degree better. In both instances, the printer seems to have been
suffered to do the work in his own way, and very infamously he has
done it. To supply all the short-comings of the author and his
literary executor at this distance of time, is, unfortunately, out
of the power of any editor; but in the present republication I have
taken the liberty of rearranging the poems, to a certain extent in
the order in which it may be conjectured that they were written;
and where Lovelace contributed commendatory verses to other works,
either before or after the appearance of the first portion of
LUCASTA, the two texts have been collated, and improved readings
been occasionally obtained.

The few poems, on which the fame of Lovelace may be said to rest,
are emanations not only of the stirring period in which he lived,
but of the peculiar circumstances into which he was thrown
at different epochs of his life. Lovelace had not the melodious
and exquisite taste of Herrick, the wit of Suckling, or the power
of Randolph (so often second only to his master Jonson).
Mr. Singer has praised the exuberant fancy of Lovelace; but,
in my thinking, Lovelace was inferior in fancy, as well as in
grace, both to Carew and the author of HESPERIDES. Yet Lovelace
has left behind him one or two things, which I doubt if any of
those writers could have produced, and which our greatest poets
would not have been ashamed to own. Winstanley was so far right in
instituting a comparison between Lovelace and Sydney, that it is
hard to name any one in the entire circle of early English
literature except Sydney and Wither, who could have attempted, with
any chance of success, the SONG TO ALTHEA FROM PRISON; and how
differently Sydney at least would have handled it! We know what
Herrick would have made of it; it would have furnished the theme