was built.
Time has already softened it; it does not obtrude
itself; it adds greatly to the sense of size, and makes
us doubly aware of the movement of life, the colossal
circulation to which London owes so much of its impressiveness.
We gain more by this than we lose by the infraction
of some pedant’s canon about the artistically
correct intersection of right lines. Vast as
is the world below the bridge, there is a vaster still
on high, and when trains are passing, the steam from
the engine will throw the dome of St. Paul’s
into the clouds, and make it seem as though there
were a commingling of earth and some far-off mysterious
palace in dreamland. I am not very fond of Milton,
but I admit that he does at times put me in mind of
Fleet Street.
While on the subject of Fleet Street,
I would put in a word in favour of the much-abused
griffin. The whole monument is one of the handsomest
in London. As for its being an obstruction, I
have discoursed with a large number of omnibus conductors
on the subject, and am satisfied that the obstruction
is imaginary.
When, again, I think of Waterloo Bridge,
and the huge wide-opened jaws of those two Behemoths,
the Cannon Street and Charing Cross railway stations,
I am not sure that the prospect here is not even finer
than in Fleet Street. See how they belch forth
puffing trains as the breath of their nostrils, gorging
and disgorging incessantly those human atoms whose
movement is the life of the city. How like it
all is to some great bodily mechanism of which the
people are the blood. And then, above all, see
the ineffable St. Paul’s. I was once on
Waterloo Bridge after a heavy thunderstorm in summer.
A thick darkness was upon the river and the buildings
upon the north side, but just below I could see the
water hurrying onward as in an abyss, dark, gloomy,
and mysterious. On a level with the eye there
was an absolute blank, but above, the sky was clear,
and out of the gloom the dome and towers of St. Paul’s
rose up sharply, looking higher than they actually
were, and as though they rested upon space.
Then as for the neighbourhood within,
we will say, a radius of thirty miles. It is
one of the main businesses of my life to explore this
district. I have walked several thousands of
miles in doing so, and I mark where I have been in
red upon the Ordnance map, so that I may see at a
glance what parts I know least well, and direct my
attention to them as soon as possible. For ten
months in the year I continue my walks in the home
counties, every week adding some new village or farmhouse
to my list of things worth seeing; and no matter where
else I may have been, I find a charm in the villages
of Kent, Surrey, and Sussex, which in its way I know
not where to rival.
I have ventured to say the above,
because during the remainder of my book I shall be
occupied almost exclusively with Italy, and wish to
make it clear that my Italian rambles are taken not
because I prefer Italy to England, but as by way of
parergon, or by-work, as every man should have both
his profession and his hobby. I have chosen
Italy as my second country, and would dedicate this
book to her as a thank-offering for the happiness
she has afforded me.