[In the following essay, Hooper notes the high esteem in which prominent men of the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries held Sandys, offers biographical information taken from contemporary accounts, discusses the publication and reception of various editions of Sandys's works, and concludes that Sandys has been overlooked as a poet.]

Such has been the growing taste for Sacred Poetry during the past forty years that little apology is needed for re-introducing to the public the works of George Sandys. The name of John Keble and his “Christian Year” are household words; and the impulse given by that beautiful work has doubtless awakened an interest in many a forgotten writer on divine themes. The revival, too, of more earnest religious thought has, perhaps, contributed towards the appreciation of such poetry. Let us compare the hymnology of our Church at the present day with what it was fifty years ago. Who does not remember even at a more recent date the coldness of our musical services, the jejune words of praise, consisting chiefly of a meagre selection from Sternhold and Hopkins or Tate and Brady, or, may be, some few hymns from which was carefully eliminated all that was warm and spiritual? Contrast this with the almost universal use of “Hymns Ancient and Modern,” the zeal and energy displayed even in our remotest villages in forming choirs, and giving that due prominence to praise in God's service to which it is so justly entitled. Nor is this revival confined to public worship. In the closet, too, will be found multiplied editions of our best sacred poets, or selections intended to awaken and foster devotion. Significant, also, is it to notice the acknowledged leader of the bar of England¹ finding time amidst his pressing avocations to give to the public a “Book of Praise,” or selection of the best hymns in the language. George Sandys then presents himself anew at a period when, I think, he will be appreciated, and contribute much to devotional enjoyment. He has been singularly neglected, as I am not aware of any edition of his poems for nearly two centuries, the last being dated 1676. And yet Sandys was much admired in his own day; and has received the tribute of praise for his harmonious versification, and refined purity of thought and expression, from many a lover of true poetry.

Joseph Warton, commenting on Pope's verses in his “Essay on Criticism,”

                                                  “the easy vigour of a line
Where Denham's strength and Waller's sweetness join,”

observes that sufficient justice is not done to Sandys, who did more to polish and tune the English language by his Paraphrases on the Psalms and Job than either of those two writers. Pope has certainly overlooked this, though in his notes to the Iliad he has acknowledged that to the translations of Sandys English poetry owes much of its beauty. Dryden, too (Preface to Fables), calls him “the ingenious and learned Sandys, the best versifier of the former age; if I may properly call it by that name, which was the former part of this concluding century.” Carew and Waller have expressed their opinions in the commendatory verses prefixed to these Paraphrases. The following extract from Richard Baxter's preface to his “Poetical Fragments” (London, 1681), may interest the reader, as the criticism is probably comparatively unknown: “But I must confess after all that next the Scripture poems, there are none so savoury to me as Mr. George Herbert's and Mr. George Sandys's. I know that Cowley and others far exceed Herbert in wit and accurate composure; but (as Seneca takes with me above all his contemporaries, because he speaketh things by words feelingly and seriously like a man that is past jest, so) Herbert speaks to God like one that really believeth a God. Heart-work and heaven-work make up his books. And Du Bartas is seriously divine, and George Sandys

‘Omne tulit punctum dum miscuit utile dulci.’

His Scripture poems are an elegant and excellent Paraphrase: but especially his Job, whom he hath restored to his original glory. O that he had turned the Psalms into metre fitted to the usual tunes! It did me good when Mrs. Wyat invited me to see Boxley Abbey in Kent, to see upon the old stone wall in the garden a summer-house with this inscription in great golden letters, that in that place Mr. G. Sandys after his travels over the world, retired himself for his poetry and contemplations, and none are fitter to retire to God than such as are tired with seeing all the vanities on earth.” One may smile at the lament over Sandys's Psalms being not “fitted to the usual tunes.” It is not improbable, however, that this may have been one of the causes of their not being generally adopted in divine service. They were intended for private devotion, and as such the book was an especial favourite with the Martyr-king Charles in his imprisonment at Carisbrooke Castle, but they never seem to have taken any hold in public worship, since we find as early as in 1644 a learned preacher regretting “that while in reverence to antiquity the singing Psalms of Sternhold and Hopkins were used, those of Sandys should lie by.”² The late Archdeacon Todd, the admirable editor of Spenser and Milton, who was a great admirer of Sandys, and published a “Selection from the Metrical Paraphrases,” in 1839, says, “Perhaps by no writer of sacred poetry, either of that or succeeding times, has Sandys been surpassed in the stanza of seven or eight syllables. The eighth, ninety-first, one hundred and twenty-first, and one hundred and forty-eighth Psalms are fine examples in point as to the spirit and richness of both these measures.” He is also much struck with the energy and beauty of his heroic couplets in Job. To me, I confess, many of the metres invented or adopted by Sandys are peculiarly pleasing. The tunes for the Psalms were composed by Henry Lawes, a musician who enjoyed the intimate friendship of the best poets of the time, and whose fame admitted him to the highest society. Waller and Herrick are loud in his praises; and we must not forget that Milton, himself an expert musician, has immortalized his friend by a sincere and well-deserved eulogium. Lawes wrote the music to “Comus,” in which he also acted the part of Thyrsis, and the poet's allusion to the musician is well-known (Comus, 494):

“Thyrsis? whose artful strains have oft delay'd
The huddling brook to hear his madrigal,
And sweeten'd every musk-rose of the dale.”

To him, too, Milton addressed the sonnet

“Harry, whose tuneful and well-measured song
First taught our English music how to span
Words with just note and accent.”

This sonnet first appeared in the publication of “Choice Psalms put into Music by Henry and William Lawes, brothers, and Servants to His Majesty,” 1648, all the Psalms being selected from the translation by Sandys. Though to me Lawes seems to have been somewhat overrated, yet there are not wanting critics who assign him a very high place, and style him “a composer to whom English music is much more indebted than its two historians (Hawkins and Burney) seem inclined to admit.”³

That Sandys's poetry and Lawes's music conjoined should have failed to obtain popularity is remarkable, but it may possibly be attributed to that prejudice in favour of long usage which is so difficult to remove. We have seen the Oxford preacher ascribing the failure to “reverence to antiquity” in the use of Sternhold and Hopkins. But the change of the metre and the “usual tunes” had something to do with it. Henry King (one of the writers of commendatory verses attached to these Paraphrases) a relation of Sandys, and afterwards Bishop of Chichester, himself a poet, and the author of a metrical version of the Psalms, mentions this. “This prelate had retired, during the Great Rebellion, to Langley Park near Colnbrook, whence he wrote to Archbishop Usher, October 30, 1651, informing his grace that he was then employed in translating the Psalms into metre; ‘discouraged,’ however, ‘knowing that Mr. George Sandys, and lately one of our pretended reformers, had failed in two different extremes; the first too elegant for the vulgar use, changing both the metre and tunes wherewith they had been long acquainted; the other as flat and poor, as lamely worded and unhandsomely rhymed, as the old which with much confidence he undertook to amend.’”⁴ Bishop King wished to pursue a middle course, but failed in his enterprise, as, though otherwise a fair poet, his version is very poor and, with the exception of a few passages, has sunk into merited oblivion. It is hardly necessary to multiply testimonies in favour of Sandys's Psalms. Dr. Charles Burney, the historian of music, says they “are put into better verse than they ever appeared in before or since.” The poet James Montgomery also styles them “incomparably the most poetic in the English language, and yet they are comparatively unknown!” Another poet, William Lisle Bowles (Pope's “Works,” iii. p. 359) speaking of Sandys's various versions of Scripture, declares them to be “so infinitely superior to any other both for fidelity, music, and strength of versification.” And Mr. Marsh in his deservedly well-known “Lectures on the English Language” (edit. 1860, p. 600), describes the author as “Sandys, whose admirable Scripture Paraphrases ought to be better known than they are.” Archdeacon Todd, too, in his “Selections” (to which I am much indebted), says, “In addition to what Antony Wood, the careful biographer of Oxford writers, has related of this religious poet and admirable scholar, I have gleaned other particulars, which, with the few selections from his Paraphrases, I am led to publish, under the hope of reviving general attention to his many labours, so remarkable for purity of language, sweetness of verse, and a truly devotional spirit.” I think, then, I may confidently appeal to the reader's own judgment. That there are quaintnesses common to the age in which Sandys lived I will not deny: and I am free to confess that he is somewhat unequal; but taken upon the whole I am certain that to those to whom he has hitherto been unknown he will come with an agreeable surprise. His Paraphrase of Job is a very fine poem. The versions of Ecclesiastes and The Lamentations contain many beautiful passages; and so do the Songs from the Old and New Testaments. Some of the Psalms are sublime; and, if I may so speak, the Song of Solomon has an Oriental perfume about it, such as the traveller George Sandys alone could bring. The tragedy of “Christ's Passion,” translated from Grotius, has been given, not merely to render the edition of Sandys's works complete, but as it was thought it would be interesting at a time when so much attention has been turned to the Ammergau Passion-Play, and when Mr. Longfellow has given us his latest effusion in a similar form. It is said that Grotius expressed himself much pleased with Sandys's translation.

.....

George Sandys, the seventh and youngest son of Edwin Sandys,⁵ Archbishop of York, by Cicely his wife, was born at Bishopthorpe Palace. We are able to give the precise day and hour of his birth, as Collins in his Peerage (3rd Edit., 1756) tells us, “Before a great Bible, printed by Richard Jugge, Queen's Printer, 1574, in the Archbishop's own hand are the names and birthdays of his children, which he had by his said wife Cicely.” From this list we read “George Sandes, born the 2nd day of March, at six of the clock in the morning, in 1577; his godfathers, George Earl of Cumberland,⁶ William Lord Ewer; his godmother, Catherine Countess of Huntingdon.” Of the antiquity of the Archbishop's family and his own personal history little need be said. In Nash's “History of Worcestershire,” and in most of the old Peerages will be found his pedigree; and the story of his life may be gathered from Chalmers' or other biographical dictionaries, as his zeal for the Reformation is well known. He appears, from the accounts of all his biographers to have been a man of unamiable disposition, but a discovery in the present century of a letter from him to the Lord Treasurer Burghley has thrown a light upon his character which may startle some of his admirers. It would appear that he has “the singular honour of having first suggested the great crime (of the murder of Mary Queen of Scots) as an expedient for ‘the safety of our Queene and Realme.’”⁷ The Archbishop had been one of the promoters of the claim of the Lady Jane Grey to the throne, and this may have been one of the reasons for the Countess of Huntingdon standing as godmother to his son George. Lady Huntingdon was daughter to John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, and sister to Lady Jane Grey's husband. On the death of the Archbishop in 1588, the guardianship of his three youngest sons Thomas, Henry, and George, was committed to his wife; she was to have “the custody and bringing up of those three children so long as she continued a widow, and all that time to have in her hands as well their annuities granted out of the Manor of Ombersley, as all other patents, leases, legacies, profits, and commodities which they shall have until they shall come to their full age, and be fit to receive the same themselves; and if it shall fortune that she marry before that time, then the several profits and bequests to be committed to the hands of his sons Samuel and Edwin, upon sufficient bonds by them to be given for security of the same to their three brethren.” Edwin Sandys, who was then named as guardian of his brothers in the event of his mother marrying again (which, however, she did not) was the Archbishop's second son, and born probably at Ombersley in Worcestershire about 1561. He was admitted at Corpus College, Oxford, at the age of sixteen, under the celebrated Hooker as tutor. There is a pleasant notice of him in Walton's “Life of Hooker.” After taking his degree, he was admitted a probationer-fellow in 1579. He appears to have travelled much, and when at Paris he drew up a tract under the title of “Europœ Speculum, or a view or survey of the state of religion in the Western parts of the world, wherein the Roman religion and the pregnant policies of the Church of Rome to support the same are notably displayed, & c., & c.” This he finished in 1599. An imperfect copy was published without his consent in 1605, and soon followed by another impression. He published a corrected edition just before his death in 1629. Sir Edwin Sandys was Treasurer of Virginia. Bishop King, a relation of the Sandys family, in his lines prefixed to our author's Paraphrases thus mentions the two brothers:—

“I shall profess much of the love I owe
Doth from the root of our extraction grow.
To which though I can little contribute,
Yet, with a natural joy, I must impute
To our tribe's honour what by you is done,
Worthy the title of a prelate's son.
And scarcely have two brothers farther borne
A father's name, or with more value worn
Their own, than two of you; whose pens and feet
Have made the distant points of heaven to meet:
He by exact discoveries of the West,
Yourself by painful travels in the East.”

Sir Edwin was much esteemed for his learning and virtue.⁸

On the 5th of December, 1589, Henry and George Sandys were both matriculated at Oxford as of St. Mary Hall. The present keeper of the Archives⁹ kindly informs me that Henry, in subscribing the Articles, wrote his name Sandes. Of George there is no subscription, probably because he was too young. Wood thinks that the brothers afterwards removed to Corpus, where Edwin had been educated under Hooker, but of this there is no proof. We may, perhaps, be surprised at the extreme youth of George on entering the University, but it was a not infrequent custom in those days for boys to commence their University career at an age when now they would hardly have entered a public school. How long Sandys remained at Oxford it is impossible to discover, and it does not appear that he took a degree. Nor have we any trace of his life or occupation till 1610, when he set out on his travels to the East. In that year his mother died. Her maiden name was Cicely Wilford, sister to Sir Thomas Wilford. She had survived her husband, the Archbishop, twenty-two years, and I presume had lived at Ombersley Court, the family seat in Worcestershire. Whether Sandys had left England previous to her death, or that event was the cause of his departure, is not clear. He tells us, “I began my journey through France hard upon the time when that execrable murther was committed upon the person of Henry the fourth¹⁰ by an obscure varlet: even in the streets of his principall City by day, and then when royally attended; to shew that there is none so contemptible, that contemneth his own life, but is the master of another man's. Triumphs were interrupted by funerals; and means minds did labour with fearefull expectations. The Princes of the Bloud discontented, the Noblesse factious: those of the Religion daily threatned, and nightly fearing a massacre. Meanwhile a number of souldiers are drawne by small numbers into the City to confront all out-rages. France I forbeare to speake of, and the lesse remote parts of Italy: daily survaide and exactly related. At Venice I will begin my Iournall. From whence we departed on the 20 of August, 1610, in the Little Defence of London.” He seems to have spent about twelve months in travelling through the Turkish Empire, Egypt, and the Holy Land, and then returned to Venice. When he arrived in England he does not mention. Antony Wood says it was in 1612 “or after.” He published, however, an account of his travels in 1615 with a dedication to Charles I., then Prince of Wales. To Charles he was sincerely attached, and all his works are dedicated to him. Sandys's Travels attained great popularity in his own day, and are justly esteemed as being “learned without pedantry, and circumstantial without being tedious; and valuable for the picture they give of the East in his time, particularly of Jerusalem.” Maundrell and Gibbon, with others, have praised their fidelity; and they may still be read with interest. Fuller (Worthies, vol. iii. p. 434, ed. Nuttall, 1840) says of Sandys:—“He proved a most accomplished gentleman, and an observant traveller, who went as far as the Sepulchre at Jerusalem; and hath spared other men pains in going thither by bringing the Holy Land home to them; so lively is his description thereof, with his passage thither, and return thence.” His visit to the Holy Sepulchre is vividly described, and inspired his Muse with the following beautiful lines, which deserve to be recorded here, not only as one of the very few specimens of his original composition, but also as having suggested ideas to Milton in his Ode on the Passion (Stanza VII.). “He (Milton) seems to have been struck with reading Sandys's description of the Holy Sepulchre, and to have caught sympathetically Sandys's sudden impulse to break forth into a devout song at the awful and inspiring spectacle.”¹¹ “It is a frozen zeal that will not be warmed with the sight thereof. And O that I could retain the effects that it wrought, with an unfainting perseverance! who then did dictate this hymn to my Redeemer:

‘Saviour of mankind, Man, Emanuel:
Who sinless died for sin, Who vanquish'd hell:
The first-fruits of the grave. Whose life did give
Light to our darkness: in Whose death we live.
O strengthen Thou my faith, correct my will
That mine may Thine obey: protect me still.
So that the latter death may not devour
My soul seal'd with Thy seal. So in the hour
When Thou, whose Body sanctified this Tomb,
Unjustly judg'd, a glorious Judge shalt come
To judge the world with justice; by that sign
I may be known, and entertain'd for Thine.’”(12)

Archdeacon Todd has printed Sandys's Dedication to the Prince, and given several extracts from the travels, but it does not seem necessary to do so in the present memoir, as the book is so well known and so easily accessible.¹³ On his return from his Eastern travels, Wood says:—“Being in several respects improved by his large journey, he became an accomplished gentleman, as being master of several languages, and of a fluent and ready discourse and excellent deportment. He had also naturally a poetical fancy and a zealous inclination to all human learning, which made his company desired and acceptable to most virtuous men and scholars of his time.” We have no information as to his occupation for the next few years. He was, however, but a short time at home. In 1606 a charter of incorporation had been granted to Adventurers of London to begin their first plantation and seat in any place upon the Colony of Virginia. Of this Corporation Sir Edwin Sandys was the Treasurer. In Stith's History of Virginia (Williamsburg, 1747) will be found a full account of the transactions of the Society. In 1621, Stith informs us, the Earl of Southampton (Shakespeare's patron) at a meeting of the Corporation recommended “Sir Francis Wyat, a young gentleman every way sufficient and equal to the place, and highly esteemed on account of his birth, education, integrity of life, and fair fortune” as Governor of the Colony. He went, with many marks of honour, at the end of August 1621, with the treasurer, secretary, physician general, and surveyor, in company with nine sail of ships, all which arrived safe in Virginia about October. Sir Francis entered upon his government on the 18th of November. He was the nephew of George Sandys, having married Margaret, daughter of Sir Samuel Sandys. It seems most probable that the poet accompanied the new Governor in the capacity of Treasurer of the Company, for in the Appendix to Stith's History (pp. 32-3) is “an Ordinance and Constitution of the Treasurer, Council, and Company in England for a Council of State and General Assembly.” It is dated July 24, 1621, and in it Sir Francis is mentioned as Governor of Virginia, and George Sandys as Treasurer. Here then we have a proof that he went to Virginia at least in 1621, and I think it may be fairly assumed that he was the Treasurer who sailed with Sir Francis Wyat. This is very interesting as it enables us to affix with some certainty the date to a portion at least of his translation of Ovid's Metamorphoses. The Colony was in a most unsettled state, and under the year 1623, Stith informs us (p. 303), “in the midst of these tumults and alarms the Muses were not silent. For at this time Mr. George Sandys, the Company's Treasurer of Virginia, made his translation of Ovid's Metamorphoses.” And Holmes says, “one of the earliest literary productions of the English Colonists in America of which we have any notice is a translation of Ovid's Metamorphoses made this year (1623) by George Sandys, Treasurer of the Virginia Company.”¹⁴ It should be mentioned, however, that Holmes quotes Stith. I am not aware upon what authority Stith fixes this exact year (1623) as the date. Drayton has an elegy¹⁵ (or rather an epistle) to his friend George Sandys, “Treasurer of the Colony of Virginia,” in which he asks for news from Virginia and Sir Francis Wyat. He recommends his friend to finish in Virginia the translation of Ovid, five books of which already had appeared. This poem will be found in a small folio edition of some of Drayton's poems, 1627.¹⁶ It would seem from this that Sandys had probably published the earlier portion of his Ovid before he went to Virginia. But whether this be so or no, the fact that the greater part of the work was composed under great difficulties when in the Colony, and that it is the first considerable book written in America, will always be interesting. I shall give the dedication as it at present stands.

“To the Most High and Mighty Prince Charles, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland.

“Sir,

“Your gracious acceptance of the first fruits of my travels, when you were our hope, as now our happiness, hath actuated both will and power to the finishing of this piece, being limned by that imperfect light which was snatcht from the hours of night and repose. For the day was not mine, but dedicated to the service of your great father and yourself: which had it proved as fortunate as faithful in me, and others more worthy, we had hoped, ere many years had turned about, to have presented you with a rich and well-peopled kingdom; from whence now, with myself, I only bring this composure:—

“Inter victrices hederam tibi serpere laurus.”

It needeth more than a single denization, being a double stranger: sprung from the stock of the ancient Romans, but bred in the New-World, of the rudeness of which it cannot but participate; especially having wars and tumults to bring it to light, instead of the Muses. But however imperfect, your favour is able to supply, and to make it worthy of life, if you judge it not unworthy of your royal patronage. To this have I added, as the mind to the body, the history and philosophical sense of the Fables (with the shadow of either in picture) which I humbly offer at the same altar, that they may, as the rest of my labours, receive their estimation from so great an Authority. Long may you live to be, as you are, the delight and glory of your people: and slowly, yet surely, exchange your mortal diadem for an immortal. So wishes

“Your Majesty's most humble servant,

“George Sandys.”

There are some expressions in this dedication which may need a little consideration. When the poet says, “the day was not mine, but dedicated to the service of your great father and yourself,” it might be assumed that he was in the Colony not only in James's reign, but after the accession of Charles (1625). Though I have conjectured that he was the Treasurer who sailed with his nephew Sir Francis Wyat, the Governor, in 1621, it is not impossible that he might have gone out earlier.¹⁷ I have been unable to ascertain when he returned from Virginia. Owing to the disturbed state of the Colony, the Corporation of Adventurers was dissolved in June, 1624, and Charles, greatly concerned at the distractions, in 1626 reduced the country and government into his own immediate direction. I am inclined to think that the poet came home on the dissolution of the Corporation, possibly at the end of 1625, or in 1626. There is some little difficulty about the date of his translation of Ovid. We have seen that Stith fixes it in 1623, and that it appears from the dedication to the King to have been written in Virginia amidst much distraction. But now comes the question, when was it first published, and was it all written in Virginia? In Brydges' “Censura Literaria” (vi. 132), Mr. Haslewood gives an account of an edition (and this I suspect has been merely copied by Lowndes and others). The first five books of ‘Ovid's Metamorphoses,’ & c., by G. S., & c., second edition. Imprinted for W. B., 1621, 16 mo., pp. 141, besides introduction. The title is engraved by F. Delaram, and a head of Ovid in an oval with verses beneath, is prefixed.” Now, certainly this description is very circumstantial, but after the most diligent search I cannot discover the existence of any copy of such an edition.¹⁸ It is neither in the British Museum nor in the Bodleian. Admitting, however, the existence of the book (provided there is no error in the date), and this being styled the second edition, it is probable that Sandys published it before he went to Virginia, and that Stith's date of 1623 can only refer to the finishing of the translation. Although Drayton speaks of the first five books, they may have been only shown to friends in MS., and the poet took the work with him to Virginia and finished it there. This seems countenanced by an expression in the dedication—“hath actuated both will and power to the finishing of this piece.” I presume that Sandys brought the complete work home with him in 1626, as he says, “from whence, now, with myself, I only bring this composure.” The first edition that I have ever met with is Ovid's Metamorphoses, Englished by G. S. Imprinted at London, 1626. There is an engraved title by T. Cecill. At the back of the dedication to the King is a fine engraving with Ovid's head in an oval, by William Marshall, with these lines—

“The sweet-tong'd Ovid's counterfeit behold,
Which noblest Romans wore in rings of gold.
Or would you that which his own pensil drew,
The Poet in his deathless Poems view.”

This is a small folio, and the colophon has “London. Printed by William Stansby.” In 1628 was published in a small 8vo. Ovid's Metamorphosis Englished by G. S. London. Printed by Robert Young, are to be sold by J. Grismond, 1628. This has Cecil's engraved title in a reduced form. I would wish the reader to particularly notice these volumes. The smaller one is merely a reprint of that of 1626. They both have the dedication to the king, no notes, but an index explanatory. Copies of both are in the British Museum. I consider the small folio to be the First Edition of Sandys's complete Ovid—admitting the existence of that of the first five Books, mentioned above. The Dedication quoted above is from the well-known folio edition printed at Oxford in 1632, with plates and commentaries, the full title of which is Ovid's Metamorphosis Englished, Mythologized, and Represented in Figures. An Essay to the Translation of Virgil's Æneis. By G. S. Imprinted at Oxford, by Iohn Lichfield. An. Dom. mdcxxxii. After the dedication to King Charles (which is the same as that in the folio of 1626) and the verses to the King and Queen, is an address to the reader: “Since it should be the principall end in publishing of Bookes, to informe the understanding, direct the will, and temper the affections; in this Second Edition of my Translation, I have attempted (with what successe I submit to the Reader) to collect out of sundrie Authors the Philosophicall sense of these fables of Ovid, & c.” And again subsequently, “To the Translation I have given what perfection my Pen could bestow; by polishing, altering, or restoring, the harsh, improper, or mistaken, with a nicer exactnesse than perhaps is required in so long a labour.” This fine folio with engraved frontispiece and title, and plates to every book, is the one usually known. The copy in the Bodleian has Sandys's arms impressed on the sides, and the inscription “Ex dono Georgii Sandys, Armigeri, Translatoris, A^o Domini 1636.” Here then we find Sandys describing the volume as the Second Edition, and this I think can be satisfactorily explained. The first edition was the folio of 1626, and contained the text as he had translated it in Virginia. On his return, in his leisure he corrected and polished it (as he mentions in the above-quoted preface) and added the Commentaries and Plates, and thus gave a Second Edition of the work, although there had been two impressions of the text as originally written. This is what Lord Falkland means in the Commendatory verses prefixed to the Paraphrase of the Psalms (1636):

“Next Ovid calls me; which though I admire
For equalling the Author's quick'ning fire,
And his pure phrase; yet more, rememb'ring it
Was by a mind so much distracted writ:
Business and war, ill midwives to produce
The happy offspring of so sweet a muse:
Whilst ev'ry unknown face did danger threat
For ev'ry native there was twice a Gete.
More; when, return'd, thy work review'd, expos'd
What pith before the hiding bark enclos'd:
And with it that Essay, which lets us see
Well by the foot what Hercules would be.”

The Essay is the Translation of the First Book of Virgil's Æneid, affixed to this edition of Ovid for the first time. We will take the first four lines of the Ovid to illustrate the difference between the two Editions. In the folio of 1626 they read thus:

“Of formes, to other bodies chang'd, I sing.
Assist, you Gods (from you these wonders spring).
And, from the world's first fabrick to these times,
Deduce my never-discontinued rymes.”

On revising his work, Sandys writes:

“Of bodies chang'd to other shapes I sing.
Assist, you Gods (from you these changes spring)
And from the world's first fabrick to these times
Deduce my never-discontinued rymes.”

In a hasty glance over the next few pages I do not discover much alteration in the Second Edition, but doubtless in the course of so large a work there is much improvement. In the British Museum is a small edition, Ovid's Metamorphosis Englished by Geo. Sandys. The fourth edition. London. Printed for A. Roper at the Sun against S. Dunstan's Church, in Fleet Street. 1656. This is a little 12mo. volume, and at the end is printed “Let this book, with the figures in the margent referring to every fifth line in the Metamorphosis in Latin, be printed according to the refined copy which came forth with the Commentary and Pictures. Sa. Baker, May 26, 1638.”¹⁹ From this it would appear that the folio of 1632, “the refined copy,” is the standard edition. I have met with a folio edition of 1640. “London, printed by J. L. for Andrew Hebb, and are to be sold at the signe of the Bell in St. Paul's Churchyard.” This edition is printed in double columns and small type, within double margin lines. It has the plates of 1632. It is a thin folio, and has an index to Ovid, and another to the Commentaries. Though not so handsome a volume as the folio of 1632, it seems a preferable book. Some apology is due for detaining the reader over the details of editions of the version of Ovid, but I wished to show that translated in Virginia, it was first issued in 1626, and revised in 1632. Whether Sandys was in England or not in 1626 (and it would appear that he was) shortly after his return he was made a Gentleman of the Privy Chamber to King Charles. As such (if he did not know him before) he would be thrown into the society of Lucius Carey, the second and great Viscount Falkland. Falkland “much about the time of his father's death (1633)” says Antony Wood, “became one of the gentlemen of his Majesty's Privy Chamber, and had frequent retirement to Great Tew, and sometimes to Oxon (as he had done very frequently before his marriage) for the company of and conversation with learned and witty men. Among whom were Will. Chillingworth, of Trinity Coll. John Earle and Hugh Cressy, of Merton Coll. George Aglionby, of Ch. Ch., Charles Gataker, of Pembroke Coll., son of Thom. Gataker of Redriff (or Ridrith) near London, who I think was afterwards his Chaplain. Thomas Triplet, a very witty man of Ch. Ch., and others. He had also intimate acquaintance with George Sandys the poet, who usually lived at Caswell, near Whitney,²⁰ in the house of Sir Francis Wenman, who married his sister,²¹ whose company was usually frequented when Lucius retired to his house at Burford.” Who is not familiar with Lord Clarendon's exquisite portrait of Falkland, and the description of his retirement and devotion to literary pursuits at his country residence; or the pleasure he took in the society of the learned and good in London? We must refer the reader to Clarendon's volumes if he would picture to his mind the friends that assembled under Falkland's roof, when Sandys and he were in the country together. Whether their friendship originated from their official intercourse, or from the fact of their being such near neighbours in Oxfordshire, it is clear that henceforth it was very close and sincere. There was a great disparity in their ages, as Falkland was upwards of thirty years younger than Sandys. But he seems to have held the poet in great esteem. In the present volumes will be found no less than four copies of verses on Sandys's Paraphrases and Tragedy of Christ's Passion.

At the date of the Oxford Edition of the Ovid (1632) Sandys was at home, living sometimes with his niece Lady Wenman, and sometimes, probably, with her sister Lady Wyat at Boxley Abbey in Kent; now occupied with his duties at Court, and now devoting his leisure to the cultivation of poetry.²² Dryden, in the Dedication to Lord Radcliffe of his Third Miscellany, speaking of too close and literal translation, says, “And no better has Ovid been served by the so-much admired Sandys. This is at least the idea which I have remaining of his translation; for I have not read him since I was a boy. They who take him upon content, from the praises which their fathers gave him, may inform their judgment by reading him again, and see (if they understand the original) what is become of Ovid's poetry, in his version; whether it be not all, or the greatest part of it, evaporated: but this proceeded from the wrong judgment of the age in which he lived. They neither knew good verse nor loved it! They were scholars, it is true, but they were pedants. And for a just reward of their pedantic pains, all their translations want to be translated into English.”²³ We may notice that Dryden styles him “the so-much admired Sandys,” and mentions “the praises which their fathers gave him.” This tribute to Sandys's fame (and it is a proof of the very high estimation in which he stood) may appear eclipsed by the criticism that Ovid's poetry is evaporated in Sandys's hands from a too close adherence to the original; but in the Preface to his Fables, he says, in speaking of the beauties of Ovid, “There occurred to me the Hunting of the Boar, Cinyras and Myrrha, the good-natured story of Baucis and Philemon, with the rest, which I hope I have translated closely enough, and given them the same turn of verse which they had in the original; and this, I may say without vanity, is not the talent of every poet. He who has arrived the nearest to it is the ingenious and learned Sandys, the best versifier of the former age.” It is evident that Dryden had once more read Sandys's Ovid for his last work, the Fables, as a comparison of the two versions will show how he has copied many of the expressions and rhymes, and even adopted whole lines of Sandys. From an attentive perusal of the translation I do not admit the truth of Dryden's earlier criticism. Sandys deserves the admiration bestowed upon him by his contemporaries. His Ovid is a very fine work, and contains some magnificent lines, though, perhaps, the versification is not so smooth and harmonious as in some of his later poetry. It is moreover not disfigured by that licentiousness which is so characteristic of all Dryden's versions from the classics, but is remarkably pure and free from objectionable expressions. I have sometimes wondered that such a noble early effort of the Muse in the New World has not been reprinted in America. Fuller says of Sandys,²⁴ “He most elegantly translated Ovid's Metamorphoses into English verse; so that, as the soul of Aristotle was said to have transmigrated into Thomas Aquinas (because rendering his sense so naturally) Ovid's genius may seem to have passed into Master Sandys. He was a servant, but no slave, to his subject; well knowing that a translator is a person in free custody; custody, being bound to give the true sense of the author he translated; free, left at liberty to clothe it in his own expression. Nor can that in any degree be applied to Master Sandys, which one rather bitterly than falsely charged on an author, whose name I leave to the reader's conjecture:—

‘We know thou dost well
          As a translator,
But when things require
          A genius and fire,
Not kindled before others' pains,
As often thou hast wanted brains.’

Indeed some men are better nurses than mothers of a poem; good only to feed and foster the fancies of others; whereas Master Sandys was altogether as dexterous at inventing as translating; and his own poems as spriteful, vigorous, and masculine.”

Pope was a great admirer of Sandys's Ovid; and its popularity was such that it had reached an Eighth Edition in 1690. To me the book has an additional interest from the discovery in its perusal that Sandys must have thoroughly read and appreciated Chapman's Homer, as many of the epithets, with much of the language, are adapted from that great work. An expression, too, in Sandys's Dedication of his Psalms to the King shows that he must have often had Chapman in his mind, and adopted his views of “paraphrastic” translation.

Chapman, in his noble poem “to the Reader” prefixed to his Iliad,²⁵ says of the various translators of Homer—

“They fail'd to search his deep and treasurous heart.
          The cause was, since they wanted the fit key
Of Nature, in their down-right strength of Art,
          With Poesy to open Poesy.”

So Sandys, speaking of the work of the “graver Muse” in the paraphrasing of the “celestial lays” of the “Sweet Singer,” says:—

“And since no narrow verse such mysteries
Deep sense, and high expressions, could comprise,
Her labouring wings a larger compass fly,
And poesy resolves with poesy.”

Prefixed to the translation is a Life of Ovid, of which Dryden says, “The Life of Ovid being already written in our language before the translation of his Metamorphoses, I will not presume so far upon myself to think that I can add anything to Mr. Sandys his undertaking.” The notes are most interesting and full of curious and varied learning. The reader may be amused by the following extract from those on the seventh book (p. 259) which shews that petroleum and infernal machines are not such modern words and inventions as one might think. “This is a kinde of slymie chalke ingendred among the rocks: Petreol being the liquid Naptha, and almost of like operation. Whereof Mathiolus relates a wonderful story, told him by a Hungarian Earle; who had a well in his grounds into which the Petreol distilled through the crannies of the earth together with the water. This well being ruinous in the bottome, a mason was hired to repaire it; who not able to see without a light, carried a lanthorne and candle downe with him, shut as close as possible could be: when the Petreol suddenly attracting the flame, threw up the workman, blowing the cover of the well into the ayre, and burning whatsoever was about it. But the Italians are no lesse supersubtil in mischiefe than was our Medea: who have invented certaine hollow balls of mettle inclosing artificiall fire, and planted about with little pistoll barrells. These shut in a box with a superscription and direction unto those to whom they intend the mischiefe, as soone as opened the traine takes fire, and the pistolls suddenly discharge: mortall not seldome unto the standers by, as well as to him that receaveth the present. This divelish device hath beene put in practice at Florence, Millain, and Venice; where, in the Arsenall they keep a Box which was presented to one of their Dukes by a seeming petitioner; who in the delivery thereof, by pulling a trig with his finger, discharged foure pistolls at once in his bosome.” The version of the First Book of Virgil's Æneis is a portion of an intended translation of the whole, “but finding it too heavy a burthen (my mind also being diverted from these studies) I gave it over, even in the first entrance. Yet I have published this assay, in tender of my obedience to Sovereign command; although with all my own inability: having fair hopes that so great an Authority attended by my free acknowledgment, will excuse my presumption, and mitigate the severity of censure.” Dryden declared that, had Sandys completed a version of Virgil, he would not have attempted his.

Whether written at Carswell or Boxley, the Paraphrase of the Psalms was first published in a small 8vo., London, 1636, dedicated to the king and queen, and with commendatory verses by Lord Falkland (commencing, “Had I no blushes left,” & c.), and Sandys' kinsman Dudley Digges (commencing, “O, breathe again.”) In the Calendar of State Papers,” under the year 1635, is a docquet, “Dec. 2. Grant of Privilege for 14 years to George Sandys for selling a Paraphrase by him written on the Psalms and other Hymns dispersed thro' the Old and New Testament, provided the same be first licensed.” In 1638 (the colophon, however, is London, printed by John Legatt, 1637) appeared the whole of Sandys's Paraphrases, with the exception of the “Song of Solomon,” which was not printed till 1641. This is a fine folio, and is the standard edition of Sandys's Poems; in it the Psalms are set to music by Henry Lawes. It is dedicated to the “Best of Men and most excellent of Princes, Charles,” & c., and has also dedicatory verses to the Queen and Prince. Prefixed are the many commendatory verses which will be found in the following pages. The volume concludes with the noble poem, “Deo Opt. Max.” which Dr. Bliss admired so much that he has inserted it in his edition of Wood's Athenæ, with the observation “I make no apology for giving one of the best poems in the language, whether for sense, or sentiment, or expression. And be it remembered that Pope read our author confessedly with delight, and that Dryden pronounced him the best versifier of the age.”

In 1640, Sandys published Christ's Passion, a Tragedie, with Annotations. Though there appears to have been only one impression, “printed by John Legatt,” I have met with copies in which the license was varied. In some the license is “September 17, 1639. Imprimatur Tho: Wykes,” while in others the imprimatur of Johannes Hansley is dated “Sep: 27, 1639.” In his dedication to the King, Sandys says—“Thus, in the shadow of your absence, dismissed from arms by an act of time, have I, in what I was able, continued to serve you.” This may possibly allude to his inability from age to join in the army against the Scots. A second edition of Christ's Passion, adorned with sculptures, was printed at London, 1687. Dr. Bliss is mistaken in saying the engravings are by Faithorne. They are very poor, and the production of an inferior artist named Elder. I have seen a copy of this edition with a fresh title of a later date. As the tragedy, which is a translation from the elegant Latin of Grotius, is to be found in our present edition (the original edition of 1640 being very scarce) the reader can form his own judgment. In 1641, appeared the Paraphrase on The Song of Solomon; this was the last of his works, and in the Dedication to the King he says, “Sir, let me find your pardon for thus long continuing to make my alloy current by the impression of your name. Directed by your propitious aspect, have I safely steered between so many rocks, and now, arrived at my last labour, have broken up my ruinous vessel.” Though published in 1641,²⁶ I suspect that the work had been circulated in MS. Amongst the Lansdowne MSS. (British Museum), No. 489, is a copy, and at the end is “ye judgment of Sidney Godolphin on ye former worke not printed.” These are Godolphin's lines, prefixed to the folio edition of the Paraphrases, 1638, commencing, “Not in that ardent course,” & c., and it will be noticed that there is a marginal note, “Canticles not printed,” though it is evident that Godolphin had seen them. I have met with another MS. copy inserted on the fly leaves of the folio of 1638 in the possession of Mr. F. S. Ellis, the well-known bookseller of King-street, Covent Garden. The “breaking up of his ruinous vessel,” as he terms the completion of his last work, was a swan-like dirge. Fuller says,²⁷ “He lived to be a very aged man, whom I saw in the Savoy anno 1641, having a youthful soul in a decayed body; and I believe he died soon after.” It would seem that he had latterly passed much of his time at the residence of his niece Margaret, daughter of Sir Samuel Sandys and widow of Sir Francis Wyat, (formerly Governor of Virginia)²⁸ grandson of Sir Thomas Wyat, who was beheaded in Queen Mary's time. Lady Wyat's residence was Boxley Abbey, near Maidstone. It is interesting to notice the faithful adherence of the Sandys family to the traditions of Lady Jane Grey. The archbishop had been one of her most earnest supporters. Sir Samuel Sandys, the archbishop's eldest son, married his daughter to the grandson of Sir Thomas Wyat who was beheaded for his rising in the Lady Jane's behalf. Catherine Countess of Huntingdon, sister to Lady Jane's husband, Lord Guildford Dudley, was sponsor to our poet. Sir Thomas Wyat, at the dissolution of the monasteries, had a grant of the Abbey-lands in Boxley, including the manor. These he forfeited with his head, but Queen Elizabeth regranted the manor to his widow and son George, though the Abbey was not included in the grant but subsequently purchased again by George. George's eldest son was the Sir Francis Wyat who married Margaret Sandys, and at her house at Boxley Abbey the poet died in 1643. He was buried in the chancel of Boxley Church, near to the door on the south side; and the entry in the Register of the Parish is—“Georgius Sandys, poetarum Anglorum sui sæculi facilè princeps, sepultus fuit Martii 7 stylo Anglic. Anno dom. 1643.”²⁹ After the lapse of two centuries a Mr. (or, I believe, Captain) Matthew Montagu, author of a version of the Psalms, placed a marble tablet to his memory, with the following inscription:—

                                                                                                    Sacred
                                                                                To the Memory
                                                                                                    Of
                                                  GEORGE SANDYS, ESQ.
Eminent as a Traveller, a Divine Poet, and a Good Man,
                    Who died March IV. mxcxliii at Boxley Abbey,
                                                                                          Aged lxvi,
                    And Lies Buried in the Chancel of this Church.
                                                                                          His Life
          Was Throughout Blameless, and Never Unuseful:
Its Earlier Part was Sometimes Pass'd in Observing his
                                        Fellow Men in Foreign Lands; and
                                                                      Its Latter at Home
                              In Celebrating the Praises of his God
And Attuning the “Songs of Zion” to the British Lyre.
          “Thou brought'st me home in safety; that this earth
          Might bury me, which fed me from my birth.
          Blest with a healthful age; a quiet mind,
          Content with little; to this work design'd,
          Which I at length have finish'd by Thy aid;
          And now my vows have at Thy altar paid.”
                                                            Erected mdcccxlviii:
                              By an admirer of talents, piety, and virtue,
                              His humble emulator in his latter task.
                                                                                                                                                      M.M.

The quotation on the monument is happily chosen from Sandys's beautiful poem at the conclusion of his Paraphrases. His niece, Lady Wyat, did not long survive him, as an entry in the Burial Register of Boxley records, “Domina Wyat sepulta fuit Martii 27. Anno dom. 1644.” The Mrs. Wyat, who gladdened Richard Baxter's eyes with the sight of the summer-house on the old stone wall in the garden at Boxley Abbey, in which George Sandys “retired himself for his poetry and contemplations,” was, I presume, Frances, the wife of Edwin Wyat, serjeant-at-law (the serjeant spelt his name Wiat), son and heir-male of Sir Francis Wyat, the husband of Margaret Sandys. With their son Richard, who died in 1753, I believe this branch of the Wyats became extinct in the male line.

Little more can be added to the story of the poet's life. I do not find that he ever married, though from a passage in the Archbishop's will we discover that a wife had been designed for him by his father, who was guardian to Elizabeth Norton. “If it shall please God that Elizabeth Norton, daughter of John Norton, late of Ripon, Esq., and George Sandys, his youngest son, shall, hereafter, marry together, certain messuages, tenements and lands, shall then be conveyed to them and their heirs, and also the sum of £300 as soon as she shall accomplish the age of 16 years; but that if before the age of 15 she should refuse to marry him; or he before the age of 17 her; the aforesaid possessions were then to be assured to her and her heirs, payment being first made to the archbishop's executors for her wardship, and all charges relating to it.”³⁰ We have seen that the archbishop had provided for his three youngest sons by annuities charged upon his estate at Ombersley, as well as by other “patents, leases, legacies, profits, and commodities,” and doubtless George's was not the usual lot of poets, but he was in easy and comfortable circumstances. The archbishop made him the following specific bequest:—“I give and bequeath to George, my youngest son, besides the plate given to him at his christening, one nest of silver pinked bowls, double gilt, with a cover; a small square salt of silver, double gilt, with a cover; a gelding and a nag; one armour; and two feather beds with furniture, at the appointment of my executors.” I much regret that I have not been able to obtain more information about one whose life seems to have been so full of interest. Born of an ancient, we may even say noble, family; the son of a prelate of some note; by his birth, connections, and talents, associating with the noblest and best in the land; he seems to have won the esteem of all by his remarkable modesty and gentle disposition. A writer in the “Gentleman's Magazine” (vol. lii. p. 368) says, “All agree in bestowing on him the character not only of a man of genius, but of singular worth and piety.” We have remarked on his attachment to King Charles. All his works from his travels to his last poem, are dedicated to him, and the King appears to have held him in great regard. Sandys's Psalms were of much comfort to the unfortunate monarch in his last captivity. In 1648, Henry Lawes published “Choice Psalms, put into music by Henry and William Lawes, brothers, and servants to his Majesty.” These were all selected from Sandys's version, and in the dedication, Henry Lawes says, “Mr. Sandys having inscribed his translation to your Majesty, so that this I offer is your Majesty's in all capacities, and doth not so properly come as rebound back to your Majesty. I was easily drawn to this presumption by your Majesty's known particular affection to David's Psalms, both because the Psalter is held by all divines as one of the most excellent parts of Holy Scripture, as also in regard much of your Majesty's present condition is lively described by King David's pen. The King of Heaven and Earth restore your Majesty according to your own righteous heart.” Little did Sandys think when he dedicated his Ovid to Charles with the expression “May you slowly, yet surely, exchange your mortal diadem for an immortal,” that his royal master would be comforted in his last days by his writings, and possibly might have had these words in his mind when he exclaimed, “I go from a corruptible to an incorruptible crown.”

Sandys was happily taken away before his friend Lord Falkland fell, and he was spared the miseries of the civil troubles which culminated in the murder of his much-loved master. Of his private character no more need be said than that he seems to have been universally reverenced and beloved. As a poet, he has been too much overlooked, probably from his giving us so few original poems; but I trust that the republication of his works will show that his Paraphrases are not mere servile translations, but have all the freedom of original composition, are singularly sweet and harmonious in versification, and for richness and grandeur of language and imagery, and for true devotional spirit, may justly be ranked amongst the choicest specimens of sacred poetry.

Notes

1. Sir Roundell Palmer.

2. Whitby's Sermon at Oxford, 1644, quoted by Archdeacon Todd.

3. English Cyclopædia. Art. “Lawes.”

4. Quoted by Archdeacon Todd. The Archdeacon thinks the “pretended reformer” was either William Barton, whose version was praised by Cromwell, or Francis Rouse, whose translation was recommended by the Assembly of Divines.

5. The Archbishop spelt his name Sandes.

6. George Clifford, 3rd Earl of Cumberland. It is remarkable that he was a great traveller. See an interesting account of his voyages, & c. in Burke's Dormant and Extinct Peerage. He died in the Savoy, October 30th, 1605, aged 47.

7. See the Review of Ellis's “Original Letters, 2nd Series,” in the Edinburgh Review, June, 1827.

8. The life of Sir Edwin Sandys will be found in most biographical dictionaries.

9. The Rev. John Griffiths, Warden of Wadham.

10. By Ravaillac.

11. Thomas Warton.

12. “Sandys's Travels,” p. 167. Fourth edition. London. 1637.

13. See, however, Appendix to this Introduction.

14. “Annals of America,” by Abiel Holmes, D.D., Cambridge (U. S.), 1829. Vol. I. p. 184.

15. See Appendix to this Introduction.

16. Of course this will not give us the date when Drayton wrote to Sandys.

17. Bancroft (Hist. of United States, vol. I., p. 173, Ed. 1834) says Sir Edwin Sandys resigned the Treasurership of Virginia, May 17th, 1620, and Lord Southampton succeeded. But this may refer to the post at home. I do not find that Sir Edwin ever went out to the Colony.

18. Haslewood says he had never seen any other copy, and asks when the first edition was published.

19. The Museum copy of this little volume belonged to my friend the late Rev. John Mitford of Benhall, who long meditated an edition of Sandys's poetical works.

20. Carswell, near Witney.

21. Wood is wrong. Sir Francis Wenman married Anne daughter of Sir Samuel Sandys, of Ombersley, George's eldest brother.

22. Sandys kept up his connection with Virginia to the last, if we believe Bancroft (ut suprà, p. 22) who says, under March, 1642, “George Sandys, an agent of the Colony, and an opponent to the Royal party in England, presented a petition to the Commons, praying for the restoration of the ancient patents, & c.” I should have doubted whether Sandys was an opponent to the Royal party.

23. The verdict of the present age would reverse this decision. Who would not prefer Chapman's Homer and Fairfax's Tasso to the versions by Pope and Hoole? Sandys' Ovid is more really Ovid than Dryden's own translations from that poet.

24. “Worthies” ut suprà.

25. The late Professor Conington told me that he was much struck with the beauty of the translation of the lines from Silius Italicus, which commence this poem. He thought they surpassed the original.

26. There is another edition with the date 1642, but it is full of typographical errors, and seems of a far later date. It appears to me to be a spurious edition.

27. “Worthies,” ut suprà.

28. Sir Francis must have died shortly after 1639, as I find him re-appointed governor in that year.

29. For this extract, and for much courtesy, I am indebted to Rev. F. J. Richards, vicar of Boxley; and to Mrs. Richards for much information kindly given about the Wyat family.

30. In Hunter's “Notes,” a most valuable collection of biographical materials by the late Rev. Joseph Hunter (British Museum Addit. MSS. 24,489, pp. 213-16), I find the following relating to George Sandys:—“Torre in his MS. says of him that his father granted him, 12 Jan. 28 Elizab. the grounds called North Grange, in the Liberty of Ripon, at a rent of £14 16s. 4d., and also that he married Mary daughter of John Norton of Ripon.” I do not know what the Torre MS. was, but it will be observed that the archbishop's ward's name was Elizabeth Norton. I do not believe that Sandys ever married.