“Pencilings by the Way,” and contrast his descriptions of the fashionable life of London then, with almost any journalistic account of the same kind of life now.  The contrast will be all the more striking if they will only hunt up the portraits of Disraeli, with his long, dark locks flowing on his shoulders, and the portrait of Bulwer, behind his “stunning” waistcoat, and his cascade of neck-cloth, and then imagine Mr. Miller standing beside them, in his red shirt and high-topped California boots!  Like Byron, Mr. Miller “woke up one morning and found himself famous.”

We compare the sudden famousness of Mr. Miller with the sudden famousness of Byron, because the English critics have done so; and because they are pleased to consider Mr. Miller as Byron’s successor!  Byron, we are told, was the only poet whom he had read, before he went to England; and is the only poet to whom he bears a resemblance.  How any of these critics could have arrived at this conclusion, with the many glaring imitations of Swinburne—­at his worst—­staring him in the face from Mr. Miller’s volume, is inconceivable.  But, perhaps, they do not read Swinburne.  Do they read Byron?

There are, however, some points of resemblance between Byron and Mr. Miller.  Byron traveled, when young, in countries not much visited by the English; Mr. Miller claims to have traveled, when young, in countries not visited by the English at all.  This was, and is, an advantage to both Byron and Mr. Miller.  But it was, and is, a serious disadvantage to their readers, who cannot well ascertain the truth, or falsehood, of the poets they admire.  The accuracy of Byron’s descriptions of foreign lands has long been admitted; the accuracy of Mr. Miller’s descriptions is not admitted, we believe, by those who are familiar with the ground he professes to have gone over.

Another point of resemblance between Byron and Mr. Miller is, that the underlying idea of their poetry is autobiographic.  We do not say that it was really so in Byron’s case, although he, we know, would have had us believe as much; nor do we say that it is really so in Mr. Miller’s case, although he, too, we suspect, would have us believe as much.

Mr. Miller resembles Byron as his “Arizonian” resembles Byron’s “Lara.” Lara and Arizonian are birds of the same dark feather.  They have journeyed in strange lands; they have had strange experiences; they have returned to Civilization.  Each, in his way, is a Blighted Being!  “Who is she?” we inquire with the wise old Spanish Judge, for, certainly, Woman is at the bottom of it all.  If our readers wish to know what woman, we refer them to “Arizonian:”  they, of course, have read “Lara.”

Byron was a great poet, but Byronism is dead.  Mr. Miller is not a great poet, and his spurious Byronism will not live.  We shall all see the end of Millerism.

THE REAL ROMANCE.