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.